User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 3

ARB-PS

--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 [1]. 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[2] 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 busybody 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.[3] 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 and 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

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

Also, I hope you haven't forgetten the following: [4]. 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. Atsme☯^Consult 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. Atsme☯^Consult 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)

Arbcom

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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

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)

Rolling back problematic edits

Just as an FYI - it's probably best not to use the rollback tool at all in situations where you would want to leave an edit summary. I know it can be a bit of a nuisance when an editor has made consecutive dubious edits, but it's worth the extra clicks to leave a descriptive edit summary. (That said, I've gone ahead and blocked the IP editor, undone his edits, and semiprotected alternative cancer treatments, based on his declared intent to continue to edit war, the personal attacks he was using in his edit summaries, and the fact that in his most recent incarnation he was evading an existing block on the IP he was using earlier in the day.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I wouldn't normally do it that way - not sure what came over me. I've rarely used it, normally only when using STiki. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I saw that you immediately left an explanation on the article's talk page, so it's not like you were doing a "drive-by". (The other option in that situation – I know I've mis-clicked the rollback button a few times over the years – is to immediately roll back your own edit, and then make the revert the 'right' way. If you make the edits are back-to-back like that, it only counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. And that way you can leave the edit summary that you want.) It's only potentially problematic if you happen to hit a ruleslawyer – which tends to happen all too often in the fringe science/medicine areas, unfortunately – and they want to use your 'abuse' of rollback to muddy the waters on a noticeboard. Carry on, and clear sailing! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

CAM

Hi Roxy. Could you please be more specific than "No"? Thanks. :-) CAM redirects to Alternative medicine (as it should, in my opinion). My understanding is that the term "complementary and alternative," like "integrative," usually acts as a euphemism describing alternative medicine, and it's typically better to be more straightforward. Sunrise (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct of course, I was getting my euphemisms mixed and shouldn't edit when not absolutely free of the influence of alcohol. If you haven't sorted it out, I will. Thank you for pointing this out to me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries! Sunrise (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, Roxy the dog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Templating warning

In the future, please read what editors write before disruptively placing templates on their talk page. This statement is false: "Hi. I was looking at Intelligent Design I saw your comments on Cla68's talk page regarding the Pseudoscience Arbcom warning, and as you have edited the ID page yourself, I thought I'd square the circle so to speak, and issue you with a warning." I have never left an edit on Cla68's talk page. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you removed the correctly placed warning. That's OK, as it acknowledges that you have seen it. My error regarding CLA68's Talk page is of course irrelevant to the DS warning I issued. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the new system correctly, Roxy, we're supposed to just type

{{subst:alert|__}}~~~~

where "__" is replaced with the designated abbreviation for the subject area (ie, "cc" was assigned to "climage change"). That will trigger a filter so the server records the alert, which is only good for 12 months. The person who GETS the alert deserves protection from harassment via frequent alerts, and that's where the server is a big help.... no one should suffer being alerted more than 1x per year. If you use the template correctly on a user who has not previously been alerted a pink box should appear so you can double check for past alerts. You can get in trouble if you double-alert in under 12 months without checking first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about NewsAndEventsGuy ! I just copied a warning from another page and put my signature on it. Did I do something I shouldn't have? Pink boxes ring other bells, but I haven't seen one on wikipedia! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DS alerts have secret stuff code/content in them, that get logged. This is important, as arbcom requires that people be notified (no more than once per year) so that if they take bad action that later lands them in arbitration enforcement or the like, they were definitely warned. so you have to use the template itself, not just copy/paste the box. The whole set of relevant templates is here: Template:DS. The User Talk page one is here Template:Ds/alert Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I did it wrong then? Damn. I didn't copy / paste the box, but used markup that I copied/pasted. is that the same? do I have to go round undoing and apologising?-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, that trickier. i don't know and would be guessing. you can ask at the Talk page for the Ds/alert template; folks there know and can tell you! Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big deal and I wouldn't bother apologizing. To give a DS alert, do just what I already said - type

{{subst:alert|__}}~~~~

and replace the blank with one of the designated abbreviations at the template page. I keep that text (and a lot of other frequently used stuff) at the top of my sandbox. Take a peek if you want. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I will, tomorrow when alert. And thank you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Use caution so you aren't seen as using these to harrass or intimidate. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wishes for prosperity and happiness....

Just for you...

File:Toblerone Bars.jpg

Atsme has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I would have preferred a half-full packet, but to reciprocate, I heard that chocolate reduces the risk of strokes.

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I've Gone Native ...

I'm actually excited about knowing the result of a close that is ongoing. omg. what has happened to me. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The fix is in. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Litmus Paper ... Dah Dah Daaaah. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Now all that needs to happen is for all the !keep voters to be indef'd and this place would be much improved ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Help untangling knot requested

Roxy, you and I are two of the three eds who contributed to a tangle that I am trying to un-do. The other is Andrew. Please join us at Andrew's talk page, where I have asked permission to tweak the thread in a way that would erase your contrib. Whether you consent or oppose, please add your reply to the thread at Andrew's page, so its all in one place per WP:MULTI. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Rtd. I just wanted to let you know that this just occurred so you have a full six months protection for the article. I have seen requests take days before a response so this is a great deal. Now that doesn't mean that the nonsense will come to a complete stop. You may get users who have made enough edits to be confirmed who make the same kind of edits. If that happens make sure to start a thread on the talk page (as you have done in the past regarding other things to do with this person) and proceed from there. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

COI

fwiw, having been subjected to hounding, i find this to be "bad dog" behavior. Please don't hound anybody, for anything. If you really believe there is a COI issue, bring a case to COIN, and guide it to resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, jytdog,for pointing this out. It is very difficult for me to understand how such a conflicted SPA is allowed to continue without a broadly construed fringe topic lifetime ban. I deny any hounding though. M8 knows what I think, and my ad hoc comments to him are at least consistent in approach. I do take care not to hound, any appearance of hounding is caused by us having similar interests, me just because I dislike fraud, and him due to pecuniary interests. What surprises me is that you don,t appear to see the problem in the same terms. I don't understand that. Regarding COIN, I don't feel I have the skill, or ability to even bring and guide anything to any of the drama boards, let alone this one. Methinks he doth protest too much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

i appreciate your response, i do. Bringing up a behavioral issue (like COI) repeatedly is hounding; much better to use article Talk pages to focus on content and sources (comment on content, not contributor). Bringing a case at COIN is not that hard! you have to fill in a couple of blanks, and present the reasons that you think there is a COI. I am not ~sure~ there is a COI with alt-med practitioners. What they do is legal - they need a license to practice, in most states, as far as I know. And I don't know any legal profession where we forbid professionals from writing about their field. Lawyers can write about law; doctors can write about medicine, etc. You see my point there? That is the "no COI per se" side that I see (it would be different if a lawyer wrote about her own cases or practice, or a doctor wrote about his medical practice... but M8 is not doing that.) On the "yep there is a COI" side, is the whole FRINGE nature of the underlying theory, and the FRINGE nature of some claims made for what acu can do. That makes it... funky to have a practitioner writing about that, as one can see that he or she would have an interest in making the field more legitimate, than MEDRS sources say it is. The whole thing is complicated in that (in my view) sometimes the anti-Quack editors make statements that are too general and fail NPOV, and even i have pushed back against that. So M8 has had ~some~ gripes that are valid in my view. Most importantly, the community hasn't given a clear opinion on this - we need a better RfC that actually gets closed. So there you go. I've been debating launching that RfC myself at COIN. Very hard to write a truly neutral one. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable talking about Middle 8 without him knowing. I suspect he stalks, and that isn't a problem at all, but just in case. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

good on you. i hope in any case that what i wrote made sense. thanks for asking. always good to talk with you. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice you are comparing apples with oranges when you try to compare Docs writing about medicine, and quacks writing about their quackery of choice - IYSWIM? So no, but well sort of, well, kinda absolutely not, sorta thing. I'll respond a little more when I have thought about it properly, and give a less knee-jerk reaction. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

thoughtful dog. good dog! Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) adds:

• Something to consider: Alternative Medicine#Conflicts of interest.
• This blog post from Ernst may also be pertinent, esp.

  There is no question in my mind that creeds can represent an even more powerful conflict of interest than financial matters.
  
  Moreover, this belief is indivisibly intertwined with existential issues. In alternative medicine, there may not be huge amounts of money at stake but practitioners’ livelihoods are perceived to be at risk. If an acupuncturist, for instance, argues in favour of his therapy, he also consciously or sub-consciously is trying to protect his income.
  
  Some might say that this not different from conventional medicine, but I disagree: if we take away one specific therapy from a doctor because it turns out to be useless or unsafe, he will be able to use another one; if we take the acupuncture needle away from an acupuncturist, we have deprived him of his livelihood.

Alexbrn (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

as for the first bit there, i agree that WP:ADVOCACY is a corrupting influence in WP. We distinguish between advocacy and COI in WP. The second part syncs with what i wrote above on the "yep there is a COI" side. (on the other hand, there is no end to where things go, when you start flinging around accusations of COI - i am sure you are well aware of claims that the FDA and the medical establishment are in the pocket of pharma and that clinical trials funded by pharma come out with more positive outcomes than independently funded ones) A widely-publicized RfC on this issue would be interesting, for sure. I have no idea how it would come out, but i reckon it would become messy, pretty fast. Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Will you guys please stop giving me things to think about! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

“yep there is a COI side” ← seems a reasonable statement. What we sometimes hear – a definite assertion that there is no COI aspect in such cases – is, I think, not reasonable. I find the skeptical commentary on this quite persuasive and it gives a toehold in sources; I don't know if there's any really strong RS on this topic however. Previously, arbcom has held certain types of creed-driven editing to be problematic - e.g. from anthroposophists and scientologists, though there was more to it than just COI for the scientology case, for sure.

In general I think the meta-discussion which you're leading elsewhere is also very useful and have come to agree that pursuing COI on WP is probably futile. Much better to concentrate on the NPOV aspect. So if an editor makes a series of "unidirectional" mistakes in favour of a POV this is suggestive of a problem. If that editor had a potential COI that too might be suggestive evidence in support of an explanation, but the real problem that can be examined and decided on WP would be the NPOV problem in the realm of editing. We can know what editors have done on Wikpedia; we can't realistically know that they do in real life or probe their thought processes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(Add) Another aspect here which niggles, is that among the WT:MED crew there is a kind of esprit de corps whereby (it is sometimes said) members hold themselves to a particularly high standard when it comes to COI. So when we have a medical topic where an editor's situation could be said to give rise to a "reasonable perception" of COI then I just think they should bloody well recuse themselves from that topic because (to use a phrase popular here in the UK in election season) it is "the right thing to do". Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

hm! first, please know that i really do think the question of whether alt-med practitioners have an inherent COI is live and interesting - I don't know what the right answer is and more importantly, the community doesn't know, and that without consensus on that, pursuing a claim of COI against any alt-med practitioner based on that alone, is going to be fruitless and becomes harrasment-y. I am so happy to hear you picking up on the NPOV thing. Applying that here, in my view Middle 8's edits generally are not wildly pro-acu - last i checked, he acknowledges that qi is pseudoscience and that we don't really know why it even could work, and that there are limits to what we can say that acu can do, unlike more aggressive pro-acu editors in the fray. I think looking at his diffs as a whole it would be harder to successfully bring an NPOV case against him than others. That is all based on my memory of looking carefully at what was going on, back when I was involved in the acu article. I may be remembering wrong and there may be lots of stuff I am not aware of. interesting note about ProjectMed editors recusing themselves. I don't know (and i really don't) if we have such specialized articles on acu (like we have scads of articles on various drugs, medical devices, etc, any one of which someone at ProjectMed may have a COI) Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better stated that in WT:MED, editors should hold themselves to a high standard. I hope they generally do! The one weakness with the NPOV approach to combating advocacy is that sometimes WP:CPUSHing can be done very subtly in a way which is difficult to prosecute (and I thinking in particular of an area away from M8 / altmed now). I am fairly sure that in some articles there are teams of coordinating editors who not only advocate for their interests but who are smart enough to do it ever-so-slowly and incrementally, so that the effort of documenting a case against them would be so great as to be impractical. But then there are those who say the idea that Wikipedia can defend against concerted POV-pushing is a fond fantasy anyway! Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

yep. this is what people say about me, too. advocacy and sophisticated editors with a COI are some of the hardest problems we have in WP... as are editors who have concerns about that and hound people about it, instead of bringing carefully thought out cases to appropriate forums. it is hard, all around. and the integrity of WP is at stake, on the level of content, and on the level of what kind of behavior we encourage/allow or do not encourage/forbid. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think it is really important to avoid drawing a parallel between the conspiracism which labels (for example) any non-negative edit to a corporate article as a "tell" of a corporate shill, and legitimate concerns about systematic manipulation of content. I know that's to invite a charge of it all being a matter of one's POV which is which, but that's just lazy relativism. I suppose IRL one of the antidotes to COI is transparency. But on WP (as in most places on the 'net), anonymity is prized - which works in completely the opposite direction. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

with that i agree 100% - as you know better than i we have to uphold the mainstream against the FRINGE constantly. the problematic part is the surface similarity of the claims. we have to be as rigorous bringing an accusation of COI/GANG/systemtic-NPOV-violations as we are with providing sources for health-content. Rigor is the answer, and sloppy thinking/shoot-from-the-hip claims, are the problem, from the foundation up. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You know the subject of the OP in this thread? I think I'll have to change my plea to guilty as charged M'Lud. and not just with M8, but other examples could be found by the stupidly diligent, against other trigger eds. Oh dear me. I'm not very comfortable with this, because i hadn't seen it that way previously. This is partly an after beer revelation - not sure what to do next. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

By 23:20 I'd have thought you'd be onto the single malt! ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

well do tell, and please ping him when you do.Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? the issue in this case is specifically my own behaviour, wp:hound. M8's COI remains, but WP:HOUND prevents me from pointing it out at convenient opportunities, so I'll stop. I've already notified him about this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

and on that subject, as well as looking at WP:COI, perhaps WP:CIR should come into play too. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry, you 'are the subject of this thread, Roxy. my bad. So you are notified. :) So - tell me your thinking, please! Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My thinking? You really don't want to know.

I haven't behaved differently here than anywhere else on teh internetz, or real life. I once took a lovely expensively produced leaflet handed to me by a Reiki master, and ripped it into useful firelighting material, explaining to him that shite like his leaflet is always good for lighting fires. Advocates of woo do not improve the project. COI advocates of woo' writing about their woo of choice do dot improve the project. COI and WP:CIR advocates of woo writing about their woo of choice do not improve the project.

So you'll be happy to know that my WP:HOUNDING days are over. It doesn't change how I feel though, and don't expect me to be circumspect if I make my position very clear, without breaking PAG.

(Waits for all my assumptions to be shown to be flawed)

ADDENDUM : I am grateful though, for the effort you guys are putting in to help clarify my thinking - but there are other more important things afoot, which you guys should prioritise far ahead of me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

roxy i love your spirit and the sense of humor you bring. on the other hand... i don't think it is a good thing for WP when anybody logs in, in this mode, and acts like this or this. this is not realistic, of course, but this and this is always good.  :) i wish there were a good image of "check your ax at the door" (showing a viking giving his ax to a somewhat scared coatcheck person) but i have never found one. of course, people don't do that, so we need our quackfighters. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jdog, and Alex. There is a lot to think about here with regard to COI, and as I hinted above, lots going on right now that needs attention. I've been monitoring various discussions and dramas that are ongoing, and learned about why Jdog has a COI statement. I have a question though. Has "The Litmus Paper" brought all of them out? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

sure! i don't know what paper is, sorry. what is it? Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Alex said that the COIDucks essay would bring out people of a certain pov like litmus paper, so it has acquired a new name. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

oh i see! i was over-involved at ANI recently and several of the editors i have upset over my editing career came, and found each other. the key thing that i see, that they have in common is that they don't like me and believe i am either conflicted or a jerk, or both. in any case the essay idea started there at ANI - see my !vote at the deletion discussion of the essay for the details of what happened, from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just changed my sig, in honour of this thread. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

and you just made me laugh, and hard. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering what the name change was about. I feel like I've actually seen an image like this somewhere (Gary Larson-esque maybe). I'm going to keep my eyes open for this now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject med

Orac has hacked my watchlist and reproduced it on his blog. Who should I report it to? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)........hi did you leave this message at the med talk page, if so I would suggest taking it to ANI..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ozzie, if my slightly terribly bad attempt at humour has not registered with you. I quite understand if you have deleted that comment from the med project board, (Just checked, you haven't). Its just that I was looking at Orac's blog post, linked in that thread, and the list of pseudoscientific therapies he has posted looks like my watch list. sorry. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

oh, i get it. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Median isn't the Message

Thought you might find this essay (PDF) of interest, if you haven't come across it already. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I think there may be more than one essay of that name, as that message does get around, doesn't it? I haven't seen that one, so thanks very much. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Socks?

I'm curious about your comment that you removed from Talk:Phoenix Global, did you mean Tabs and Wfmu could be socks? Wfmu appeared out of nowhere right after Tabs disappeared for no evident reason (he seemed really interested in the topic, so... and all of his edits were about that article). And then a bit later Wfmu says, "Not intereted in "duking it out", certainly not with Jeraphine G who seems a little prickly further up this page," referring to the section where I took apart Tabs' comments. Hmmmmmm. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

and Alloduckie, though I didn't look at the actual content of those edits. The DUCK rules here astonish me. It seems experts are allowed to decide on the flimsiest of behavioural evidence, and then there are superbeings called checkusers, who everybody is afeared of! My meh comment was because for the amount of sockpuppetry involved, if indeed it is, is actually not too serious, compared to many other cases. Jdog and yourself are obviously capable of doing whatever needs doing. Thanks for the enquiry, always willing to help. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine Gryphon ... um ... Are you a checkuser, perhaps? I'm too frightened to look. Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ernst acu

One really can't get this wrong and have both scientific literacy and editorial integrity.[5] Which is it for you? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi M8, thank you for the question, your comments will always be welcome here. I hope my ping calling you here worked the other day, but if it didn't, please look at the longest thread on this page, you weren't the subject, I was the subject, but you were, how can I put this ... mentioned? I apologise for my behavioural issues, they were not just with you, but I recognise it now, and I'll try harder.

I will not answer though, but instead ask you to consider the question in regard to your own behaviour as the question goes to the heart of my issue with you. Science has examined acu, and found it lacking in worth. Editorial integrity can mean a lot of things, as can claiming to be a scientist and an acupuncturist at the same time. You cannot be both, they are mutually exclusive. regards. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Viking Canid; no, ping didn't work, and they don't seem to be working well in general. Stalking -- generally no; I missed the exchange above. Hey, thanks for apology, I appreciate that. No serious offense taken in any case, but collegiality is easier on the nerves, and I think one of WP:5P for good reason.

On your question: in my case, one becomes a little pricker at the end of the 20th century, when the evidence base (and one's understanding of EBM) was relatively meager, and attitudes relatively optimistic. In fact, Gorski remained agnostic about it until only a few years ago; Novella convinced him otherwise.

I won't argue here that views in the sci community are more heterogeneous than you suggest, though it's true enough to be said, within limits.[6][7]

So, it's not that hard to be both for historical reasons. Even so, I wouldn't suggest such a career course today, and tend to agree that a scientist embarking on such would be forced either to choose between paradigmatic forks in the road, or to compartmentalize severely, or otherwise "a-rationalize" their choice. [8] As it happens, I haven't practiced in several years due to other life stuff, s o I don't feel much cognitive dissonance, or COI. Speaking of which, my editorial integrity is surely a function of my edits (cf. Cochrane's approach with acu'ists). Happy editing! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. So what about that Ernst source then? Do you really agree with QuackGuru on that or were you just being hasty (happens to the best of us)? As you can see, I'm trying to gloss exactly nothing.[9] It's simply WP:ENC: misrepresenting a source is stupid. QG knows better, and I'm glad that Kww and others see through his game (well, I know it's a game; others may yet see it as a CIR issue). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	The next generation
	Congratulations on your grandbaby! Liz Read! Talk! 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is very kind of you Liz. Thank you very much. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

congrats!

hopefully a good, healthy litter. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Who say's I'm not a Grandma??? 8lbs 2Ozs. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

indeed! my apologies. i corrected the header. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratamalations, Roxy. :D — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine, it is very kind of you to take the time here, particularly as you made a doggy joke/pun. the fact it isn't funny has no bearing hahaha. . Thank you very much indeed. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that pun have something to do with Dalmatians? That's all I can think of. Whatever pun it was it was unintended. :p — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Query

Hi there. Can I ask you to clarify what you meant here? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, what did you mean by "The very fact that you used a phrase here on this page, for which you yourself blocked me from editing here when I used it... " (emphasis removed)? Which phrase do you think I used that you think you were blocked for? You may take your time to answer this, but ignoring the question is probably not a wise move on your part. If you find after reflection that you have made an erroneous claim, it is fine just to strike the error; I certainly don't require an apology. See what you can do. --John (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. --John (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture and interpersonal interactions

Hi Roxy, I was reviewing some of your latest contributions to the Acupuncture article and talk page and thought I'd have a word with you. Many of your edits to the article seem to be simple reverts or minor edits, which is fine, though the participation in revert wars isn't great. Your talk page posts are mainly what have me concerned. They seem to be mostly either pointed comments to other users (for example [10] [11] [12] [13]) or equally pointed repetitions of your point of view ([14] [15]). Neither of these further our goal of improving articles, and both contribute to the "toxic" atmosphere people are complaining about. I also seem to remember you getting into trouble on the Ayurveda article talk page for similar reasons, thereby getting on the wrong side of User:John, and I definitely remember seeing some very pointed remarks from you on his talk page.

I'm sure you're not a mean person in real life, but as I'm sure you already know text is a bad medium for conveying emotions and such. I's very easy to misinterpret humor for sarcasm, or sarcasm for scorn, especially in the context of a larger conflict. Anyway, whatever your intentions are, I'm asking you to please stop with the pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations of alt-med/fringe. Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's not helping things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

John's talk page is a haven for POV pushers, don't you think? The trouble I got into is clear enough in the log. A 24 hour block for calling advocates of Ayurveda "advocates of Ayurveda". Isn't that stupid? As to the rest of your comment, I haven't had time to think about it yet, but I am. (Thinking about it) -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 09:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look at your edit history at the Acu page, and from memory, you do seem to give a little support to mainstream users, however I'd be inclined to take your comment here more seriously if your criticism of my edits highlighted by your diffs above (and I looked at each of them in context) was balanced by some similar observations on the talk pages of the hordes of advocates active on that page? There are none. Why not? Why are you not taking on those who do not follow WP:PAG and instead taking on an easy target like myself? Your time could be far more valuable to the project if you stopped messing about with insignificant people like me, who have no illusions about their skills editing an encyclopaedia. It is very sad. Meh.

I've given myself a 24 hour reflection block starting ... now. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

I appreciate the serious thought you are giving this. I'd like to share a couple more thoughts of my own if you don't mind. First, I'll make reference to Graham's Hiearchy of Disagreement which has been a useful tool for me on Wikipedia. Good arguments, in my opinion, should make use of the top 3 tiers of the pyramid. I would place a lot of your talk page posts into the 4th and 6th tiers (contradiction and ad hominem). Even above, it seems that your first reaction was to call John's block "stupid" and your second reaction was to check my edit history looking for signs that I might be biased toward you to support an ad hominem reply. Of course there's no Wikipedia policy saying "Stay in the top 3 tiers" but if I were (hypothetically) an administrator looking for somebody to hit with the banhammer, stuff like that makes it easier.

Responding to your query about what you call other "advocates" on the page, I am trying to work with multiple users. I'm trying to get Jayaguru-Shishya out of the habit of responding to every single post on talk pages; I'm trying to get QuackGuru out of the battleground mentality; I'm trying to get A1Candidate to edit less aggressively, and I'd like to stop some of the complaining coming from Les Vegas. But I tend to tolerate A1Candidate when they aggressively add new and potentially controversial information to the article during an edit war because they are supporting their edits with sources. And I tend to tolerate QuackGuru's annoying style of communicating and OWNing articles because of his/her knowledge of the sources. But when somebody sits on the sidelines throwing barbs without contributing to "building the encyclopedia", that annoys me.

Anyway I didn't mean to make this post so long, and I am certainly not trying to attack you, but I hope at least the pyramid bit will be helpful for you in your reflection. Don't let it stress you out though...and congratulations on becoming a grandparent. Those are the kinds of things that are most important. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I resent your barbed comment about "building the encyclopeadia." I do my share, and I'll defend my mainspace contributions, minor though they are. On the other hand, I welcome any comments you wish to make here. It's a good job I didn't revoke my Talk page access, don't you think, or I wouldn't be able to give myself this further 24 hours revocation of edit rights. It's for your own good, Roxy. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I regret not thanking you for your grandpa related wishes to me first thing in my morning. I see now that your good wishes are, how can I put this, very well meant. Thank you. I think it a good idea for me to stay away from editing at the moment. May I email you? -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 22:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, commenting that someone's posts are in the bottom tiers of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement is itself an argument from the bottom tiers of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Cardamon (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as the arbiter of what happens on this page, I shall be taking no action. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 20:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Can you tell me how this was in any way helpful to the discussion? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. It injected a note of levity. Don't you think it was needed? -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not, or I wouldn't have asked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

stuff up

Hi there Roxy, sorry about the accidental revert on the ID page. I've re-reverted. I was trying to hit the thank you option for your reversion of the deletion from tha page - wretched phone decided to redraw the page just as I attempted to hit the "thank" option and I got "undo" instead. Mumble, grumble, "smart"phone... - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. I laughed, and thanks for the message. I have fumble fingers on my tablet device, I understand. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank function

How does it work?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the question which I'll try to answer as best I can. I suspect btw that the functioning of the programming is probably very complicated, but from my pov, the functionality is great.

Take a look at the edit history of this page, and you should see that I was the last person to edit here, and you were the one before that. If you use the compare "selected revision button", you should be able to see my edit unformatted, in its raw state before the wiki software applies formatting. Above my username on that screen will be a number of blue links, (ignore anything else) one of which says "Thank" Click it, and confirm that you want to send thanks by clicking "yes". That is all there is to it!

I get a red notification alongside my username at the top of any page that I visit on wikipedia, that tells me there is a message. If I click it, I get a message something like "RetProf thanked you for your edit on UserTalk:Roxy the dog" That's it. I think ooooooh, that RetProf is a nice chap, and we both have a warm feeling for a few seconds !! Do ask for further clarification if you think I could help.

There is other functionality in that little grey box alongside your username as well, related to asking somebody to look at a page, for any number of different reasons, called "pinging". Do you know about that? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know...

...how serious (if at all) your question was meant but depending on context (which is unknown to me) it's either Historical revisionism or Historical revisionism (negationism).--TMCk (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The question was semi serious. The socks had me totally convinced that they were mere pov pushers, and I'd asked "Blades" multiple times, because he picked up the phrase from Andy The Grump, and it was clear "he" didn't know what it meant, but was a handy phrase to bandy about! Thank you for those two links, which I have now read. all the best, -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a biscuit, Roxy.

Why?

For successfully preventing yourself from reverting somebody, and using the edit summary ... "Is that the sound of COI Ducks quacking?" Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha. No more than two minutes. Ha. Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Are...are you talking to yourself Roxy? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's very sad, isn't it? Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 01:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, the pain of an abscess and a tooth extraction really puts perspective on this wiki thing, doesn't it? -Roxy the toothless dog™ (resonate) 04:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness he wasn't an ALT-Dentist!! -Roxy the toothless dog™ (resonate) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

i'm sorry roxy. tooth pain sucks. bad tooth! hopefully you are out of pain now? Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The NHS did it's thing, without drama. The people who helped me deserve praise for being professional and sympathetic. I am now merely uncomfortable, and my face is lopsided still, but swelling is going down. I could run up mountains on uncomfortable ! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

teeth are my exhibit one against intelligent design. you gotta use them, they decay like crazy when you do, and they hurt like hell when they decay. what was that designer thinking?? Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the source code it all becomes clear ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That explains a great deal, and I suspect if I understood C programming, there would be more to laugh at. Thanks both. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish you a swift recovery from your dental distress. bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to have all my fangs dentisted in the near future, but this was a positive experience. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk to myself, I came here to announce that I'm fed up of being a Viking dog, I need something more mainstream. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 08:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming WP:AGF is difficult sometimes, don't you think? if anybody is reading this, I do not mean you. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooooooh. There is a thread at AN about retiring admins. I could suggest one. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 07:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Racism at Homeopathy

Wikipedia needs to avoid any hint of racism in its editing practices. I notice that most of the sources on academic research into the alleged beneficial aspects of homeopathy were done by Indian researchers. To completely exclude all of this research from the article looks like, at worst, outright racism, and, at best, complete ethnocentrism. Either way, it's ugly, and it's unacceptable. We need to reduce the West/white-centric nature of that article before we expose Wikipedia to some severe, legitimate criticism. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

You may be interested in an RfC based on your involvement in a related AN/I incident: Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. You are invited to help us to determine consensus on this issue. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's rather odd...

...that you would commend questionable behavior and violative probes into a person's RL id by another volunteer editor. How would you feel if someone started probing into your RL and your work connections, especially someone who has shown ill-will toward you? Would that make you happy? I certainly don't feel good about what just happened to me. You are free to give barn stars to whoever you like, but they work much better when they are truly deserved. Atsme^📞📧 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

After having followed what has been done to Atsme, I also found the "barnstar edit" extremely distasteful and very probably inflammatory.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting Doc that you feel able to post on this page, after having forbidden me from posting on yours. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 18:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

^{Shall I pop the popcorn this time? Atsme📞📧 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}

Would you mind using the talk page to justify QG's edit?

Hey Roxy! Since you're supporting the edit QG made, would you mind using the talk page to defend it? Specifically, why is it not a synthesis violation, and is there a better way to fully encompass the statement in the source? A section has already been created for discussion here, and you should join in since you're supporting the inclusion of the edit. LesVegas (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Les. See edit summaries. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, your ES's don't tackle the synthesis issue, or any of the other issues raised on the talk page or in multiple editor's ES (mine and Middle 8's).out of the spirit of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, please join us on the talk page to discuss the specifically raised objections. Thanks in advance! LesVegas (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing Acu with editors on that page. Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Roxydog13

This user's username is uncomfortably reminiscent of yours, at least to me. What do you think? Everymorning talk 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's got Roxy and dog in it, so yes, they are similar? --Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The good and the bad questions

Roxy the Dog, for the time being you will not see me anymore on Naturopathy page, because I have been banned from there. You are pressing me to answer yes or no to your question. In order to answer precisely, I need to know your definition and your understanding of the word "naturopath". Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You have not been banned, from anywhere, and your deliberate obfuscation here, on the Naturopathy Talk page, and others, regarding your COI, is very telling. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 03:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the Dog, there is no "deliverate obfuscation". I did disclose more than needed upon request. How do you call someone who got higher diplomas in evidence-based medicine and science and who did afterward study about naturopathy as well ? a "naturopath" ? How do you describe reveiving a "final warning" of being blocked if proposing new edit on the talk page of Naturopathy ? being "banned" ? Please help me understand this "final warning status. Eventhought you would believe that I have a COI, it shall not prevent me to propose reliable source according to WP:COIU. The main issue is probably my supposed SPA status. My interest appears to be too focused. I am not the only one here. Check other recent editors. But I will try to improve my "behaviour", eventhough I believe it is best to concentrate on one single topic at a time for adding value to Wikipedia instead of playing "grasshopper" on too many articles at the same time. Here again, your help and advice is welcomed. I am a newbie willing to improve. Paulmartin357 (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to help somebody who wont help himself. First of all, read the "welcome" message Alexbrn left at the top of your talk page. Make sure you read all the links included there. If you read that, properly, and try to understand what is going on here, before 'fighting back' as you have been doing. Remember this is a community of volunteers like you and me, and we've made some rules so that a free for all doesn't exist. With the rules (hereafter and everywhere on wikipedia referred to as WP:PAG) we manage to generally get along in most areas of the encyclopedia. As a WP:SPA account, you have chosen a controversial page on which to start your career, one which the subjects of the page are not sympathetic to normally, because we follow the mainstream point of view, thus Naturopathy as wikipedia describes it (using reliable sources) will always follow the evidence, rather than what Naturopaths think we should be saying about Naturopathy. There is nothing at all wrong with being a SPA account by the way, unless your editing leads to suspicion that you do not have PAG at heart. I could go on, but I have a question - are you a Naturopath? Please answer directly. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the Dog, thanks again for taking the time of giving such a detailed answer. I really appreciate. You are making the difference with others. Sorry for not answering directly to your question previously. As I said, if you are considering that holding a higher diplomas in evidence-based medicine and in science, and having also achieved some study about naturopathy, is making me a "naturopath", then yes, "I am a naturopath". However, this answer will not tell you what I am considering to be "a naturopath". It will not tell you how my understanding of naturopathy is influenced by my original background in science and in evidence-based medicine. This is why I am relunctand to be assimilated to the "croud of naturopaths" that you seem to dislike. I am not pretending to be "right" or "wrong". I simply do not like to be reduced to simply and solely "a naturopath". I am trying to improve my behaviour on Wikipedia. I am trying to discover, understand and then apply the WP:RULES. I am fine to respect the mainstream point of view, even if I always prefer to challenge mainstream ideas. This is not the problem. But I am also expecting this page, and any other, to be as much as possible WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This is frankly not always the case on Naturopathy. I am still very surprised by some of the answers on Naturopathy:Talk. I know WP:LISTEN.... but I need to understand how it works here. For example, can you help to answer my question to JzG. It's an easy case to understand, about source vs. opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartin357 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to reply to this until now @Paulmartin357: because on the Naturopathy page, you are clearly on a mission to not hear anything (WP:IDHT). Just didn't want to leave this unanswered before archiving. @JzG: is correct, carry on like this and you will be banned. Sorry. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finally answering to this one, even if the answer is one more threat of being banned... I really and honnestly don't feel that I am not listening WP:IDHT. I am really having the strong feeling that some editors and admins are blindly over-reacting as soon as something is in line with their own beliefs, even when very WP:RS/MC are undoubtly available. "Rephrasing the Constitution" will remain on my "wall of fame". This is not the only very obvious example of this behaviour. If you would relax, step back and open a fresh eye on some of my questions, you would maybe understand what I am trying to explain. My only mission, if any, is to have WP:V and WP:RS being faily respected, even when it sounds not in line with "personnal opinions" or "personnal believes". I am puzzled to see the last edit on the lead, quoting an obscure article of Daily Telegraph and National Post, dedicated to a single particular case, from an editorial point of view, one of it dedicated to homeopathy but not naturopathy, and being generalized and rephrased in the lead. Surprisingly, nobody is questionning it from a WP:RS/MC, simply because it sounds in line with "personnal beliefs". I am not saying it is right or wrong. I don't care. I am saying it is not in line with WP:V and WP:RS/MC. Is it Wikipedia Encyclopedia here !?!?! Hope to see you soon on other articles. This one is dead for me. RIP Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The encyclopedia will be improved if you do leave the Naturopathy page alone, thank you. Unfortunately, if you continue your WP:IDHT editing habits in other areas, the result will be the same. This isn't a threat by the way, it is a prediction, based on my own wikipedia experience. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Stalkers, I have a Q?

Yes you, even you at the back who is only watching to see what trouble I might get into.

I'm currently following a little Arbcom request at the moment, trivial thing, hardly worth mentioning, and I suddenly thought what is the point, it must be something more, and all the acres of text cannot simply be part of a request, um, or something. If it eventuates that a full case is taken, does all this accusatory guff, and defensive guff come to that, become part of what Arbcom look at?

How important is this phase in the full process? If a case is taken, how important is the current phase? um. Anybody?

-Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

In my view, this is about whether Arbcom will take the case at all (is there some seriously tangled set of behavior issues that is disrupting WP and that the community cannot handle by other means) and if so, what is the scope of the case. Those are the two things at stake. I've been very happy to have helped keep the GMO stuff out of Arbcom up til now, but the recent convergence of disruption made an arbcom case mostly inevitable. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

[Stalker at the back, extremely belated.] The accusatory and defensive guff in the request didn't use to be part of the actual "evidence", but fairly recently they've taken to copying it all onto the evidence page when the case opens, so theoretically it's part of what they look at. But once it has become clear that the case will be accepted, as it is now, I'd advise against writing any more "statements" on the request page. If you've got some stuff, save it for "Evidence", and write it in a more factual and diffed and less opinionated, way. It commands more respect that way, and it's nice for them to have something fresh to look at. ;-) PS, don't worry about the RFA thing. For one thing, it does take ten years to figure how to remove a vote from the tally; I know all about it now, but Bishzilla had to lead me by the hand for the longest time. Speaking of Bishzilla, I'm glad to see you're a non-edible dog. I'm afraid she's partial to dogs. (Won't eat anything smaller than chihuahuas, though. Not worth trouble!) Bishonen | talk 16:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Thank you (may I call you) Bish, and Jytdog for your replies to this. It is still at the top of my thoughts, and it'll be the first one I will have followed ever where I have an interest to see things done right, though I have probably already stated elsewhere that I will most definitely not be taking part. Perhaps one day I'll get it, and then I'll work on figuring out the relationship between Bishonen and Bishzilla. Are there other Bishes? Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of Bishes, but we don't call them that in polite company. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but to my ear the words don't sound any too alike. In their modern pronunciation. Still, the similarity is great enough that I'm both surprised and gratified that only a single vandal has ever (in my hearing) called me "Bitchonen". In ten years! (Or whatever it is. Eleven?) Anyway, Roxy, there are a few other bishes round the place, see sockfarm list here. The anklebiter Darwinbish tends to take over when I'm too sour to edit, and to encroach altogether. Fun fact: Bishzilla is the only one of us who has ever run for ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

...And, if I remember correctly, the only one of you to have blocked a sitting member of ArbCom. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Bishzilla blocked a sitting member of ArbCom? That takes...cajones. Anyway, you can hear the original pronunciation of "bitch" on occasion in Westminster Kennel Club and other televised dog shows/contests, where the announcer frequently is European and is using the word for its actual, non-vulgar meaning. That's how I learned about the original pronunciation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OMG. I've just remembered the article that rekindled my continuing relationship with wikipedia ... The Séralini affair. Spooky. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

...which is a major component of the ArbCom mentioned both above and below :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, it works. That's only the second time ever I can recall doing that, the first was earlier today, somewhere. Anyway, I need to dial down the enthusiasm a little. Now, as this page is UK based, popcorn is forbidden, and correct use of a spell checker will prevent me editing your mispelled ritin'. I have a couple of crates of shandy cooling, and plenty of cheese and onion crisps. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You have your answer now, I think. So: being an arbitrator is like being an email admin. Any delay or glitch and you will find the mob with pitchforks at your door (albeit that they are mainly concerned about the late arrival of their eBay notifications). If it works flawlessly? Nobody notices. No luser in the history of the world in space has ever gone tot he email admins and said "delivery time less than 200ms, great job guys". And this will of course never happen in the future either. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. I am moved to comment here by the sneaky way A1C got his stats and aspersions into that little Arbcom case. -16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've used my time machine to get an exclusive look at the result. Arbcom will rule that all the haters will only be allowed to remain unbanned if they accept JD as mentor and guide for the next two years. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom: You may be interested

Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I predict a riot. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, fireworks are already flying from all sides. Heck, Glyphosate had to be edit-war-protected again yesterday, and there's a fair amount of bickering going on even within the ArbCom statements we're all posting. It continues, IMHO, to appear to be a war between a small number of authors trying to preserve the majority (scientifically accurate) viewpoint, and a large number wanting heavier emphasis on the minority viewpoint supported by fringe or questionable science. And both sides have stepped over the line on multiple occasions as the war has spun out of control. The balance, I think, is something like "science says it's safe (cite), though a few studies have questioned it (cite); those studies, in turn, have been criticized (cite)". In other words, don't silence the minority viewpoint, but also don't phrase that viewpoint as if science is on its side, or even allow it to be mentioned more than in passing for the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Straight outta' Compton. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the ping at ARBCOM @DrChrissy:, that was decent of you. Unfortunately it didn't work, I don't know why not, and I wanted you to know. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Orcutt

Hey, I got your thanks for nominating this article for deletion. Normally all this gets me is other editors' ire, so I was surprised (and a little confused) to get your message. Could you explain for me? I was glad to get it! I just want to understand it better! KDS4444^Talk 18:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a poor article, on a non-notable writer. I thought some thanks were in order. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Week Off

I'm taking one. From everywhere but here. From now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not from grandparenting, I hope. 😆 I'm just now beginning to gear-up in that department, although I've been pretty hands on from the get-go as I would imagine you have as well, especially when the 1st arrives. Atsme^📞📧 14:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a hands off grandparent. They live nearly 200 miles away, and that's a major expedition in this country. Mind you, there was the christening last weekend, and I see him almost daily on booktimefacetwit. No, all the non AGF editing I see is driving me to distraction, and for me, the answer is to post nothing at all, and do something else. I was getting more and more aggressive, and that isn't good. When it stops being frustrating will be a sign that I'm fit to contribute again - the way I feel now, it'll stop about two minutes before my self imposed block - but in another few days I'm sure you'll notice me at an intersection of watchlists. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been focusing on GA & FA reviews, and uploading more images to my Commons gallery for use in articles. My favorite article to which I contributed one of my favorite images is Outhouse. This afternoon I've been preoccupied trying to wrap my head around the Wiki documentary from 2008 [16]. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made six edits in a week, only one to actual article space, none controversial imho. I successfully ignored the things that were winding me up, so I didn't break the spirit of my self imposed block. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Casema edit

Hi Roxy, I'm hoping you can give some advice on how I can get the casema (black salve) page to be more two sided. I personally have used it and removed 2 cancers so to see such a bias description of it is very frustrating. Nissassary (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to carefully read the welcome message I left on your Talk page, particularly the links in the first paragraph. It is all part of our editing Policy and Guidelines, WP:PAG. It's the framework under which we edit.

I was welcomed to the project by somebody telling me that you only need three things to successfully edit wikipedia. Sources, sources and sources. I thought it good advice. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary of the Day

I only needed to read the EdSum, to whit ... Inositol is neither a carbohydrate, nor is a chinese pharmaceuticals supplier website an appropriate form of reference. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Functional medicine

Hi,

I don't really know how to use this. I came across the Functional Medicine page and I edited it to make it more accurate with more recent sources. Is it not allowed to edit a page in that way? The edit I did was neutral with both good and bad aspects and backed up by scientific sources. Wikipedia is open source. Everyone is entitled to make edits if they are backed up by evidence? The entire page is written in a biased way and is backed up by blog sources written mainly by two individuals who are clearly anti-functional medicine.Cawjac (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have responded on the article Talk page. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

About Flouncing

Flouncing only works if you are leaving behind an impressive track record of substantial improvements to the encyclopaedia.

If your flounce is actually the biggest improvement you have ever made, then it is useless as a flounce.

Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

More ...

If, following the circumstances above, you keep coming back, it ruins the effect even more. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions and homeopathy

Hi,

You just reverted my change to Talk:Homeopathy to re-add the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template with an edit summary of "Nope". Could you expand on that please? I linked to the ArbCom motion to rescind discretionary sanctions for Homeopathy in my edit summary, and homeopathy is explicitly at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict as having previously had discretionary sanctions, but not currently, so I don't understand why you undid my edit.

—me_and 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

...okay, I think I worked it out for myself, given point 4 of the ArbCom motion states 'The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. It would still have been nice to offer more explanation in your revert than just "Nope" when reverting a good faith edit. —me_and 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A2 Milk

I have undone your revert of my edit to a2 milk as I have expanded on the article and justified why I changed it with a comment in talk page and citation in the article. If you are going to revert an edit from an established author and reviewer with several thousand edits, you should state your argument in the talk page first or comment on my talk page. Aeonx (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your nonsense has been reverted. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias POV have no place on WP. Please review WP:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol. Aeonx (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A correctly spelled biased PoV has no place here. Please read WP:MEDRS. Then you should learn how to read scientific papers properly -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The amount of blatant factual errors in the article and your constant reverts without any real justification only accurately represents your inability to maintain a NPOV and lack of intelligence. People like you are counter-productive to Wikipedia. Aeonx (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets examine your wildly inaccurate statement above, shall we? I have made four edits to the article in the last six months, about ten in the last eighteen months, and yet you state that I do "constant reverts." More of your nonsense I suspect. Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? Learned to understand a scientific paper? I'm serious, it is a skill you appear to lack. Perhaps WP:CIR might be useful to you as well. and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Now with regard to factual errors, for goodness sake correct them, nobody will object, but remember to use WP:RS or your edits wont last long. Feel free to ask for my help, and good luck in your sandbox. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Read's Island

Do you actually know the place? I've been waiting for a couple of years to tell somebody something about the Island? It wont improve the encyclopaedia though. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand on that? Is the phrase 'Do you actually know the place' derogatory? Also; if you've been waiting to tell someone - tell them what? And at the end, 'it won't improve the encyclopaedia though' all seem like very negative statements. It they are not, then I'm sorry. But I'm not finished as of yet and if you have something to share then please do. Have a good day (evening). And yes; I do know the place. The joy of all things (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added information and citations to the article.Happy? The joy of all things (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I was never unhappy. Just thought it wiser to walk away. Thank you for your work on that article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Thanks for your reverts on this article. It seems a couple of new editors are making unqualified changes. I think the article should be semi-protected as it has a long history of agenda pushing. Where's the best place to apply for this? 79616gr (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Porky Pie of the day ...

I'm a "reality-based editor " ... yea, right. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)