User talk:Roxy the dog

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


Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda stuff[edit]

Best not to revert when another party adds content in violation of the sanctions. No, make that "best not to revert especially when the other party adds content in violation of the sanctions." By keeping your own nose clean the other party's misconduct is clearer, rather than turning it into a back-and-forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so bloody angry ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can imagine. John's administration of the article has been considerably sub-optimal, but unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about it. I've tried to get other admins to join in and none are willing. But you don't want to give any excuses to block you. Like my dear sainted mother often said, "life isn't always fair." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have decided on a new strategy for tonight. I shall now turn off the computer and go and watch MOTD. Bye. _Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As a dog, it's best not to have an argument on the talk page of someone who has you on a short leash. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting Chopra[edit]

[Inappropriate comments deleted.] Manul 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, check your email. Manul 00:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this sounds a big load of hookum, and borders on WP:OUTING as well. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] (second paragraph) :) And no this is not WP:OUTING. Please read Tumbleman's OWN post signing his comment with his real name [2]. I can give you loads more diffs, check his talk-page he admitted to being that person. Goblin Face (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 blocked for a month[edit]

That looks suspiciously likely punishment not preventative precaution to me. Disgusting. I am glad you thought along the same lines. Greglocock (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ARB-PS[edit]

--Incorrectly placed sanctions notice removed. . Please try to learn some of the policies and guidelines associated with editing wikipedia - You should include WP:CIR in your reading list.--

  • It was not incorrectly placed, I have confirmed from a few and got to know that the logged notification are valid until next year whenever they have been logged. I wasn't aware about previous pre-May 2014 notifications but those that are logged without having any prior visibility in the edit filter log are still valid. Hope I have cleared any remaining misunderstanding. Bladesmulti (talk)

Just a formality, see [3]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already had a couple of these, to which topic does this one refer? By the way, "minimise" is incorrectly spelled on that template.-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find, see[4] Bladesmulti (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"I couldn't find"? You warned Roxy the dog, but you don't even know why you warned Roxy the dog? Competence is required. If you don't know what you're doing, or if you don't know why, you should step aside and let others edit. bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Bobrayner.. Roxy the dog said that he was recently reminded,(had couple of these) he wasn't actually serious though(as he already knows the subject) and I just showed him a link that I couldn't find that where he had been alerted. Now read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts carefully. Every alert expires in 12 months and that's something I had already explained on the talk page of John, but you are still not getting it. The reason is not only your incompetence but also minimal knowledge about the policies. You can just avoid this kind of busibody behaviour here. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Minor clarification ~~
Bladesmulti, you explicitly stated in the diff you cited that "Roxy the dog was alerted about those sanctions about 12 months ago", which is inconsistent with your "couldn't find" statement above. I'm curious as to how you got the idea that alerts need to be renewed every 12 months. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You can read my reply to Bobrayner. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not aware that alerts expired after a year, so technically you were correct in issuing the alert. It strains credulity, however, that you thought Roxy was unaware of ARBPS and required an alert, given that you and he have previously exchanged comments on precisely this subject.[5] One is tempted to think there may have been a non-constructive motive to your alert but I will assume good faith that you simply forgot about your earlier conversations. (By the way, referring to another editor as a "busybody" isn't especially helpful.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, Blades: I've already had a couple of these, to which topic does this one refer? Please be kind enough to answer, Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Subjects include Alternative medicine, Acupuncture, Ayurveda, Xenoglossy where you have recently contributed. That's why I was also kidding when I had linked to your talk history and refrained from answering about the topics. Obviously you are aware about their scope and the link that describes the formality, below the template. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not a great idea to "kid" like this, especially in a contentious area. Just say exactly what you mean, nothing more, nothing less. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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: [6]. 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)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg