User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Deletion of J. Mark McWatters Page

You mentioned in the edit history that you thought this page would not be deleted. Can you explain why? As creator if I do not want the page published anymore is there a recourse for me to take to get this deleted?PublikTrust (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Because McWhatters is notable as wikipedia defines it. I cannot think of a reason for it to be deleted, and as the creator of the page you have no special rights. The page is not going to be deleted.

I look forward to your reply to the question you have been asked on your Talk page regarding WP:COI on your part. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your restoration of the Science navbox

Roxy, maybe you'll be o.k. with removing {{Science}} if I explain how it came about. A few years back, there was a discussion at Template talk:Science#Science sidebar about this navbox. Everyone agreed that it failed the guidelines for navigation templates, and it should be deleted. However, there is no deletion criterion that allows deletion of a template simply because it is no good, so I undertook to remove links to it and see what the reaction was. Some were restored, and other editors made the template even more bloated by adding stuff like glossaries. So I'm trying a new approach - improving the template by drastically reducing the bloat. Only the highest-level links are left. I took out skeptical movement for a few reasons: it's one step removed from skepticism, which itself is part of scientific method. And according to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, a navbox box should not be transcluded on pages it doesn't link to.

This article already has two much more appropriate navboxes - {{Philosophy of science}} and {{Skepticism}}. If you really want a sidebar, you could consider converting {{Skepticism}} into one. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I knew a rock magnetist on a sciencey forum once upon a time. I bet it's too much of a coincidence. I do bow to your obvious expertise in this area, and wont be reverting again. best -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yoga for therapeutic purposes

Hi Roxy the dog, as you've seen I've rewritten the whole context bit of the YfTP article. What now stands out is how poor the 'Research' core of the article is, despite the list of systematic review articles it cites. There are actually many systematic reviews available, and finding one's way through them isn't easy. We ought however to use the best of them to show that there is quite a lot of good evidence for benefits and mechanisms, not leaving out the many lacunae but showing there is the beginning of knowledge. How to do that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you are doing there, I was particularly satisfied by that highlighted edit. I have a couple of problems, the main one being my inability to write encyclopeadic material. A more concerning problem is that when the word 'therapy' is used, my WP:MEDRS sixth sense gets triggered, I get all worried that silly efficacy claims are made by believers in that therapy, often far in excess of what can be supported by wiki suitable sources. I agree that yoga has potential health benefits, but no more than any other exercise regimen, and I doubt that we can source specific medrs health claims. I wonder if we have an article Exercise for therapeutic purposes? which ought to cover yoga too, if it exists. (I checked btw.) Not sure how I can help further, but it'll stay watchlisted. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Not that I want to do anything about it, but we do have such an article. It is called Physiotherapy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RealScienceGeek --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I saw this on the noticeboard before I received this notification. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Spending too much time at ANI will make you go blind. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ken Ham

"This is how we do this across the project. It would take you years to fix." Can you give me some examples?^Ol^Ja 19:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Ken Ham. you are welcome. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously not helping. "Some examples". Being delibarately difficult is never going to make your life easier.^Ol^Ja 20:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

House of Commons of the United Kingdom

Hi there, you seem to have missed the ping on my talk page. Can you please [look at the diffs] that you're reverting and note that you're changing the page to the vandalised version? It's not great as someone who's new to reverting vandalism to be accused of it myself when trying to fix a page, especially when my messages seem to be being ignored!  vwilding  ^talk 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry. See your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!^Ol^Ja 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this user managed to get himself blocked twice in a few days for tendentious editing on AiG. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Four blocks for edit warring so far. If he edit wars again I intend on seeking an indefinite block under our Slow Learner rule... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Alperton

What's so *bad* aboot me dialect? Us Scots dinnae complain aboot the Yorkshire dialect, or the Cockney dialect, or the Liverpool dialect... 37.228.231.151 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Parapsychology

May I ask why you reverted my edit on Parapsychology?

You may, but you need to learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm CyanoTex. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Remedy Entertainment— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CyanoTex (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem confused CyanoTex. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I might have been? My apologies, regardless. CyanoTex (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Ayurveda article

Hi Roxy, you just reverted the edits on page Ayurveda. Earlier the statement was "there is no scientific evidence in Ayurveda." I have given some website links in research section of the page to support that there is less scientific evidence in Ayurveda. The other general statement with reference of a book is that "Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific." This is opinion of author of that book. Based upon that book on psychology, which is not related to Ayurveda, how can you state that Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific? So I modified the language as it is opinion of that particular author. I think stating a system of medicine psudoscientific based upon merely a book reference may not be neutral statement. Please provide more references stating that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. In the research section, the website links given are of some good quality journals linked in PubMed and some database with Ayurved research articles. have you seen those links? Please go though the links and then we can discuss this further. Thank you.

Please learn to sign your posts on Talk pages. Thanks. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Acupuncture: not sure what to do here. Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

COI note at Talk:Acupuncture

Hi Roxy -- re your revert^[1]: as I mentioned in my ES^[2], it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC (in which you participated, and the result of which was previously mentioned to you^[3]). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what the RfC says. It rules out a general COI assumption for everyone practicing alternative medicine, but it doesn't say no one can have a COI with specific articles. --mfb (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The RfC says "no" to the question "Do practitioners of alternative medicine (Acupuncture [...] etc.) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?". So acupuncturists can't have a COI for acupuncture, nor yoga teachers for yoga, and so for any broad professional area (pls read discussion if in any doubt of this). In specific cases, sure, e.g. Bikram Choudhury would have one for Bikram yoga. But -- apart from being a practitioner -- I can't imagine any other way someone could have a COI for a broad area like acupuncture, can you? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 11:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 14:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is unambiguously wrong about the conclusion of the RfC. The negation of "Is X necessarily the case?" is "X is not necessarily the case"; it absolutely is not "X is never the case." Anyone perusing the RfC close and the actual responses to the RfC can likewise see that there is 0 support for the false interpretation you are putting forward here. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

So again, how would an editor have such a COI? And why haven't we seen that tag, and COI/N cases, with multiple other fields? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 00:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For example, a person who practices acupuncture for pay has a potential COI when editing acupuncture articles, particularly if they do so in an overtly promotional manner. The abstract principles here are straightforward. I have no idea what you have or haven't seen, nor what reasons there might be for that. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here, our accupunture article currently says "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge". The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

JBL, the whole point of the RfC was to address such situations, and promotional editing can reflect a COI but not cause one (see my [4] at ANI). Guy, I believe you're now relitagating the RfC and in effect IDHT-ing about its result. ANI is for urgent stuff, which this ain't; if you really need to clarify the RfC then COI/N is the place. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 03:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In a nutshell, simply having a profession (broadly, like "electrical engineer") does not create a COI when editing in that topic area. The RfC clarified that this indeed applies to CAM professions. Acupuncture is a CAM profession. Therefore, unless Aristotle was wrong, simply being an acu'ist does not create a COI when editing in the acu topic area.

This is the case no matter how much you disagree with the RfC result, or how much acu theory is pseudoscientific, or how closely sham and verum acu perform in RCT's, or how valuable the NAM considers acu clinicallly,^[5] or how much any professional suffers when their field is dissed. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Help

April 2019

The file on Steve Waugh is now referenced although I have a few doubted thoughts about the referencing of the book. Can anyone please help me! It is desperate.10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Signed YIMIGNLLEWYN yimingllewyn 10:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic

That's funny. Nobody mentioned it when I lived there. Just in case you didn't know about Philémon (comics), I wanted to mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is so much I don't know about! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

William Happer

Please avoid insults like the one in this revert summary. I removed the statement per what I figured was talk page consensus (two agreements to my clarification, no further objections), so even if you disagree, WP:AGF is still a thing and snarky comments won't help to resolve this situation. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Don’t be a plonker all your life. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. I'll let the second insult slide, 'cause you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Third one, I won't. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --— Yerpo ^Eh? 14:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha. That went well. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So people acknowledged you were a dick but since it's common, no formal action will follow. Really something to be proud of, man. Bravo. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Your dissembling edsum deserved closer analysis, but I called you "naughty" instead and you got your nose pushed out of joint. Good for you. I'll rephrase my admonishment above to one that I initially wrote, then thought better, "don't be a dickhead all your life." It must come naturally. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're so full of yourself you'll never realize that your "superior" analytical skills made you miss my intentions completely, and I've learned long ago it's a waste of time to try to change the mind of someone so willfully ignorant. So let's just wait how the RfC plays out, I won't be losing any sleep over it one way or the other. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Arsehole. Did it ever occur to you that "Naughty" is an admonishment used gently, for children, and here you are, panties in a bunch, all over my Talk page like a rash. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh you poor thing, having unpleasant talk page content must really hurt. But we'd be finished long ago if you didn't insist in insulting me irrationaly after I explained how your admonishment was uncalled for. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog

I agree with your sentiments. Eschoryii (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture

"因为缺乏足够的现代医学实验证实其疗效，针灸常在部分国家被视作替代疗法甚至伪科学。" from zh:针灸

Acupuncture is only regarded as pseudoscience in some countries and regions, not the all over the world. Please avoid the regional bias, and use NPOV statements. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• See [6][7]. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, you must be joking!!! Do you think acu works in some countries and not in others. Use your brain. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxy_the_dog reported by User:Masdggg (Result: ). Thank you. 風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 18:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD - Names and titles of God in the New Testament

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [9]. Free craik. PiCo (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha. I choose to believe, for the purpose of this post, that you have made that AfD purely to see what I might do. well, you'll have to wait till some discussion has started. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm TenPoundHammer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Deaton-Flanigen Productions 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. The list of music videos directed is not WP:UNDUE. The content is reputably sourced and relevant to the notability of the subject. Other music video directors, such as Sherman Halsey and Darren Doane, have videographies of music videos they've made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Boy George

Today's edits -- I mistakenly thought you had reverted my edit, but now realise you had reverted the two edits above mine back to my edit. Apologies for not checking properly first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the note. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting maintenance tags

You've been around awhile so I'm surprised that you are either unaware of, or don't subscribe to, the community norms around removing maintenance tags as expressed in WP:DETAG. If you object to the tagging of article content for improvement, you ought either make the needed improvement or give a rationale why no improvement is necessary. I invite you to either join the relevant discussion on Talk:Feldenkrais Method or restore the tags you deleted. I look forward to collaborating with you to improve that article. Ibadibam (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bugger this

Not worth it. I reserve the right to re-enter the fray if satisfactory resolution ensues. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm really pissed off that good faith wikipedians can be treated so shittily. It could happen to anybody. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

HBD

Happy alien abduc.. birthday. —PaleoNeonate – 12:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There's this chip under the skin of my neck that was placed when I was abducted by Aliens who poked and prodded me. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 12:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wikitam331 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Re:Templating user

My reason? I thought that they were disrupting the page (most notably on Pasta). I did not realize that the other edits were Good Faith edits. I normally reserve those templates for obvious vandals. Upon further reflection, it does seem that my templating of that user was a mistake. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I consider the subject closed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Morocco

I think you're right there. Thanks. --YILMAZ AHMAD (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As-Salaam-Alaikum. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Fudge

Just looked at this article. I can find loads of recipes here[10] that don't need a thermometer. And Condensed milk is wrong to when it says " Condensed milk and sweetened condensed milk is also sometimes used in combination with clotted cream to make fudge in certain countries such as the United Kingdom." That might happen in the UK but I dubious about the clotted cream being that common. I just made fudge with condsnsed milk, chocolate, marshmallows and graham crackers using an American recipe. Here's a New York site whose grandmother made a similar fudge.[11] Please ping me if you respond. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am going to respond here, and then check to see if I didn';t get a little irate on the subject of chocolate fudge at one time. I mean, who puts chocolate in fudge fior goodness sake. The confection you just made sounds delightful, btw. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you insulting me on the Fudge talk page? Doug Weller talk 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonono, I'm not. I was joking, and apologise for the misunderstanding. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll withdraw all of it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry I misunderstood you. The problem is others might not, especially those I warn for using talk pages as forums after I delete their post! Doug Weller talk 20:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome note, it is appreciated. Essayist1 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit passive/aggressive, but nevertheless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss?

Are you going to discuss the substance of our dispute (hypothesis/technique) at power posing or are you just going to keep reverting?--Thomas B (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

See Talk page of article, where I have already made my point. If you choose to ignore it as you have, well, that's allowed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I did actually search it for something that might look like an argument for you edits. But your history with this article seems confined to disagreeing and reverting. Why do you insist on calling it a hypothesis?--Thomas B (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you insist on calling it a technique? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've explained this on the talk page.--Thomas B (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Swanmore College, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Get lost. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to abide by WP:V in citing sources. I have provided a citation for you, which was easily found in the actress' article. I don't know why it was too difficult for you to just furnish it in the first place, if you felt that she should be included in the list. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Go away and learn WP:PAG -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you realize that in your efforts to edit-war, you deleted a perfectly good citation and replaced it with {{citation needed}}? Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Swanmore College shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Doubleplus fuck off. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that you have quite a history of harassment and incivility. Perhaps you would prefer some more peaceful mode of dispute resolution and collegial editing, rather than risk another block? Elizium23 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Really fuck off. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about you Roxy, but I find if somebody doesn't respond to being told to fuck off twice, the best course of action is probably not to tell them to fuck off a third time. Anyway, I have closed the report as stale, though I don't really understand what the issue is about not needing a source here. Elizium23 I realise Roxy wasn't exactly polite, but I think the underlying issue is it's normally better to explain issues in your own words instead of hitting a template button. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your advice on the third "fuck off" is, on balance correct. I'll stop at two if they do it again. If my colleague is correct about a citation being needed, which they are not, then I could spend the rest of my life adding citation needed tags on Alumni lists, and still not finish the job It was just such a stupid thing for them to insist on, so ... -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What I find is that lists like "alumni", "notable people" and especially "in popular culture" etc. have an irritating tendency for people to just wander up to them and put in any old thing, irrespective of whether it actually benefits the reader or not. A citation next to an entry at least signals "we've checked this out" as a kind of sibboleth, if you see what I mean. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that a level of indirect citation is acceptable, which is never the case. I have often seen editors say "no citation needed! it's in the target article!" but the problem is that per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia itself is not a RS; while a target article may contain a citation to a RS, that article is available for editing and therefore the citation may be deleted at any given time. There are many, many lists of people and other things on Wikipedia; the standard for these lists is that they must contain inline references. For example: List of people with Down syndrome. There is a column in the table dedicated to references, and no row is without at least one of them. Each entry corresponds to a notable person with a Wikipedia article, but the editors here have still integrated an inline citation which supports the assertion they're making. There are no exceptions to this policy of needing citations - I fail to understand how you have misinterpreted WP:ALUMNI as somehow granting a magical exception to WP:V and how you have deleted a perfectly good citation from the article because of your firmly-held belief that one is not even allowed. Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

allowed needed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Now don't come back. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

od (You'll be too busy editing Alumni lists to come back anyway !!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

Here is an article, the first school/college from my current watchlist, which needs five citations from you guys. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

[12] is the next on off my watchlist. You need seven or eight on that one. Better get busy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't resist one last note about a school. It just popped up at the top of my watchlist!! This only has a few actually referenced. You need at least 40 citations. C'mon. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Daniel David Palmer

I believe that your personal beliefs are overriding what is appropriate to cite. While yes, DD Palmer did not believe in vaccinations, it is discussed in length with only a few quotes from him and his son in the text. I do not think that it is appropriate when writing information about someone's life to begin by saying "he was born this date" "he died this date" "he was originally from x place then moved" "he was into alternative medicine" "he was a anti-vaxxer". The subject matter doesn't fit the narrative of this opening. For this reason I don't believe the information about him speaking out against the germ theory or the idea of vaccinating should be in the opening tag lines and rather in the subject matter that follows. 2603:300F:B04:1400:79F5:5054:837A:E03E (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Tell me, what does "cliff note" mean as I've never seen the expression before. I could guess, but you are here. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Taking a long book/movie and summarize it into smaller points so that someone learns the topic more quickly. Almost like a study guide. The vaccination topic is covered well, but is only a small portion of the entirety and hardly worth mentioning at the very beginning along with much larger events. 2603:300F:B04:1400:79F5:5054:837A:E03E (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought so, and thanks. If you consider the Lead to be cliff notes, and the body text to be the text that the cliff notes summarises, wikipedia policy requires us to put the most salient stuff about an article into the "cliff notes", which is what I did. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Salient is not what that is. Out of the entire Wikipedia page about him the anti vaccination portion is two quotes long. One of which is simply about the germ theory and the body’s ability to heal itself and not blatantly about vaccination. I believe in vaccines. Can you put your personal opinions aside and allow the edit? The vaccination info is there... I just don’t find it to be an appropriate highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.220.115 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to get an account. You also need to learn how to use talk pages properly (how to indent and sign). As regards your problem with the article, we appear to be at an impasse, and further discussion here is pointless. If you had asked at the article talk page, where 45 people are watching, you might have been able to change consensus. As it is, you have asked at a backwoods page where you cannot influence the BLP article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI user issues legal threat. Elizium23 (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You recently reverted my edit on cupping therapy without explanation or conversation on the talk page. This is an example of edit warring behavior. I have returned the edit. As discussed on the talk page, you may return the edit if you show proper sourcing for your claim. If you revert again without sourcing or discussion, I will have to report you for edit warring. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Frère Jacques

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit to this article. Can you please explain why? I made two changes to the article: (1) removed the parenthetical comment from the phrase "also known in English as Brother John (although Charles and its short version Jack, is correct)"; and (2) explained, elsewhere in the article, that Jacques is the French version of James or Jacob.

As to (1), I believe this change should absolutely be restored. The Charles/Jack parenthetical is an awkward phrasing, it is confusing, and it is wrong. It reads like Jack is "short" for Charles, rather than John. Worse, the name Charles has no relationship at all to Jacques or John, so it makes no sense to say it "is correct," especially because there is no English version of the song called "Brother Charles" or "Brother Jack." And there is no cited reference stating otherwise, or giving any indication as to why Charles might be correct, because it is not.

As to (2), I acknowledge this is more debatable. But since the article compares the French/English forms for frere/friar/brother, and since someone had already (wrongly) addressed the friar's name, I thought it made sense to correct the naming issue and give a little more detail. It's true that I did not cite a source, and if that's the issue, it is easily fixed. But for what it's worth, the articles for each of those three names all cite their common origin in the Hebrew Jacob and its Greek/Latin translations. I don't believe there is any serious dispute about the (Jacobus, Jacques, Jacob, Jacomus, James) family of names.

Please let me know your thoughts. I believe it is bad form for me to revert your reversion, but I continue to think my edits made the article better. --EightYearBreak (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacque is French for Jack. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a good citation for that? Here is what the Wikipedia article on Jacques says, under the heading "as a given name":

Jacques is the French equivalent of James, ultimately originating from the name Jacob.

Jacques is derived from the Late Latin Iacobus, from the Greek Ἰακώβος (Septuagintal Greek Ἰακώβ), from the Hebrew name Jacob יַעֲקֹב.^[17] (See Jacob.) James is derived from Iacomus, a variant of Iacobus.^[18]

As a first name, Jacques is often phonetically converted to English as Jacob, Jake (from Jacob), or Jack. Jack, from Jankin, is usually a diminutive of John but can also be used as a short form for many names derived from Jacob like Jacques. For example, in French "Jacky" is commonly used as a nickname for Jacques, in Dutch "Jack" is a pet form of Jacob or Jacobus along with the other nicknames "Sjaak", "Sjaakie" and "Jaak". In Swedish, it is "Jacke" for Jacob or Jakob and in German it is "Jackel" or "Jockel" for Jakob.^[19]

So the best equivalents would be James or Jacob; Jack might be OK; and Charles (which is what is also in the Frere Jacques article) has no basis at all, unless you have some contrary information. If so, I hope you will share it. --EightYearBreak (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry. I didn't understand what you meant. I was just testing my activities on wikipedia. Raiyan Ibrahim (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Civility

I fully understand that you think CST is quackery and medical fraud and such. Having said that, I suggest that you just discuss content and not the editors consisten with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. KFvdL (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should lead by example? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

if I have been addressing you on the talk page instead of the content, please let me know so I properly can apologize. KFvdL (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears you are a bit of a white night. How about hospitals being the 3rd leading cause of preventable death?BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not vandalism

How is it vandalism to cite google scholar? Your own user page claims that wikipedia is biased to scholarly sources.BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just given you a final warning. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to give a reason for your edits.BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Incivility

Wot up dog? Please kindly refrain from subtly implying that I am an idiot on my talkpage. The word is an archayic medical term which was replaced by the term "severe mental retardation". Neither of which are very nice. I know you get away with a lot on here, but I'm pretty sure that using offensive derogatory terms in this way is a breach of WP:civility and if you do it again I will have to report it on the WP:ANI. I also want to say that if you ever need someone to talk to or a shoulder to cry on I am here for you. With love and empathyEssayist1 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But you were the one that used the word, and I was making a determined effort not to be as you put it, incivil. When you are no longer a newbie, and have some wikichops, then you'll understand WP:NPA. good luck. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Got Fibro? These guys don't care

There is a research study that clearly documents Fibro in people. The science is sound. Rather than helpfully edit the line so that it doesn't fail some arbitrary set of rules....let's just remove it!

Oh and research trials? FORGET ABOUT IT.

These Wiki editors clearly don't care about the health of people and clearly are interested in spreading decades old ideas about PSYCHOSCHEMATIC sources of pain and suffering. Yeah...all these millions of Americans are MAKING IT ALL UP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.188.34.107 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP, nice to see you. What on earth are you on about? It may help communicating if you try to make some sense, instead of incoherant ranting about your problem. Read WP:MEDRS at the same time. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Hi, I saw that my edit was reverted, and as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing I wanted to reach out and ask for clarification on the specific reasoning that you felt that this should be reverted? What is the distinction in your mind between this source, and a similar source that you would consider to be reputable by the guidelines provided by Wikipedia for source reliability? (which I've just read through to better understand Wikipedia's take on this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A crowd sourced website does not meet WP:MEDRS. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The platform in question has both user-generated content (a forum) and administration-generated content (a blog), and it's clear when you look at the source that it is not user-generated/crowd-sourced, but an article that has been produced by the administration of the site. I have reverted your edit, based on the fact that your reasoning for removing it does not conform with referenced guidelines in WP:MEDRS, as the source is provably not "crowd-sourced". Joel McLeod (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I have fixed the page. You need to understand WP:MEDRS or your experience here at Wikipedia will not be a pleasant one. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I have left a welcome note, and a reading suggestion on your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification on what the issue is, Roxy. The reasoning you provided initially was that the source was "crowd sourced", so forgive me for addressing the concern that you gave me directly with refutation. Now I am of the understanding that your reasoning for editing is because the nature the topic is medically-based, which requires enhanced prudence when sourcing compared to other material. So that my experience here at Wikpedia will be as far from unpleasant as possible, with minimal friction, would you be able to confirm that the reasoning for you edit is actually not relating to "crowd sourcing", but to greater strenuity when sourcing for medical topics (with reference to WP:MEDRS a number of times)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

CMTBard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Category Consumer Fraud on Homeopathy

Hello Mr. Roxy, I'm looking for the discussion on the Homeopathy talk page where it was established that the use of Category Consumer Fraud was appropriate and can't find it. I actually looked for it before doing my edit and what I did find was the FAQ that I included in my edit summary. And now I looked some more, still can't find it. BTW, while I do agree, personally, that homeopathy is quackery and, in many cases, fraudulent, I came to the conclusion (based on that FAQ page) that the category isn't appropriate. If could be so kind to point to me where this was discussed, I would much appreciate it. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That link has nothing to do with homeopathy, it is about FAQs Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I had placed things the wrong way around. Sorry about that. Fixed it now. Either way, the link was right on my edit summary, which you should have considered before reverting. And you didn't answer my question. VdSV9•♫ 13:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t read your edsum. Content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It does, and I'm not trying to discuss content, I am going from the assumption that you claim this has already been discussed, and asking you where this discussion happened. In your edit summary, you wrote Return established cat. I interpreted this as meaning that there had been some prior discussion where this had been, well, established. So, going back to my initial comment here, I'm asking you to show me where it was established. Or is my interpretation of your edit summary wrong? If so, can you clarify, please? VdSV9•♫ 14:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The words "Health fraud" are contained in the article. Article content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that the words "health fraud" are contained in the article, that's not what I asked. Look, I don't like to assume things, but it really looks like you're avoiding my question. Take your time, but please answer. What did you mean by "established cat"? Where has this been established in the discussion history of the article? Or are you claiming that since these words are contained in the article this means the category in "established"? If so, that's not a valid argument. Are you aware of the past discussions that resulted in the FAQ I mentioned earlier? Are you taking this into account? I really think we're on the same side here where science is concerned, but I'm looking for a resolution based on WP policy and past discussions, and I don't feel like your answers so far have been very satisfying.VdSV9•♫ 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@VdSV9: This editor edit warred on cupping therapy over that category too. He only stopped when I threatened to report him. Roxy, as I've told you before, this editing pattern is disruptive. Show sources and discuss content, please. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Vineyard Beverly Hills

Roxy, I have left a comment on the talk page of this article for you to respond to. Textorus (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, I have posted this dispute for review at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Textorus (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, a Third Opinion has been posted on the talk page of this article, which supports my edit. I have also posted a question for you on that talk page. Textorus (talk)

Your link above is not helpful at all. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not helpful" but my request for a third opinion was removed from the Active Disagreements list by @Work permit:, per standard procedure, after he responded on the talk page of the TVBH article. You can see this on the "View History" tab of the Third Opinion page. Textorus (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to link to the 3O request itself, rather than some policy page which wasn't helpful. I know what a third opinion is, but it's moot now anyway. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's what I just told you, Roxy. I did indeed link to the location of the request itself, which was only one line - which you can view via the

1. Talk:B. R. Ambedkar § One Discussion. Disagreement over relevance of extension of the speech or not. (it's over 3 days , no one replied after my response). article history over there. But apparently, by the time you followed my link, Work permit had already deleted the request, as is their standard practice once a request has been fulfilled. And now let's have an end of all this and go our separate ways. Textorus (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

ROXY - What on earth is wrong with you? You just reverted me AGAIN. After you just got through saying on the talk page of TVBH that you "accepted the outcome" of the WP:3O comments, and on this talk page here, you said "the point is moot now." This is ridiculous, and your action just contradicted your own words. I'm going to bed now but for sure I will be going to Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

..and the page has now been protected against your editwarring. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Platform restriction

Hi Roxy, RE adding the link UFTmachine.com, you declined the link due to "works best on Chrome and Safari". This is old text and it does work on most browsers now including Firefox. So, I will remove this text. Thanks. VideoCTO (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Which text will you be removing VideoCTO?. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed all references to browser support limitations. It was in two areas, now removed. VideoCTO (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are talking about, what text have you removed, can you provide a diff? You do not appear to have removed any text? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, I was speaking about my editing of the UFTmachine.com website. I removed the out of date offending text from this site. So there is no diff to provide. FYI, the suggested text for inclusion in the "External links" section is: [URL:Universe Fine-Tuning Machine] Learn about and simulate six of nature's fundamental constants. For STEM students and physics enthusiasts." Hope this clears up any confusion... VideoCTO (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:VideoCTO and uftmachine.com spam --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted short description.

Hi Roxy, I have no problem with a sort description being improved, but deleting does not help get them done. If you know a better short description for fiber, please add it to the article. It does not have to be perfect, just better. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm afraid that the wiki style of short description doesn't work very well for "fibre" in that a fibre cannot be adequately defined in the short description format required by wikipedia. The closest you can reasonably get is describing a substance "very significantly longer than it is wide"; but a stalk of wheat fits, as does a blade of grass. neither are fibres. I believe it better to have no description at all rather than an inadequate one that is wrong, particularly as the article itself isn't that bad. If we can find a reasonable short descrip[tion then I'm all for it, but I haven't come across one in a lifetime in the textile industry. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Hello! I see you reverted my edit in the intro. I did so because the claim of falsehood requires a citation or some kind of source. Can you provide one? I’m happy to look at the source! Thanks. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC) PS I hope your dog’s health has improved. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

the sources are in the article and the lead, even though they aren’t necessary in the lead. The real Roxy died three year ago, she was wonderful, thank you for asking. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Why did you remove my edits on the Osteopathy page without explanation? Golan1911 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Rayon

Hello Roxy, you just reverted my edit on rayon, explaining that the source is unreliable being a blog.
I sincerely thank you for your vigilance.
Wikipedia policies can accept blog references in a number of circumstances (Please refer to Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources). I think such circumstances apply in this case:

• it is hosted by wordpress and it is called blog, yes, but it is run by a reputable entity, the Moroccan artisans association Anou. They have their own website The Anou
• they are supported by the British Council The Anou Residency
• the text shows that they have done serious research
• it has not been contested by anyone, and there is no other reference arguing the contrary, except for shops with vested interests

I hope you find that these credentials are enough to include the referenced edit, it is relevant to a lot of people. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I did some work with the British Council in Rabat many years ago. Cactus rayon is something I've never heard of however, and sourcing it to a blog is certainly not acceptable. It is also totally undue for the lead, even if you could find a reliable source. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

well, it is not "cactus rayon". They are selling standard cellulose rayon imported from different places, but they are labelling it "cactus silk" pretending it is made by hand by Berber women. It is a clear case of mislabelling, and it fits perfectly in the corresponding existing section of the article called precisely "mislabelling". If you think this is undue, you should eliminate the whole "mislabelling" section.

As for the source, I insist, wikipedia policies do allow blogs as references in certain circumstances, so the debate is not whether blogs are acceptable, the debate is whether those circumstances apply. If you disagree with wikipedia policies you should try to change the policy, not just enforce your own idea.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to learn to indent your posts on Talk pages when responding to somebody, using colons. I have done it for you this time. As regards your proposal to use a blog for sourcing, my answer is no, according to our P&G. Please make any further comments at the Rayon Talk page, so that other interested editors can see discussion related to the article. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Describing the qualifications of Stamets

Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Worried about why my content

Hello Mr. Roxy. I've added a description about artesunate on 11:12, 18 August 2019. The content I added was with citation. Could you please tell me why my revision is innaccurate, thanks. the content is :

 invented by Liu Xu in 1977.

your reference doesn’t support your edit. She didn’t invent artesunate. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Hi, in page 20 of this book, Chapter C: Artesunate, it shows the inventor of artesunate is Liu Xu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Then the book is wrong. She did not "invent" Artesunate Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you made me confused. Liu Xu is the inventor of Artesunate actually, he had received several prize due to his invention and, of course, the National Invention Patent. Or you means I need use another word, like synthesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the word "invent" does not mean what you think it means, perhaps the word "discover" is what you want? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, discover is talking about something that is already exist and somebody find it, for example, Artemisinin is discovered by Youyou TU. Invent means someone create something. Actually Artesnate is a synthesized drug and the person who find the way to make it is Liu Xu. Artesnate had a patent number in China (Patent No ZL85100781.3), only an "invention" could be authorized a patent number. Maybe "discover" didnot suit for Xu's achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain yourself

Exactly which part of my edit do you think the notion of verifiability applies to? Sthatdc (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All of it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Very amusing. Exactly what claim did I introduce to the article that was not verifiable? Sthatdc (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I've gotten jaded.

I came across an example of intolerable usage of, and I hesitate to call it a word, "gotten", in an article earlier today. It is still there.

What have I become? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And let's not even think about the rise of "bias" to mean "biased". Alexbrn (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was just me, but you're the second person to note that this week, -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

WTF, dude?

Let Jimbo decide what he wants on his talk page. María Sefidari is the chair of the WMF board. Jimbo is on the board. Bitter Oil (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off from this page.Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Was he a troll? Didn't seem to be ... Jimbo's t/p allows for a weird variety of stuff to be housed and I didn't think that the request was necessarily, in bad-faith. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bitter Oil: Jimbo already inappropriately involves himself regarding articles about people he knows. If you have no conflict of interest regarding the subject, why bring it up to someone that does? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent has removed it again, with a cogent edit summary.[13] Kindly do not edit war further to reinsert it, or you're likely to be blocked. Bitter Oil, you showed enough poor judgment in putting it on Jimbo's page in the first place, and the reason you give above ("María Sefidari is the chair of the WMF board. Jimbo is on the board.") is amazing. You have been disinvited from this page, so if you want to answer me, please come to my own page. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Cast-iron cookware

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --ɱ (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source. Even if I'm wrong with my facts in the article, that's not even the issue now. You haven't discussed the facts with sources, only mocking and insulting me. Why? ɱ (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy’s reply at ani covers it. I doubt I’ll bother to reply there further. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You're a dog!

...so you should come play with the rest of the dogs! KillerChihuahua 16:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add other editors, unless they specifically ask you to do so. thanks much. KillerChihuahua 19:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it's rude. KillerChihuahua 20:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

How is it rude? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It is rude to add anyone to a group or page unless they've asked, especially a humorous group. They may not be amused. They may be insulted. They may object to being associated with the others in the group. They may have other objections. The point is, it should be their decision. Not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. It would be like signing someone up to a group on FaceBook without permission - you simply don't do it. It's rude. I don't know how to make it any more clear. KillerChihuahua 20:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it at all. JD has left the project, but adding him to a group of comedy dogs would be something he'd like. Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so, but in all the time he was here, he didn't add himself. KillerChihuahua 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Careful, Roxy, Jimbo may block you[14] and then you'll have to take him to RFAR.[15] A lot of work, all told. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

If he does, I'll get my old mate, Tony Blair, to have a few words with him. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can't you just give it up and be a decent person? What problems do you have personally that cause you to be insulting an condescending to other editors here? Honestly, it's easy to give it up. Be humble enough to admit that you're doing it, (obviously you are being told this from many other editors!), that it's not something a smart dignified person should do and JUST STOP! You're obviously smart and can figure out why you're doing it. So do so, figure out what the root problem is driving your behavior, and pledge to do something about it! Keizers (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Learn to format your posts on Talk pages using colons, this is only polite. Now fuck off from this page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am rolling back your continuous edits as vandalism. Cite sources and DO NOT remove cited information without any sources to back your changes up. If you're not sure about the truthfulness of the already-in-place sources, dispute it on the talk page and do not edit war. ɱ (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You've been an editor for long enough. I won't accept lazy edit summaries of "this isn't true" to remove what I found in multiple sources to be factual. ɱ (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll say it now, you're going to look silly if you carry on with this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, before this gets archived, that they did look silly. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, care to explain your reasoning as to why you reverted my edits on the Bitchute page? I gave a reasonable explanation for the edits in my edit summary and you reverted them with no explanation at all. I think I at least deserve a reason as to why you think my edits are invalid and why you reverted to the old version of the article, which in my opinion, contains irrelevant information. 139.62.82.100 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You removed sourced content, I merely repaired your damage. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Content dispute on Ivar Lovaas. I quoted a comment that mentioned you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am following that discussion, but thanks. You can see what I think of the op if you look two topics up this page! Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

you're cute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.120.41.222 (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many would disagree. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy

I think your short description for pulsed electromagnetic field therapy risks breaking WP:NPOV. There's clearly quite weak evidence for this being effective, and several applications are definitely unapproved for lack of proof of effectiveness, but a blanket label of "bogus" for the whole thing seems too much, unless you have a high-quality cite to back this up.

Note that labelling it as a "medical therapy" does not imply approval as effective; there are lots of other medical treatments with weak, at best, evidence for efficacy. -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit restores NPOV. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:13, 15 October 2019

(UTC)

I disagree, and will therefore take this to the article talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I fully support such a move. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see the discussion for RF resonant cavity thruster

Please refer to the RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? & the Epistemology sections at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster. Peaceray (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also suggesting that we use cold fusion as a model there. Peaceray (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to RF resonant cavity thruster, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I do not place this lightly. I reverted what I consider to be edit warring. I have invited you by edit summary & on your user talk page to this article's talk page & you have chosen not to get consensus there. Peaceray (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You’ve been reverted, and not by me. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is a diversionary tactic (please see red herring). Just because another editor reverted my edit does not excuse you from the WP:CONSENSUS policy. You have not addressed why you chose not to discuss this on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nor does your behaviour excuse you from BRD, so I'll keep going to the status quo ante until a proper consensus is formed. It is really difficult to take seriously your badly spelled claim. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Two things

• First, I apologize for my spelling. Editing in the desktop version on an iPhone on the bus or train is not conducive to proper spelling. That is the reason why I shy away from anything but semi-automated edits for articles at that time. Hopefully when I edit on a real keyboard rather than a virtual keyboard, I am a bit less prone to spelling & grammar errors.
• Second, WP:BRD states "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." I believe that if you examine my edits, you will find that I am generally in accord with BRD. I, myself, tend to turn to the talk pages when reverted, especially when asked or alerted. I find the back & forth of edit-warring to be unnecessarily contentious, tedious, & generally unproductive. I believe it is better to hash it out on the talk page rather than expose the general reader to it.

Peaceray (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are aware that BRD respects the status quo ante? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of status quo ante. When you reverted to these edits, you reverted to a version that did not exist before 2019-10-15. Personally, I think that we should go back to JzG's version of 2019-09-30. Peaceray (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest that you have commented on at the user's talk page. The thread is Karldmartini. Thank you. —-Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: WhenDatRoyalBlink

FYI, we're dealing with an LTA here; no amount of warnings would deter him so please don't feed the troll. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't provide any clear context. I was referring to this troll who has been relentlessly disrupting the project for quite some time. It's useless to leave a warning or two as he obviously is disregarding such messages and is merrily taunting and issuing threats towards those who stand in his way, ourselves included. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh, a vandal gets a warning. It's easy to do, and he's been blocked. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather RBI and not even leave a single word at his userspace pages. It's a waste of time compared to just reporting the trolls in question. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Flemings Mayfair

I just came across this article, which you did some helpful cleaning up on some time back; and I'm having real trouble actually proving it's in any way notable. I can't find a mention of it in the London Encyclopedia or the Survey of London, and that's a major red flag. It implies that for much of its history it would have been known under a different name. The question is - what? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lots of sources of old refer to it as just "Flemings Hotel" e.g. this from 1919[16]. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've got nuthin I'm afraid. I just did some cleaning up. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Alternative cancer treatment

Hi Roxy the dog, I saw you reverted a student's edit on Alternative cancer treatment. I left them some feedback encouraging them to make smaller edits and discuss on the talk page first what their intentions are. Could you be more specific on what the problem was with their editing though? Your edit summary was somewhat vague. This will help me leave more specific feedback. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's very diplomatically expressed. It's late here, I'll open a section on the article Talk page in the morning. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 00:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that Doc James is helping at the article and the Talk page. Any input from me at the moment would be superfluous, though I watch the page. I also commented at the students talk page, and pointed out the reason for my revert, and I dont think that edsum is vague at all! -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 09:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Himalayan salt

Hi Roxy, I saw that updates which have been made by me on October, 25th has been removed. I would like to ask what was the reason of removal these changes. All updates were made based on the polish version and supported with appropriate references. I would be grateful for feedback. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJetka (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @TJetka: Your edits added un-sourced or poorly-sourced content (in some but not all cases) with the goal of refuting health benefits of Himalayan salt. You cited pl-wiki once. You added a link to an image that doesn't exist. I suspect that the sources cited, even if reliable, don't support your assertions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I was very pleased with my edit, and remain so. I'm sorry about the edsum, which says "Ot an improvement", it should have said "Not an improvement" -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 17:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme

See WP:ANI § Chronic Lyme Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I am having a vision, I forsee a POVWarrior out to make sure the Chronic Lyme article reflects their clearly and obviously a disease, rather than the scientific consensus... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If I have interpreted your grammatically confused sentence correctly, it could not be further from the truth. Sthatdc (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Odd, that makes a change. Usually its people wanting to source woo and over-fluff articles with material from dubious publications. (I get the above reads confused, I was in a hurry and I think I left out some words mid-sentence. And now I cant remember what they were going to be). Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have had that on my watchlist for ages. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Chill...

You've reached the WP:3RR limit on your edit war at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, and the discussion has gone beyond the useful limit. I would recommend backing down. It would be a shame to have to block someone over something so inconsequential. Please desist. --Jayron32 14:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Best to stop now and let the system work. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gem fr reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). I have to admit that I lost my cool when I saw repeated attempts to retain wrong information while hatting the correction. One shouldn't use templates to remove one side of a content dispute. That being said, the answer to edit warring is not edit warring right back, and I shouldn't have done that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That's right guys: you need to remain chilled - chilled as microwaved ice. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I see what you did there. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry. the microwaves are everywhere. I feel warmer already. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)