User talk:Roxy the dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Polite warning re: reverts at G. Edward Griffin[edit]

If you continue to revert the corrections of the BLP violation, you risk being blocked. AtsmeConsult 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I hope you haven't forgetten the following: [1]. Since Griffin involves pseudoscience, it appears you may be violating your sanction. <--my apologies for misunderstanding the notices as being an actual sanction. I have consulted with Callanecc to confirm or advise otherwise. Thank you. AtsmeConsult 12:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, how familiar are you with what WP:BLP actually says? The policy does not say that we have to remove anything which doesn't fit the subject's preferred image of themselves. It says We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Consequently, I cannot understand why you reverted Roxy's edit - which more closely followed the higher-quality, independent sources - whilst claiming that you were enforcing BLP. bobrayner (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Bobrayner, I am very familiar with BLP policy, but it doesn't appear the editors who are reverting my corrections of BLP violations are even the least bit familiar. Please read WP:NPOV, and you will find the correct answers to your question. For convenience sake, I will provide some of the relevant information defining one of the three core contents of WP:BLP; i.e., NPOV:

  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
  • Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
  • Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

Roxy's reverts resulted in a BLP violation. AtsmeConsult 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roxy. The comment about the edit summary on the Griffin talk page didn't focus on article improvement. And I see that Atsme has said sorry. Such being the case, I've archived the section. This is in accordance with WP:TPO. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. Please, the interaction with Atsme belongs here, not on the article talk page. What article improvement is to be had? Please re-archive. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
When it is finished with, certainly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Being a generally uninvolved editor here, I'd have to agree with Srich here. Probably best to move the section to a talk page now rather than later. I do agree with you though that out of all the problem behaviors at the article, Atsme's "bull in a china shop" behavior appears most problematic, and is a relatively decent description of behavior I've been trying to pin down myself. Not sure how to help them out at this point though, otherwise I would have chimed in over at their talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wishes for prosperity and happiness....[edit]

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg

Arbcom[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talkcontribs) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Gosh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for you...[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is going to make no difference at all. A new category of Pseudoscience by new rules that is already Pseudoscience by the old rules. Daft. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

National Report[edit]

Greetings Roxy the dog,

Forgive me as I am for the first time doing my best to work with Wikipedia. You posted a comment to the National Report talk page which I have copied for your reference. "If I could figure out what you wanted, perhaps I could help. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)" -- With the holidays over I need to continue work on the National Report Wiki page. The company National Report objected to the merger of Paul Horner's page with the NR page on November 22, 2014. Horner appears to have posted changes or added data to the page that made it appear as a promotion of Mr. Horner, and some of that information was not true. Some changes have been made to correct this which we are satisfied with. We only became aware of the merger and content posted previously by Mr. Horner, last month.

What the company would like to see included on the page is a history and background of the company as well as including additional information on our writers. To accomplish this I would like your help. I have no experience on Wikipedia and need to know how to move forward. To help clarify for me what needs to be done my question is how to submit changes. Do I need to submit the data with references to be verified in the Wikipedia format? In other words does it need to look like the finished Wikipedia page currently up, or do I submit just data & links for verification?

Once I know how to submit data properly I can continue. The information the company would like to see is greatly historical in nature. Things like... how the company was formed, who is responsible for its founding, when it went online, what the company's mission was and how that changed with time to present day. I would greatly appreciate any assistance here since much of what I read and see here is beyond anything I've done before.

One other thing I was reading about a few minutes ago was concerning a block that was placed on me because my company work uses a VPN for security reasons. The most recent massacre at Charlie Hebdo is why all business related traffic goes through a VPN service. At present the IP address I'm on to post this message is linked to my home computer since the block occurred. Clearly I have good cause for concern since my actual IP address can be traced back to my home.

Thank you, Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. Firstly, you are not banned, or blocked, and you never have been, I think you misinterpreted some thing somewhere.
I see there has been some activity on your Talk page, and there are lots of useful links to help you come to terms with the wikipedia experience. It is true that anybody can edit wikipedia, but we do have WP:PAG within which you are obliged to work. My best advice is to follow the advice of user:jytdog who appears to have an endless amount of patience putting people straight, and helping them to find a positive experience at wikipedia. I see you are already discussing COI issues - well done. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)