Jump to content

User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Diff

I don't get what this diff was, but you can't remove other people's comments. BMK alone has that right, but can't universally "ban" someone from his talk page. I would strongly recommend undoing that edit, you have no right to make that call. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the thread above this, and then retract your comment. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 21:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't care, it's against the rules here, and has zero justification. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised someone who's been here slightly longer, with still plenty of edits doesn't understand you can't remove other people's comments or ban people from user talk pages. Common sense, really. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I shall continue, when necessary, to do that. Common sense really. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep breaking rules like that and I won't be surprised to see you blocked one day... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
So, no retraction then? Roxy the dog. bark 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Philipp Plein

Let me start by thanking you for the small edits you just made on the page. Trying this out as a hobby again and am always grateful for any help I can get. As a page reviewer, is it possible to ask for a bit of help with the page to get it up to speed a bit. Again thanks for the assist, and hope to get to work with you soon ;). JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have the page watchlisted, mainly because of what I thought was an attempt to make the article very promotional some time ago. I know nothing about the company or the man, nor do I have any sources. I will continue to watch. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Digging up the sources for edits is on me. I'm new to Wikipedia editing though and as much as I'm trying to research guidelines and the such I'm sure I'll make mistakes in my edits. I saw all the issues with things being viewed as promotional when I first started looking at the article and I wish there was more in the Talk section of the page to get a clearer idea of what went on without going through the changes one by one. I've been documenting the changes I've made with the reasoning and sourcing behind it, but if you see that something I've edited is overboard please let me know so it can either be rewritten to fit the Wikipedia guidelines or removed entirely. Very much appreciated. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Pellekan Educational Complex

Hello Roxy the dog. I am just letting you know that I deleted Pellekan Educational Complex, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Roxy the dog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Natural News

Hi! I added the Natural News videos as examples of what they show. I thought it was important to SHOW the kinds of things they promote and skew. Want to discuss on the talk page?Victor Grigas (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

CSD Wordpress article

Hi Roxy the dog, I noticed you CSD'd the article "What Can Wordpress Plugins Do For You" earlier today - which has since been deleted. I had this as part of NPP a few weeks back and watchlisted it. At the time, the article contained inline links to external websites which flagged up my malware / compromised website scanner, so it may have been a vandal/malicious article. Did you by any chance follow those links and was this the case again? If so, I was wondering if this may possibly require further action. Copying Kudpung who deleted the page for advice. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't follow any links, just took one careful look at the awfulness, then nommed it, sorry!! -Roxy the dog. bark 10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I deleted it very quickly and blocked the two two accounts that had created it. Both versions were identical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Something odd going on with the formatting of the bottom of this page. Most odd. @Kudpung, indeed, that was quick !! -Roxy the dog. bark 10:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks both. I guess now that it's salted it should be fine. I was wondering if there are any mechanisms to block that external link from being added to prevent it from being used to divert people to with questionable intent. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

About the article Victoria Tischler

Hi Roxy,
I have declined your speedy deletion tag on that article. When I did the due diligence, I noticed she had co-presented a BBC iWonder podcasty what-not thingummy with no less than Shirley, Baroness Williams of Crosby.
Please let me know if you disagree with this.
Please also let me know if I can help you in any way at all. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs more solid sources, at the moment, it's a vanity bio. awful. Just because she was a minor presenter with Shirl, doesn't give notability. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Firka (software)‎

If the topic isn't notable then you can use proposed deletion or articles for deletion to get the article deleted. A7 is a kind of shortcut for those processes but it only applies to articles about real people, animals, organisations, web content, musical groups or organised events. Hut 8.5 21:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really, people often respond on their own talk page after the first response, and most of the people who leave messages for me are new editors who may not check someone else's talk page for a response. Hut 8.5 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

/* Thanks */

Dear Roxy the dog , thank you so much to inform me about deletions of Nizameddin Isgenderov. i understand your message. and i added reliable references to my article.

Regards Investigation11111 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Page of Marc Shapiro (computer scientist)

Hello Roxy the dog,

I noticed that you tagged the article for speedy deletion. Could you be please more specific about" because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia"? The article sounds inline with bios of other French computer scientists having similar profiles, e.g., Michel Raynal or Serge Abiteboul. Thank you in advance, Pierre

I'm not sure how I could be clearer with the phrase ... " because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia". Also, with regard to the other articles you mention, I have no idea at all, I have not looked at those articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -Roxy the dog. bark 14:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PSCI vs PCSI

In this edit, did you mean WP:PSCI? Cheers! -Location (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I should take some time out. Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean that is the first time you've ever transposed letters? My edit count would be half of what it is if I typed things correctly the first time. -Location (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP PROD vs PROD

Hi Roxy,

You should really only use BLP-PROD for articles with no sources at all. Kinya Claiborne is promotional and uses self-published sources, but isn't completely unsourced. Actually, after re-reading and checking the sources, I would actually not contest a CSD G11. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Paid editor created the page too. Clairborne isn't a TV Host, or the creator of a magazine either. Truth has been stretched a long way!. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. the template that you put on the page says "This article is about a living person and appears to have no references." You need to either re-do the CSD, but this time use G11 instead of A7, or you need to change to PROD instead of BLP-PROD. --Slashme (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You are talking in a code that I don't understand. Despite the fact I've been here a couple of years, your sentence "You need to either re-do the CSD, but this time use G11 instead of A7, or you need to change to PROD instead of BLP-PROD." doesn't convey what you are trying to tell me. It isn't your fault, it's my lack of understanding of the shorthand. I just want the awfulness gone. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry!! I meant that your first speedy-deletion notice was based on the Criterion for Speedy Deletion numbered A7: no indication of importance. This is for things like "So-and-so is a model living in New York City" (so no indication that the person is in any way notable), whereas this article claims that she's the founder and editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine. That's not a solid claim of notability, based on the details of the online magazine in question, but it's a claim of notability, so A7 doesn't apply. I was suggesting that you instead use G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion.
If instead of speedy deletion, we go the gentler route of proposed deletion, there are two options. The one is WP:BLP-PROD, which you used, but that's only for cases where there are no references at all. This article has references, but they're bad ones. For these cases, a normal PROD is the correct one. Hope that helps! --Slashme (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue here Roxy is that the BLPPROD can be removed by anyone as it contains references. Albeit bad ones. So its not eligible for BLPPROD, which was specifically put in place to counter biographies with zero references. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This is very useful, thanks. I have been under the impression that any ref must be valid in order for it to "count". It seems that isn't the case, and it doesn't matter that a ref doesn't support the content at all, as long as it is a ref. (silly example. A ref supporting the fact that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon would not support anything in the now deleted Clairborne article, but still counts as a ref for these purposes. That's daft, but I didn't know. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
... and another thing, while I'm on my high horse. How do I find out how many times an article has been deleted? I reckon at least twice, but I have no idea how to find out. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
... and another thing, I think I will read all the guidance in this area again as it'll be worthwhile, before plunging in with all four paws again. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, it depends on the admin sometimes who checks the prod. If a biography has one citation to what it is clearly say, an open web-forum, some admins may delete it anyway. However the problem is that primary sources are still valid primary sources. A personal website on a biography is a perfectly valid reference for lots of non-contentious info, but it would prevent BLPPROD. (Of course what some editors do is go through the article first removing invalid ref's then BLPprod it, but that potentially can have repercussions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. If I knew how, I'd put a glum faced emoticon here about now. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Roxy the dog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sep 2017 warning

Information icon Hello, I'm Cameronbrooks. I noticed that you recently removed content from Morgellons without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cameronbrooks (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, established WP:MEDRS clear.

Haha. Total bollocks. Roxy the dog. bark 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer

Your account has been removed from this user group per this post. If it was in error, please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I type the four tildes

Hi Roxy Though I type the four tildes, I'm not able to sign with my user name. What is wrong?Dr Kurian John Poruthukaren 18:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpjkurian (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrenology

Woof! Your comments at User talk:GB fan made me curious, and I've commented in the AfDs. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, I see them, and Summer has done some other ones. You guys are impressively efficient at doing this sort of thing, puts me to shame. Things have raced ahead of me in the last couple of hours. I was rude though. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's very frustrating that "Crap article" isn't a speedy criterion. I wish it was. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I've seen similar pages to this get tagged under WP:G11, when they have one single source, under the rationale that the article is being used to promote the source. But according to our rules, that couldn't apply if the page has no sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The real Roxy

Has been ill for some time, and died a couple of hours ago. My constant companion for more than ten years, it has amused me to use her name here. She was much nicer than me. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that. I know what you're going through and my thoughts are with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry to hear it. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC).
My condolences. —PaleoNeonate – 00:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Moygoyles

if you read the bbcs website it wasnt a journey of a lifetime,its actual a documentary about how other countries treat their retired persons,miriam amonst others went out to see if it was suitable for her! It seems you want to vandalize this page and therefore your privalages maybe limited,please read the bbc websites page plus also Jan Leemings page!

Did you watch the programmes as i watched everyone and it wasnt a journey of a lifetime at all.Neither did it say in the uk bbcs website it was a journey,it is your understanding or your idea in your head it was this. Im guessing you not from the United Kingdom but in other foreign parts of the world.

Thankyou drew270— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. I have reverted your contribution to the Miriam Margolyes page, see my edsum there. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Irony of the misclick

I find it ironic that you misclicked when reverting a redirect to Mouse Practice. 2600:387:2:813:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I never even thought about that, but I was annoyed at the time, for just a moment. My watchlist really does jump about annoyingly, until it has fully loaded;) -Roxy the dog. bark 22:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan

Hi, have you been keeping an eye on goings-on at Gillian Keegan re: the photo. I am becoming very confused but I think there is consensus for the one that has just been removed and that the IP and User:Lvta are the same person. On User talk:Drmies, Lvta claims to be a constituent but the coincidence makes me think it is Keegan or her husband, as previously. The GillianKeegan account was blocked by Drmies some time ago due to concerns re: identification.

The photo is, in a way, a side issue here. I'm more concerned about the principal, ie: that they should not be editing the article. Let it slide and they'll be back when some scandal breaks etc. trying to massage things. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've actually been away for a week on holiday. I'll take a look, though as I recall, this is about replacing a pic she doesn't like, (despite Theresa May saying it was lovely), with another one which she does. I very much objected to her involving herself in editing, hubby too, and I agree that wikipedia should continue to discourage their involvement. I do not think a checkuser would want to be bothered in such a trivial thing in this case regarding lvta and the IP. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I hope you had a good time and have come back refreshed You may need it! - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield

It says, right here, in the article, that Susan Greenfield is of Jewish descent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield,_Baroness_Greenfield#Education Why, therefore, do you continue to revert the Jewish categories? Asarelah (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Read it properly, it does not say she is Jewish. I'm surprised that somebody with so much experience here missed that. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Susan Adele Greenfield was born to a Jewish father[11] and a Christian mother in Hammersmith, London. Her mother, Doris (née Thorp), was a dancer, and her father, Reginald Myer Greenfield, was an electrician.[12]"
You can be ethnically Jewish without practicing the religion. For example: Max Wolf Valerio. I would know. I am a secular ethnic Jew. Asarelah (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
On that basis perhaps you could categorise her as a Christian scientist perhaps? This discussion, about content, belongs at the article Talk page. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Jewish ethnicity/religion tends to be a special case due to the multiple issues with sourcing. Ethnicity does not equal religion. To address your above - having a Jewish father (for many types of Jew) would not make her ethnically Jewish. Absent a reliable source stating her ethnicity and/or religion (not that of her father), the categories are inappropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If your biological father is a member of XYZ ethnicity, then that makes *you* an member of XYZ ethnicity, regardless of what people like Rachel Dolenzal might tell you. Asarelah (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)}}
Rotter OID. Matriliniarnessitity was my hole card. My Grandfather was a dentist, my father isn't. Does this mean I should keep a Kosher kitchen? -Roxy the dog. bark 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends on if your mother did :P Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
To begin with, I do not appreciate your snide remark that we should categorize her as a Christian scientist. I am a Jew, and I get this kind of garbage when I try to explain what Jewish identity is to people. That was rude, obnoxious, and completely uncalled for. I also don't appreciate the dentist remark. Anyway I have located a source saying Greenfield's grandfather was a first generation immigrant from a shtetl in Austria and spoke Yiddish. I have inserted this info into the article, along with the information that she has worked as the director of a Jewish Cultural Center. By the way, the occupational category of Category:Jewish writers is listed as an ethic category. Wikipedia does do its categorization by Halachic Law, and a patrilineal Jewish person is a Jewish person. I have reinstated the categories, and I hope that will be the end of this. Asarelah (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
P.P.S. - I didn't take this to the talk page because how Jewish identity works is a matter that isn't limited to the scope of the article. Asarelah (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Asarelah, I couldn't care less about your feelings about my Jewish Grandfather the dentist (in Kidderminster), before, during and after WWII. For me, she is equally a Christian scientist, it is there right in the article. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. Just stop removing the categories please. 19:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note

Of interest to those who watchlist this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Sherwin. Roxy the dog. bark 20:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

I thought fixing format errors was ok. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an error, but I suppose you wouldn't know that. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. The article you edited was Answers in Genesis.

 — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

You, together with some other users, seem to be reverting my edit without apparent reason - exacerbated by the fact my edit is the result of this discussion on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you could explain the reasons for your edit in the discussion I provided. OlJa 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha. I've seen your e/w noticeboard post too. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tough as h*ll; ... or ... bin there, done that

Well to be fair there are some pretty hard people up there and it is a very convincing name for the perpetrator/hero. It seems a shame they didn't mention condiments - a bit of tomato sauce and you're away ... :) DBaK (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I was up there, just the other side of the tunnel, a few months ago for a mates wedding. I felt perfectly safe. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Well done! Hope it was a nice do. :) DBaK (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The plural possessive

Nope, you're wrong. Not every word ending in s takes the possessive apostrophe without a following s, only where the s is a plural. The name Collins is singular; the plural form (a family group, for instance) is Collinses. Therefore, the plural possessive for the name is Collinses', while the singular possessive is Collins's. Pyrope 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree, or I wouldn't have corrected the article. In my experience with people from Canada and the French language, people from Canada are normally wrong - however, we are dealing in English, my mother tongue, and I am prepared to be corrected, but not by a stranger on teh internetz. Or by a reference in an American or Canadian source !! -Roxy the dog. bark 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Umm... I'm English, born and raised. This isn't about "agreeing", it is the standard grammar of our mother tongue. That you choose to flaunt your ignorance and bigotry rather than educate yourself doesn't do much for our national image, now does it? Pyrope 18:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I think that you are wrong, until I can be convinced otherwise. And thanks for calling me ignorant and a bigot. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You were displaying a complete ignorance of my origins, yet because you thought I was Canadian I therefore must be wrong. Ignorance and bigotry, succinctly demonstrated within just one sentence. Nice one. Pyrope 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Read what I actually wrote. I never said you were a Canadian. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You tell yourself whatever you need to salve that conscience and tell yourself that you weren't leaping to judgement about someone based purely on their (assumed) origins. Mind you, lauding your "experience with people from Canada" and how this had led you to believe that "people from Canada are normally wrong," based on no other evidence, sure does look like bigotry. You probably want to watch that in future otherwise people might get the wrong idea about you. The difference being, they would actually have evidence. Pyrope 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And while we are at it, would you agree that teh Oxford University Press, publishers of the OED, are a good source for English language usage and grammar? Yes? Good, so this might be of use to you. That a good enough source for you? Now, in the idiomatic argot of my home town, wind your neck in and stop being a berk. Pyrope 19:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Aha. An acceptable source. Well done. Now piss off please, but remember to read stuff properly in future. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Will do, and in turn do try to base your arguments on fact rather than prejudice, else you might look a bit silly. Pyrope 20:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Knock 'em out John!

WP is a big place, and I'm sure that if you'll find some truly productive things to do (like sign-up to be a reviewer at AfC and/or NPP) instead of stalking pages I edit, we'll both be much happier...less entertained, perhaps, but much happier. Oh, and there are much better ways to get exercise than jumping to conclusions, or trying to tree a coon. Atsme📞📧 19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not stalking, more avoiding. -Roxy the dog. barcus 20:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

SHOOT THAT UGLY DOG !

2 ATOMIC H-BOMBS AT NEW YORK AND HAIFA ARE FATE AND NOT IN DISCUSSION ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.252.145 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm vain enough to think that a couple of people may be interested to know that the above editor is now blocked, and this appears to be in re Diff -Roxy the dog. barcus 21:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also related would be this discussion... —PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Diff of the Day

here -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Roxy the dog.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I gave up that bit a few weeks ago. I was too frustrated by wikilawering admins not deleting pages I had nommed, on purely technical reasons. I'll be blowed if I want to go through those hoops on a regular basis. So no, but thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I get the impression the reviewing admin reads the first criteria I listed, but not the second or the third. Anyway, I like your new signature. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand why it is done, otherwise pedants like me would jump all over them about not following procedure, I really dont need the hassle. Hoops etc. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. Thanks for your help anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

MSG page

I appreciate your feedback on the MSG page. I have been trying for 8 years to make a single edit and always been denied. I bring facts and they are simply ignored. I've tried doing things by Wikipedia rules and against the rule (I just got out of the penalty box last week). No joke, it feels like there is some weird pro-MSG cult. The crazy thing is that I am not trying to say there is a link between MSG and headaches, only that the research findings are mixed. I am deeply frustrated. Should I do a dispute? What would you do? FFN001 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd learn to read a scientific paper a bit better. You will not be allowed to insert your misinterpretation into the text of that page. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wait what? They write, “Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference." Seven studies four significant findings. I am not reading that wrong. FFN001 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You will not get your misinterpretation into the article, and you will be told so at the NPOV noticeboard, by many editors. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Roxy the dog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Source....

Why don’t you follow me on twitter or Instagram and you will see all the videos/photos from me playing around the world in the bands that I have suggested. And also my Billy Elliot Workshops. Then you’ll have the source you need. I need to put these things on here for business and work. Thanks Jamesjlomas (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have already told you at your talk page, see WP:RS please, in order to understand why, User:Jamesjlomas. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha this is hilarious, I can’t even add about my own life. So funny! If I knew how to add a photo I would show you lol! Never mind you keep running what ever you want! Perhaps do what I say though and figure out what I’m doing now. Which is exactly what I’m writing 🤦‍♂️ Jamesjlomas (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of reformatting your post here in order to keep the subject in one place. I have no idea why a photo would help.-Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears you have a "down under" "doggelgänger"

Unfortunately neither she nor her spouse "Devil Dog" met the WP:SIGNIFICANCNIINE, that well-respected Wikipedia gateway essay about the various WP:A7 speedy deletion criteria.
Pete "both dog person and cat person" AU akak --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

199.101.62.36

199.101.62.36 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and I have a history... Thanks for the revert. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not happy with my edsum though. I thought I'd understood what was going on, but nevertheless ... -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 01:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Good enough. If it gets reverted again, it's ANI again... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked this user multimple times to not interact with me, and I expect them not to interact with me in the future. I don't like them following me arund Wiki like that.I'm asking him (just for now at least) to refrain from all interactions with me regardless of their justifiability. If Jim1138 does not follow this, I told him that I would be extremely angry because of my kindness in my innitial "please leave me alone just for now" statement. so please let Jim1138 know that he must not interact with me for a little while even if he feels he's justified, this way I won't feel like he's stocking me and truyig to ruin everything for me. I am from Papua New Guinea originally, and I always like to be sure that I follow the one rule my British girlfriend Karen enforces with me online, "you must be civil." Unfortunately, if Jim1138 insists on forcing himself upon me, then Karen's rule will fall way apart. thanks.199.101.62.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough I used to have a dog named Roxy. I miss her, she was a good little pup, but she died of cancer at 8 years old.199.101.62.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a few things I'd like to tell you, but to make it simple, I will instead tell you to stop being a jerk. Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I will, as long as you're willing to be a good dog and keep jim1138 away from me. I'm sorry if the joke was bad, again it is in reference to my old dog who's name was also Roxy. (R.I.P. Roxy). Nothing bad was meant by that joke i promise.199.101.62.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
When are you going to start? If you don't stop being a thoroughly nasty bigot, you will not be allowed to edit here. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your work in managing aggressive bees! — soupvector (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I could feel myself getting all angry, so made an extra effort to stay calm, and retire. Still watchlisted though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What'ca doin' working this late?

Waiting for Santa? Beware... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's breakfast time !!-Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 08:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfredo Bowman

I don't see what is gained by putting him in Category:People in alternative medicine. Everyone in Category:Herbalists is categorised as in alternative medicine. Categories are heirarchical. WP:SUBCAT - the policy is that "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing the category is removing the subject from the category. I have simply returned it. No worries. You of course understand this. I recall banning you from this page, please respect that. Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

Hello Roxy the dog. I noticed that you restored the category at Traditional Chinese medicine. I also saw those multiple removals lately by the same editor from multiple alternative medicine and quackery articles (I watch the category) and wondered if they're appropriate. These also include the removal of articles to Category:Health fraud. It's possible that in some cases the pseudoscience category is found higher (as part of another category) and that the removal is appropriate; I didn't have time to properly inspect those edits yet... —PaleoNeonate – 06:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh I just saw that this is already being discussed here. —PaleoNeonate – 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 14:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank discussion at Holocaust denial

Hi, I made an addition that is extremely pertinent to the Anne Frank diaries page regarding an outdated fact. It was regarding Raes' claim that the Anne Frank Diary was not the sole work of Anne Frank. The Anne Frank Fund changed their claim to authorship from exclusively by Anne Frank to a co-authorship with her father. This is well documented at EXTREMELY pertinent to the paragraph as it completely reverses the valence. If there is something technically wrong with my entry, please advise so that I can correct. If I am mistaken about the facts, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Thanks,

Evan Jsalathe (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll wait for your Talk page entry. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Lipa

Thanks for your edit. I see that my edit only changed one line when I thought it had restored the infobox and first paragraph. I am not sure what happened but apparently I somehow made a mistake and that you corrected it. Donner60 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all good!! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia disaster

My fridge has broken down. Damn. Freezer still working. Emergency measures in place. Silly thing is is that the weather here has just warmed up above freezing. For the last couple of weeks it has been below freezing most of the time. Damn. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I paid £130.00 ish for a repairman, who could do nothing, so I got my money back per our arrangement. Then I turned it off, and turned it on again, 48 hours later. It is now working perfectly. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

Hi Roxy the dog! According to the source, Wolfe has "Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara". I'm not quite sure where the confusion is. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This belongs at the Wolfe Talk page, not here. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought it would be politer to just get clarification here, given your edit summary. But no hassles, I'm happy to raise it there instead. - Bilby (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Haha. I just discovered that you are an admin. Good grief. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost as to what you mean by that. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, at first I was a little surprised that somebody with your service here could read that ref in that way, and now that I discover you are an admin, I'm even more surprised. The source doesn't support your interpretation is all. I do recognise that you aren't acting an an admin capacity though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to know how we are reading that differently. The source states that he has Bachelors in of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science, and a Juris doctor in law from San Diego. What am I missing? - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The little ifnobox in the source about his education doesn't actually say he has a BSc. it actually says "Education: Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara. Juris doctor in law from the University of San Diego." which is subtly different (Bachelor's? to me that's fishy). I've seen too many quacks claim degrees and doctorates that they don't actually have, so AFAIC, I don't actually think it can be stated in wiki's voice, with that source only. You are going to disagree with me, I can tell!! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Its shoddy writing. But its "Batchelor's" because its trying to indicate he has multiple degrees in both in both 'Mech & Environmental', and 'Political Science'. I suspect he has neither given his history of less-than-factual claims. But we shouldn't be second-guessing a staff-writer on a paper like that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm pretty certain that the consensus will overtake me, and that's OK. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
While we're all busy expressing skepticism over the claim the Avocado-for-brains has a bachelor's, is nobody going to comment on the liklyhood of him having a Juris doctorate? o_O I mean, this is a guy who said that the sun will fuck you with sound if you eat chocolate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that - it seems that my reading of the source was correct, so there was just some passing confusion. I'm glad to see it cleared up. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
As a Brit, no that does not surprise me MP. I of course base all my knowledge of the American legal system on Boston Legal, and that's no madder than anything Denny Crane does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
As a fellow Brit, I base all my knowledge of american jusisprudence on Ally McBeal. (And CHiPs and Ironside). -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a shame, because it's American Dad that really nails American law and government on the head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of repeat delete nomination

Hi, Roxy. This is in regards to your undo of my repeat nomination for deletion of Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin. I followed procedure as written. Why is the procedure written that way if it's not followed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthorne01970 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you have withdrawn your Delete comment from the deletion discussion here, which is no problem as you appear to have withdrawn your ivote, thus changing your mind. I have no idea why you started another deletion proposal, as the deletion discussion I started is already extant. If you want to register your opinion, do so at that discussion, do not start a new proposal.
I deleted your second deletion proposal as it is redundant. Simples. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion:
If this article has been nominated before, use {subst:afdx|2nd} or {subst:afdx|3rd} etc.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated.
The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
This is the procedure I followed. Don't be so cocky. Just delete the fucking page already. - Hawthorne01970 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Try to understand what is going on before making such a dickhead of yourself in future. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a personal rule. If you can't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all. Internet tough guy. Get out of the house once in a while and give yourself a reality check. Hawthorne01970 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops

Not sure how the hell this happened, but thanks for the catch. At least it wasn't the contents of my password safe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is basically what I thought. "How did that happen?" -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 03:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but it appears that participation in an AfD qualifies for this sort of notification. wow. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The infamous Genesis II Church fact from Miracles Mineral Supplement page

So you just undoing a just ‘‘infamous’’ fact with link to his religious movement’s poorly designed website, about his pseudoscience inspired ‘new religious movement’ from ex-Scientologist pseudoscience advocate. And I’m clearly not supporting him or again his new religious movement either because I suffered from ASD. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I don’t understand the point you want to make here. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I’m saying I don’t clearly supporting him or his religious movement. But I’m just stating informative fact about his pseudoscience religious movement. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2018 (EST)
I don't think that linking to his "church", which is just a continuation of his MMS quackery marketing by other means, is particularly informative to our readers. The "church" is already mentioned in the article. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, But if someone (but possibly not me) wants created either that guy or his pseudoscience religious movement pages. That fact could probably restated in future. Chad The Goatman (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2018 (EST)
(talk page stalker)If someone creates an article on that church, then we could link to the article. But I doubt anything but the MMS itself will get much coverage in the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

LLLT

Changes made to LLLT page only included missing information. Regarding reimbursement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has changed their policy to indicate that LLLT is considered 'medically necessary'[1][2]. Plenty more can be cited if further evidence is required. The treatment of Oral Mucositis included citations from multiple papers[3][4][5], including a systematic review[6] and is further supported by the policy changes by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York medical policy states this (emphasis mine):

"A recent systematic review of RCTs on LLLT for prevention of oral mucositis included 18 RCTs, generally considered at low risk of bias, and found statistically significantly better outcomes with LLLT than control conditions on primary and secondary outcomes. In addition, three double-blind, RCTs published in 2015 found significantly better outcomes in patients undergoing LLLT than undergoing sham treatment prior to or during cancer treatment. The evidence is sufficient to determine qualitatively that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome."[7]

Please review changes and tell me which content you feel is not supported by the citations and evidence.

edit: in case you are concerned about the use of static PDFs, you can search Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York's medical policy here, look for Low Level User therapy, you can do the same for Blue Cross Massachusetts and Blue Kansas City. 

Academia salad (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://medicalpolicy.bluekc.com/MedPolicyLibrary/Medicine/Standard%20Medicine/06-17_2_Low_Level_Laser_Therapy.pdf
  2. ^ http://docplayer.net/docview/66/54500782/#file=/storage/66/54500782/54500782.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22884841
  4. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23625880
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23224689
  6. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001179
  7. ^ https://www.bcbswny.com/content/dam/COMMON/Provider/Protocols/L/prov_prot_20156.pdf
I have copied the above comment to the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair, will resume discussion on there. Would you care to weigh in further on your thoughts? Academia salad (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

edits to Holocaust denial

This topic is closed. Please discuss at the article talk page -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. You seem to have reverted my reversion of unexplained removal of content at the article. I WAS REVERTING A REMOVAL OF content by the user. NOW THERE ARE STRAY SOURCES FOR NO REASON. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the caps! my computer isnt working right.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You do not appear in the edit history. article is now correct. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, you do appear in the history, sorry. I disagree with your edits though. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
why is that? the content i restored has three bundled sources for inclusion, now those sources are there for no reason. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Any response I make will be at the article talk page. You need to learn to use colons correctly. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
My edit here was reverting unexplained deletion of content. I was reverting this edit. It removed "conspiracy theory" without explanation and left a huge chunk of sources abandoned. Now they serve no purpose. see here -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:TPG and WP:TPL and learn how to use talk pages correctly. I have edited your comment here to correct your use of colons. I'm afraid your comments at the Holocaust denial talk page are so unintelligible that the point you are trying to make is impossible to follow. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OKAY. Here is a timeline.
1. The lede for Holocaust denial had this set of words "antisemitic conspiracy theory." Someone thoroughly added sources, as "reference #9", and the reference is still there. Strangely, you didn't notice that you yourelf fixed the reference, and that it was there to support "conspiracy theory"
2. User:Beyond My Ken removed the words without explanation(possible vandalism), meaning that the sources are just sitting there unused. I objected and told him to take it to the talk page based on his removal of a sourced phrase, he rejected and said flippantly "you take it to talk."
3. I re-added the words "conspiracy theory" as the sources were still there for that specific term.
4. It was removed again, by you.
TL;DR= Currrently, there are sources sitting at the article unused because the term that they supported is deleted. How is this so hard to understand? -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 07:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: there is still even a damn template on the page for "conspiracy theory," and no one bothers to re-add the wording to the lede. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Might help if you told Roxy what they were blocked for, John. --NeilN talk to me 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
He doesn't like me Neil. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Ping me when you're done with your appeal and I'll copy it over. --NeilN talk to me 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN I don't see any point in doing anything more. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I've copied it over. --NeilN talk to me 13:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I see you are claiming you do not know what this block is for. It is for edit warring at ayurveda, something you have been blocked for before. It is nothing to do with liking or disliking anybody, but you know fine well you cannot edit-war there. --John (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As you would know if you would only look at the history, your claim that I was edit-warring is just bollocks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
ALSO bollocks is the statement you made that I was previously blocked by you for edit-warring. Keep up please John. act like a competent admin at least. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
My mistake, but my statement that you have been blocked for breaching editing restrictions there stands. There is an edit notice in place there that you must have seen each of the three times you reverted in less than a week. --John (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you blocked me for a week for a first time offence of making three reversions (of poorly sourced text) in a week. That's a fucking outrage. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked

As a result of the ongoing discussion here, where there is a consensus of admins that your block was improper, I'm unblocking your account. The discussion about the block is not yet closed, but I do think that as a matter of fairness there is some urgency in undoing a block which, in the opinion of uninvolved admins, lacks merit. MastCell Talk 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I was looking for something else at AE, and saw this (after the fact). Sorry this happened to you, and welcome "back". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I felt like this was a huge missed opportunity to say welcome "bark", so I figured let it be said. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
My bad! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's about time I said thank you to everybody who commented at my appeal following John's block. Because developments are developing, I don't really want to say much more than that for now. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Only just become aware of this. Have been on the receiving end of this kind of fuckwittery in the past. Glad sense seems to have prevailed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 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 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism in North Africa page

How are you Mr. Roxy? I hope that all is with you. I need your help in North Africa page. The user "Mameab1989" keeps vandalizing the page constantly and ignoring all the facts, sources and what have been discussed before on the talk page. Ryanoo (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The first thing I would like to ask is that you stop using the word "vandal" and all its derivatives when referring to what appear to be good faith edits, as indeed your own are, in edit summaries etc at that page.
Unfortunately, I have no expertise or knowledge of the dispute, just an interest in an area of the world that I lived in for a couple of years over a decade ago. I don't think I can usefully contribute at the article, but would suggest you open discussion at the Talk page rather than edit war any further. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not so misinformed.

I will because you are so insanely wrong and Tea Tree Oil is very effective and there are countless journal studies in favour for it. did you even read my sources or did you just assume that government and university research pages are wrong. "thanks" --Dontfeedmebs (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the Article Talk page. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Roxy, Awaiting your explanation. (See my message below) I will again try to edit the page to reflect a more neutral interpretation. Thanks - SB

Still getting the hang of how this Wiki communication is supposed to work. Thanks.

[Resubmit to RTD] RTD -- puzzled by your change to Dr. Andrew Wakefield's Page (reversion to the original biased version using language like "discredited former ...". Do you have a dog in that fight? I encourage you to reach out to me to explain your block threat. I am not a trained clinician (perhaps you are) but what I added was clarity and a neutral point of view that WikiPedia is supposed to espouse. You on the other hand dismissed my edits with an unexplained "vandalism" accusation which I strongly contest and would like to see your factual basis for. Look at the changes that I made. I linked the original 1998 Wakefield Lancet Paper (strangely absent from the previous version), removed a bunch of opening references from a single critical source: Brian Deere, and left Brian Deere's criticism in the criticism section. It is not accurate in my view to characterize a figure as discredited, when there is an ongoing debate about the science involved (you may disagree, as is your right). The facts are that this topic has aroused considerable interest, and the fact that Wikipedia simply copies and pastes a single critic's accusations across the opening section of any individual is troubling to me. Please educate me as to what agenda you are trying to push RTD. Thanks Slinkblot (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Slinkblot (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I just repaired the damage your incredibly silly edit caused. If you do something like that again, you'll find yourself in hot water, if I've got any druthers. Now go away. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Shooting

You reverted my removal of the line? Seems odd, but I've self-rv'ed. I think you may have edit conflicted, though. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Bellezzasolo, I will remove your silliness momentarily. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the page history further back. You didn't originally introduce that phrase, and we both appear to be trying to remove it. My minor snark is not called for. Sorry Bellezzasolo. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal favor

Hi! I would like to ask you, along a couple of the editors I know, for a personal favor. I choose you because every time I see something that you have edited I have been impressed with the quality.

What I would like you to do is to help expand our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This topic is something that Jimbo has been pushing on his talk page,[1] and there may (or may not) be a SOPA-style blackout of Wikipedia to try to influence the EU legislators.[2]

As a personal favor to me, could you please help with this article? I am offering double the normal pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear Guy Macon, I am discovered. Are you sure you didn't see another Roxy's work? I fear it would be impossible for you to be impressed with the quality of my editing, as my editing quality is honestly useless. I just tinker around the rough edges. I will watchlist though, and hope to be able to help. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You are the greatest! Jim1138 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Very nice of you Jim1138. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your dog

I checked out your user page for the first time and saw the news about your dog from September last year. That’s sad to hear. Is your dog still with us? I lost a pet recently (and a mother also, but as a pet owner herself, she’d commend my having grieved more openly for the cat). I hope you’re well. You do a good job cleaning out woo from medical articles. Edaham (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to ask about the real Roxy, who sadly died a couple of weeks later last year, a loss that has been difficult, and my mother a couple of years ago. I get the grieving thing. That picture isn't Roxy, but a random cute dog I saw on somebody's user page with a nice hat!!. All the best. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 04:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
So sorry to hear about your losses Roxy.Sgerbic (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow. A visit from sceptic royalty. Thanks Susan. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from WP:COI user

May I ask why your tampering with the hard work and energy that went into creating UK charity, Prisoners' Advice Service's wiki page? Geof Jarvis (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Read your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Newbie Reversion Question

Hi,

I know this was months ago, but I'm trying to get better at editing and I don't know what V. means: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gang&oldid=830693067

Could you please tell me why this got reverted?

Thank you,

--Rampantpanda (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

V is my shorthand for Vandal. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaxxed

You've twice now asserted, on the talk page and in your edit summary, that this film is not a documentary, despite what I feel is evidence to the contrary. Could you please outline your position on the talk page so I can address it? --85.211.212.153 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No need. I already gave my input at Talk. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I have also responded at Talk:Vaxxed#Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018 --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Feldenkrais Method

Hi Roxy the dog, I saw you undid the page on the Feldenkrais Method on which I added fact based information. could you provide an explanation? Eric.x.ferron (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

See my latest Edsum. If you need to discuss this further, please use the article Talk page, where other editors will see what we say. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of breakfast foods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fish curry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done bot. I ‘’did’’ insert such a link. Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jellied eels

A breakfast food? WP:PROVEIT. You oughtn't to restore challenged content without a ref. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Great breakfasts all. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

Regarding the Mokele-mbembe article (which you reverted to the gutted version here), some culling may be warranted, but not the complete removal of the expeditions of Powell and Roy P. Mackal.

It is actually perfectly fine with me if William Gibbons (the creationist) is not used as an authoritative source, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

For the record, I graduated a science major in the U.S., and do not reject evolutionary theory. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good for you. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you guys know that I once caught a bullet with just my teeth and thereby saved the mayor of Brooklyn from an assasination plot by ninjas? Machine gun ninjas? I figured since we're bragging about stuff no-one believes or cares about that I could at least up the game a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) But are you a bad enough dude? —PaleoNeonate – 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That game was based on my high school years. True story. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
They made a tv series about mine. The Inbetweeners. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Anybody want to claim "The Forty Year Old Virgin"? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
(silence ensues) —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog/Archive_5&oldid=1090599666"