User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

November 2019

Hey User - I know you are a part of discussions and Before reverting any edits. Try to participate and contribute something to prove yourself.Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Siddha medicine, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Please stop your disruptive editing and see WP:BRD and WP:CON.90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

90.185.50.46, perhaps my essay at WP:1AM will be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

VOTING

I wanted to vote Scottish Nationalist, but they dont stand here!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Silly Roxy, dogs aren't allowed to vote. Other than in Chicago, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Roxy the dog: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Eric R. Braverman

I'm curious why you restored content at Eric R. Braverman. I removed it as (mostly) BLP violations, and it's currently being discussed at Talk:Eric R. Braverman#Negative information and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Eric R. Braverman. I'm also surprised that you used Twinkle to revert a good-faith, policy complaint edit. Woodroar (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Tough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Where will you head next with your drive by editing?

Somewhere else where you can feel empowered by ignorance and idiocy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salviati64 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When will you use the Talk page, as requested by at least two fellow editors? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thought as much. Two editors hey, is your drive by the other? Suppose you read the several edit summaries then? And knew that I reverted his edit because he hadn't? And therefore chose BRR? Show some respect and involve yourself when you understand what's going on. --IC (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fuck off. Do not return. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Article tense

Hi,

Please see MOS:TENSE for the guideline here. Past tense is specifically for subjects which have literally ceased to be, or events that have passed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Then my edit is correct, thanks. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Historical processes are still capable of being carried out. See e.g. knapping, which is a far older process. If it helps, a good rule of thumb is whether something has a specific expiration date. That's going to be very uncommon outside of the specific examples in the MOS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

was is correct. Don’t change it. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You've hit WP:3RR on Fulling here. Please stop. --Jayron 32 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Do you think I have an issue counting? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe this is the first time I've ever interacted with you. I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion. --Jayron 32 12:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You gave me one of your premptory edit war warnings a couple of weeks ago. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My memory is faulty. It was in October fgs. [1] -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I was mistaken. I guess I had so warned you before. It did not make much of an impression on me, I guess. Given that I had not connected the two warnings as having been given to the same person, I'm apparently not much of a stalker at all then... --Jayron 32 17:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

TBH I think both warnings were probably justified. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Step back

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Generally pointless TE. My strong suggestion would be to ignore that and to stop editing or commenting regarding Fulling. Your work in various places I have seen is too valuable to be stopped by a silly dispute over is/was. It's best to keep some snark in reserve for FRINGE editors—spraying it around good editors is most undesirable. It is not possible that everyone agree with everything all the time and knowing when to step back is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I quoted peer reviewed papers, why did you delete my contribution?

Would you please explain what's wrong with quoting a paper about the results of some basic research concerning the Feldenkrais Method? The publication doesn't even state claims of medical efficacy - it is simply a report about some interesting effects on the brain. The results where other than expected by the Feldenkrais people. I understand your scepticism, given the poor scientific evidence so far, but concerning this paper, we are not talking about some esoteric bullshit. The first author of the paper is a PhD with 27 RG points working in one of Germanys largest research institutes. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julius_Verrel

BTW Feldenkrais Method is a method of motoric learning, not a therapy. The goal of the method is to reduce the physical effort in motion. This may be helpful under certain medical conditions - serious research is necessary to find out which ones. The fact that some hippie-quacks employ the method and make evidence-free medical claims does not allow the conclusion, the whole method was quackery. Best regards, Erik ErikSchaf (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

My edsum gave my reason. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Gogolwold. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Macrobiotic diet seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gogolwold (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. I've asked for protection of the page to prevent your constant repeated vandalism. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved tag at COIN

Hi, Roxy. I wanted to let you know that I placed that tag there as a way of de-escalating the thread. The resolved template I felt was more appropriate since it explicitly acknowledges that it doesn't close a discussion. Bilby's last reply to my request to drop the stick to me signaled that his initial concern, i.e., the reason for the thread, had been resolved. Not "resolved" as in "solved to everyone's satisfaction" but at least "resolved" as in "everyone agrees that this thread isn't going anywhere useful and it's time to let it die". I defer to your experience on this, but saying that it is unresolved because we haven't resolved what to do about Bilby does not seem like an issue for COIN. I have a healthy distrust of AN and AN/I so I won't be taking that aspect any further. So, just to explain why I added a template, even though I suspected placing it might be challenged. I hope this helps. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the coin thread. For me, we still wait for resolution. Bilby has lost his way, and should be dealt with. I shall be posting there shortly Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You're rude and condescending

Just what it says in the title about "Polyester is NOT a fabric". I'm done arguing with you. It isn't funny, it's both RUDE and CONDESCENDING.

Sign your posts, I don’t know who you are. Polyester is not a fabric. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing weasel word in the article

Dear Roxy the dog. I added the word "Nevertheless" in the Paleolithic diet article at the starting of the sentence "Following the paleo diet can lead to..." since the sentence conveys an idea anti-thetical to the previous one which talks about some improvements in health. I noticed you reverted saying "Weasel word removed". Just wondering how that word would qualify as weasel. This is not to contradict with what you did (for I'm okay with the removal), but only to know about the other view point so as to correct any mistake from my side. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake

A "brand new account" adding biologist to the things Sheldrake apparently is. Guy (help!) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

help for article

hi roxy, i have seen you check mostly the articles of wool. please can you help? i have very good information about german-english wool history but my english is not so good. i wroted it in Talk of Wool under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wool#English_%2F_German_Sheep_Market can you insert this information in the article of wool? many thanks and greets from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.56.161 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wilkommen! I will look at the Talk page and see if I can help. Thanks for asking. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reiki dispute resolution

Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamxz (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) forgot to signPamxz (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That link goes to a page called Bulletin board. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI I edited your comment on Reiki talk page to insert bullet before it to format RFC. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Now I remember ...

Why I take no part in RfAs. It is really really nasty, and petty and everything in between. Unwatched I'm afraid. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion

Hey Roxy, I agree it is not really medicine. But I figure that the Transfusion medicine category is a bit more specific than the Blood category, in the same way the alternative medicine is subcatted under the medicine category. I don't feel strongly enough to revert but just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Greyjoy^talk 07:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been a bit petty I know, but I wont revert again if you think it's better for our readers. Of more concern for me is the huge edit request on the Talk page. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't even know where to start with that. Greyjoy^talk 07:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite astonished that what I do makes me a medical editor, I consider myself more of a fiddler, but thanks very much. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think of you as a fiddler if that helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.200.222.125 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I corrected your hopless mistakes. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion

I noticed your question on Macon's talk page. WP:TRANS has more information, but basically, templates are macros, meaning that code can be executed as part of page generation before it is sent to the browser. Any page can be used as a template, even if there's a special Template: namespace for them (that allow them to be used without needing to specify the full path to a page, for instance {{uw-vandal2}} (equivalent to {{Template:uw-vandal2}}) vs {{User:Example/ExampleTemplate}}). Pages used as templates may contain macro code or not (in the case of page transclusion for deletion discussions and RFA, the feature is used to embed the page in other pages, rather than to process custom code). Templates (or pages to be used as one for embedding) can be utilized, or applied, by using brackets like {{<page>}}.

Templates can be substituted ({{subst:<page>}}, Help:Substitution for details) meaning that macros in them like special variables or other code will be executed first then the result "pasted as text", rather than embedding/transcluding the template ({{subst:uw-vandal2|page}}, the normal way to use that warning template, will generate a final (text) message including the name of the specified |page= parameter). Infoboxes and citation templates are templates used without substitution. If the uw-vandal2 template was altered, all previous messages generated using it with substitution (subst:) remain unaltered, for the Wiki software those messages are "text"; for transcluded templates, alterations will become visible everywhere they are used (like the editor-specific RFA page that is transcluded/embedded in the main requests for adminship/bureaucrats page, the deletion discussion pages that are embedded in all sorting lists (WP:DELSORT) as well as in the deletions page for that day.) So in this RFA case it allows a main central page to embed and provide edit access to all currently active request pages.

If the code {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon}} was inserted (this is transclusion) on your talk page, the whole page would become visible here (and would not be a separate copy). If {{#section-h:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon|Questions for the candidate}} was used instead, only the "Questions for the candidate" section would be embedded instead. The WP:SKEPTIC alerts page is transcluded at the top of WP:FTN and on my user page (via another page that transcludes it, recursion is allowed), etc.

I hope this helps a bit, I'll be glad to try to clarify if you have more questions, the WP:HELPDESK is also a good place. —Paleo Neonate – 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant to thank you when you posted this, and I have achieved some degree of clarity now, so thanks for taking the time. Is it an exclusively wikipedia term, or do people who write code in their sleep all over the world use it? Mind you, I suppose that I've managed all this time without knowing, so how impoprtant could it be to me here, hm. Thanks again. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome. It's a good question, the transclusion terminology is used mostly in relation to hypertext documents from what I see, the concept is old but I can't say that I've seen it used a lot in other contexts (despite being in Computer Science myself). The Lisp languages family use macros extensively and the terminology is different, so it's not closely bound to macros either... —Paleo Neonate – 19:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, see WP:TRANS -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

STRABERRRY

<4.5 EllenCT (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Siddha medicine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn how to count to three Ivan. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roxy the dog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bright line not crossed, no benefit to project blocking me. I am aware of the rules regarding edit warring. The actual edit warrior, who had a grand total of 51 edits when I looked was editing through Extended Confirmed Protection. If ECP worked, we wouldn't be here. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests must exclusively address your own conduct, not that of others, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gosh. I didn't know that you couldn't thank people when you are blocked. That's not nice. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I won't decline your request of course, but I do think you need to have a read of the part of the edit warring policy below the big red box with the bright line rule. I'll reproduce it here (from Special:Permalink/938380832) for you: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (emphasis in original) You clearly don't understand that last bit. You might want to refresh yourself on WP:NOTTHEM while you're at it.

Also, thanks should work while you are blocked, based on my experience being thanked by blocked editors. I'm not sure why it would not be working for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivan. You did decline my request. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Check again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, cannot see any "thank" links. I'm getting edit conflicts on my own Talk page FGS. and I'm still blocked. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for all the pings. Working on getting that resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem with pings. I see that you've blocked the account that the disruptive IP uses. Is it your intention to unblock me? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure to unblock you, but at this point I have zero confidence you understand why I blocked you in the first place, and so I'd be shooting myself in the foot. You seem to be under the impression that 3RR gives you license to edit war up to three times before any action can be taken, which as evidenced by the policy I quoted above, is not the case. But you might consider the suggestion I posted at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel as a way to convince me (or any other uninvolved admin that comes by) that I'm mistaken.

As for the "actual edit warrior" and their low edit count, the page was semiprotected, not ECP protected. I don't know who it is that you meant since from my point of view there were four (or more) accounts involved in this edit war, but none of the involved accounts would have been prevented from editing by semiprotection. And I was definitely thanked by one of those editors today while they were blocked, so I'm not sure why it would not be working for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That "thanks" thing is most odd, nevermind. We both know I understand the rules, but I am not kowtowing. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wankers. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia wonders why it cant retain good editors. (Not a troll) 2A02:C7F:4637:F900:8051:57ED:1D5E:68DE (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious

medicine

Thank you for quality article work, beginning in 2012 with edis to Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, for reverting vandalism with notices of unconstuctive editing, for excellent edit summmaries, for "recovery is more important than Wikipedia", - Roxy, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2361 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This was a rather pleasant surprise to wake up to this morning, so surprising that I still dont know what to say.

Thanks very much. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Spanish_flu_cases

We really need better guidelines around all of these "people with disease X". In my opinion they should go in the article about the person. And maybe those who care can put them in categories. But unless one can write a paragraph about the disease in that person with multiple high quality sources (not just in passing mention or a tweet) it should not occur in the disease article. And should not occur as a list.

Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The most constructive suggestion I have seen, but a suspension of listicles will need a lot of traction. How to get that, and suggest that individual BLPs get the “vital Encyclopedic info” instead? Needs groundswell support. Where is this discussion coordinated? I’ll go to project med of course. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph or more of Unite the Right Rally needs correction

WLHESTER (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I am confused as to how to get this corrected. The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally is lacking in the full scope of truth and is very slanted implying unjustly that all people attending the rally were quote... "Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[11] neo-Confederates,[12] neo-fascists,[13] white nationalists,[14] neo-Nazis,[15] Klansmen,[16] and various right-wing militias.[17] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups."

Well a rally is defined as: "a mass meeting of people making a political protest or showing support for a cause." Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=rally%20definition&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=rally%20definition&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=59D10D67E53C4E24A53E720538A745E7

To read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Unite the Right Rally" one is given the impression that the character of the marchers represented the character of all in attendance at the rally. The rally was not just the marchers, the rally by definition is everybody in attendance or all who were attracted to the rally. There were thousands of people and I would even say most of the people in attendance were there solely for protecting history, their heritage and the historical monuments. These were not there for racism, antisemitism or any other non-humanitarian or un-American purpose and they were the majority. Trump was correct when he said there were a lot of good people on both sides. We need to be careful to be accurate on this issue. These remarks by Trump have been used by the left to call him racist and this false narrative has been pushed by the liberal media and the opponent political party ever since. False information which is being fed to the citizens of the US for political purposes. This article needs to be cleaned up. It is full of false narratives, and contributes to the misinformation propaganda of the left. I hope someone can please help me correct this unjust portrayal of ordinary southern American citizens as racist, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and all the other negative character which Wikipedia has assigned to us. Wayne L. Hester

(talk page watcher) Welcome to Wikipedia, WLHESTER. On Wikipedia we only publish information which is published in and can be verified by high-quality reliable sources. We cannot publish your original research. If you would like to suggest changes to the article that are based on reliable sources, you can make your suggestions at Talk:Unite the Right rally. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell

Hi Roxy Just a FYI that the Wayman Mitchell page is up for AfD in case you're interested in having a say. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayman Mitchell JohnnyBflat (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Acupuncture closed and archived

The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Loyola High School Wikipedia page

Sir, In this edit, I have added few references to support the information in the page 'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loyola_High_School&redirect=no', but it was again deleted. I just want to ask whether it is still below the Wikipedia standards and could you please elaborate on it. ImPritamShaw (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

please stop taking over a disambiguation page, thanks. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then, if I use the same information in an page named as 'Loyola High School (Kolkata)'. Will it be OK with Wikipedia? ImPritamShaw (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you create the same thing again, it will not stand. Use the proper article creation process. DO NOT HIJACK that disambiguation page. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell AfD 3-25-2020

Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Take a look [2]!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Civility Warriors Ruining Wikipedia

An editor has recently been blocked for three months. Among other pettiness and trivia the incredibly long and boring ANI complaint included the highlighting of the following wonderfully crafted edsums, which will vanish from ANI shortly, and I want them to hang around a little longer ...

your weasely bitching
you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
why are you being such a jerk?
yes, you are a jerk
you are so obtusely disputatious
Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
Get a better grip
(hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
do you have a hearing problem?

I think they deserve a barnstar, but I don't do barnstars. Thanks JJ. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandra Melgar

[3] The Sandra Melgar case has been featured on both 20/20 and Dateline. I was a bit surprised it apparently doesn't yet have its own Wikipedia article. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what is your point? Dateline 20/20. Meaningless. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

How about People? Belteshazzar (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Go away. This is not the place to discuss article content. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi Roxy, please don't delete Talk page material, as you did here [4], unless it really is beyond the pale, which this contribution wasn't. Within the deleted text I was pinged, but I couldn't find from where, and had to search the Talk page history. No big deal in the overall scheme of things, but deleting Talk page material should really be avoided if at all possible. Thanks. Arcturus (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus Go fuck yourself. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed before I knew it existed. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use language like this. None of us actually own our talkpages, so you will have to cope with WP:CIVILITY policy. --Pudeo (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dont be so stupid. Unclench your arse, then go away. thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just personal preference, but I prefer it if people go away first and then unclench their arse. That way, any direct effects of the unclenching will take place further away from me ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So you really do believe you do not have to abide by the core policies of this site. Opened another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Roxy the dog long-term incivility. --Pudeo (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's rare that I'm rendered speechless by such crass insensitivity, but I was when I saw this last night. Now, to use a currently appropriate phrase, I'm going to fuck off and do something constructive, and I urge everyone else to consider a similar course of action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I never did this before, but I removed two Precious reminders when I looked at that "discussion". I passed flowers six times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

However unimaginable these times they are much worse for some than others. Civility is less about use of swear words and more about climate. Pudeo I think you've missed that here. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's very true, but also a reason not to tell anyone to fuck off in these times. My heart goes out to Roxy but I'm also keenly aware that Roxy is not the only Wikipedian who has lost someone recently. There are many, few disclose it on their talk pages, and we'd all do well to keep that in mind whenever we interact with strangers, on or offline. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason to extend good faith to all Wikipedians. No one is suggesting it's OK to be uncivil or that an admin should not note behaviour concerns. What I am suggesting for anyone is that the reaction to that incivility can be the lesser response rather than the greater and that circumstances be considered. Talk helps. And all pain is not created equal. Perhaps the admin is also under strain. If we all behave as if the other is hurting then we don't have to end up at AN/I. I think there were other solutions in this situation. And we all transgress civility more or less at some point. (There is no fault in posting life circumstances on a talk page. One is not lesser or greater for doing so.) Best wishes. I don't have anything more to say. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note

Hello. Your attention is called to a mention of you at User_talk:Acroterion#User:Roxy_the_dog. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This was closed before I knew it existed too. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to point out, in this appropriately titled thread, that my language choices on this page predate my fathers death considerably. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 19:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

One woof for honesty. Littleolive oil (talk)

Thank you

Thank you for your explanation; i'm glad it wasn't me that annoyed you ~ and i fully agree with you about much that did. In addition, i have just noticed the first section on this page, and i'd like to offer my condolences; others' sympathy surely doesn't make it easier, but i hope you know you are part of this community and therefore valued. Lindsay^Hello 19:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Turmeric

I saw that you my edits on the Turmeric page, simply stating "not an improvement". I am rather surprised, as the goal was to improve the page by sticking more closely to the studies referenced in the paragraph. Looking at your profile, i understand you likely have (legitimate) concerns about trying to push pseudo-science, or cherry-picking studies. However, in this case, the edits simply offer further detail, directly quoting from the studies' abstracts, and present a subtler state than is currently the case on the page. For what it's worth, i also the French version of the page, removing some woo and adding some caveats to a page that is (far too) enthusiastic about Turmerics's supposed benefits.

Edit: I just saw about your dad in the opening paragraph on this page. I'm very sorry to hear, the whole situation is rubbish and not being able to attend his funeral even more so. My sympathies. I am axx (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

removing posts

[[5]], I assume ti was an accident.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know I'd done that. I hate edit conflicts, when you click resolve, it just makes it worse. I always back out, but I have no idea what happened. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect (its happened to me) that you clicked save by mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dad's funeral

Happened a few minutes ago, and I didn't attend because of Quarantine due to health issues. The law isn't clear, but I couldn't look an NHS worker in the face ever again, if I attended. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just came by here to talk article creation, and saw this post. My sister-in-law's dad died of COVID19 a couple of weeks back; no one was allowed to go to the funeral, not even his wife, who is now grieving in complete isolation. This is unutterably shit for so many people. I'm very sorry about your dad.

So, that all makes my next comment completely trivial, but that was why I came here so I'll plough ahead. I've long been a fan of your work, so to speak. If you'd like to write an article, I'd love to work with you. From a scan of my own creations, you'll probably guess the kind of topic I'd suggest - that would be flexible, but the nice thing about historic buildings is that they're constrained, usually unarguably notable (if listed), and uncontroversial. It's an enjoyable diversion from combating vandalism/spam/POV from the foil hat brigade. If it's of any interest at all, ping me; if not, not worries. Your contributions are an absolute asset to the project with what you're doing now, just wanted to offer a way into writing articles if it's something you fancy. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is so thoughtful and kind on so many levels, it is hard to know how to respond, so hard in fact that I couldn't, last night. Thank you for your concern, I appreciate it a great deal. The effects of the pandemic response are making life so surreal for the whole world! I had moved in with my father to look after him a few weeks ago, so my own quarantine letter was lost in the SPAM pile for some days. I do have family living with me, so I'm just relaxing without any responsibilities outside the house.

As regards article creation, I was always aware of my astonishing writing ability, and decided to find an area I could usefully help the project anyway. To be honest, I dont know how to move an article from Draft space, to article space. so finding all articles created by User:Girth Summit for example, is something I dont know how to do. On the other hand, if you ever wanted the opinion of an ordinary article reader, I'd be only too happy to oblige! Thanks once again, Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, it's good that you're with family - I simply can't imagine what it must be for people who have lost their spouse, and are forced to self-isolate alone. Mind-blowingly terrible. I wish I was without any responsibilities right now - term just started, I am trying to teach a class of 8-year-olds via Zoom/Google Classroom, using whatever devices their parents have available at home. I'm going to be hearing 'Sir, it's not working...' in my sleep tonight!

Sorry about the vagueness of the 'my own creations'. There are a few snoopy X-Tools tricks you can use to find that, but my vanity to make that unnecessary. If you ever fancy it, let me know. Stay safe. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

My sincere condolences, Roxy. I hope you and your family can find the strength to get you through this trying time....very sad. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ach, I've only just seen this. When my dad died, being there in person and having the family around was a key part of the grieving process, and it helped a lot. It's a total shit that you weren't able to have that, but I applaud your selfless decision. I wish there was more I could say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Same, just noticed your loss, sadder by the conditions. No more words ... take good care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw this pass across my watchlist today... I'm so sorry. Thank you for taking steps to protect your community, as horrendously painful as it is. Deep breaths, bud. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Just seen this. Deepest condolences, Roxy - it sound grim. Take care. Alexbrn (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
So sorry for your loss, Roxy —valereee (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Condolences from me, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Please accept my deepest sympathy. These are horrible times. Stay well and take care, Miniapolis 22:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Late, but sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So very sorry Roxy both that you have lost your dad and then couldn't attend his funeral. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late comment. My condolences for your loss and I understand the frustration and sadness involved in relation to the confinement measures. My mom is still currently intubed in ICU with Covid, but fortunately her state appears to be improving very gradually (now twilight sedation and 35% oxygen needed to achieve 93% saturation, it once was 80% oxygen with 88% saturation and general anaesthesia)... I "blogged" about it on my talk page the other day. Glad that you manage to still edit after that, but take care, —Paleo Neonate – 10:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Roxy, I know in the long ago past we were at odds, but I'm so sorry for your loss. In April, COVID-19 took my last living uncle & aunt, too, and I'm sure there will be more losses in the future. My sympathy to you during this difficult time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Water Fasting

Hi, was the edit reverted due to the studies linked being meta or aggregate studies? Applejr35 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My edsum said "Unreliable sources, unrelated to topic, wp:or " -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the user declaration box!

Hey, I'm taking the lunatic charlatans user box - hope you don't mind! I think it's fantastic. V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, but nothing on wikipedia belongs to anybody. I think it's fantastic too! -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method 1

Hello, I'm really trying to update this page, as it's an area I specialize in but I have no conflict of interest as this is all voluntary work and I'm not employed by the McKenzie Institute, but I've been working on this project under the approval of them. I saw a previous talk page about updating this posted by someone else and I have numerous actual scholarly articles to add to this page to help try and update the information and improve much of the provided literature, several of which is incorrect.

First the statement on the initial part of the article: “Research has found that the McKenzie method has, at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain. It is of no benefit for chronic back pain.” is number one, not referenced, and two, inaccurate. That statement, which was not referenced, appears to be referring to the first sentence under “Effectiveness” section which states: “According to a meta-analysis of clinical trials in 2006, treatment using the McKenzie method is somewhat effective for acute low back pain, but the evidence suggests that it is not effective for chronic low-back pain”. There have been numerous issues brought up about this research article already, reference number 8 by Machado et al 2006, which was also discussed by another wiki username Blueeye1967 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:McKenzie_method - Section “Efficacy seems overstated in a subtle way).

The article’s actual conclusion however was much different then what was stated on the Wikipedia article (see below):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16641766 Machado et al 2006 - “Conclusion: There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.”

Again, this report being inaccurate is one of the many reasons for the initiative to update this information. If you read on to our updated Effectiveness” section, there have been several recent studies done which have found much different conclusions (see below):

From our attempted update/edit: A 2012 systematic review looking at directional preference showed mixed results, with some evidence found supporting the effectiveness of directional preference when applied to participants with a directional preference upon a repeated end range movement assessment, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups.[43]

More recently, another systematic review[44] found that there was moderate to high quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for acute low back pain but is superior for chronic low back in reducing pain and disability. These findings conflict with another review.[45] However, the authors[44] reported limitations with intention to treat analyses not met in all the studies, some studies only looking at specific MDT subgroups, and no studies were included which compared MDT to other classification approaches.[44] Also, several of the studies[46][47][48[[49] included clinicians with minimal levels of training (not certified) even though they reported, “trained therapists are more reliable in classifying patients than are therapists who are not certified”.[44]

Finally, one additional systematic review[50] looked at the difference between pain and disability in patients with low back pain managed with the “core principles” of MDT versus treatment using “some or none” of the MDT principles. They found that trials following the “core principles” of MDT had greater treatment effects versus the other trials which did not follow the principles as closely.[50] They concluded that better outcomes utilizing the MDT system could be accomplished by following the core principles of MDT[50] such as matching the treatment to the specific classification. This appears to re-enforce some of the shortcomings of some the previously mentioned reviews.[44][45]

Again the attempt at all the updates/edits is to provide consumers/patients, health-care providers (doctors, therapists, chiropractors, etc.), researchers, and any others the most updated and accurate information about the McKenzie Method. We also attempted to present the information in an un-biased way to discuss the literature that was out there, specifically focusing on the systematic reviews, which did include reviews which discussed findings that were both positive and negative to the Method. No physical therapy system is perfect, and being honest about findings is important so that we can learn from them as well, but also be honest and discuss why there may be limitations to certain studies. To do an exhaustive review of the literature would be too much for the readers. We would appreciate allowing our edit back up the way it was and of course we can make some further changes to as needed. Hopefully this information was helpful and I apologize for the length of it. If there were specific suggestions that you have, or if there is a more specific way we are supposed to go about doing this then let me know. Thank you.

References (from the edit we hope to put):

8. MacHado, Luciana Andrade Carneiro; De Souza, Marcelo von Sperling; Ferreira, Paulo Henrique; Ferreira, Manuela Loureiro (2006). "The McKenzie Method for Low Back Pain". Spine. 31 (9): E254–62. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.

43. Surkitt LD., Ford JJ., Hahne AJ., Pizzari T., McMeeken JM. (2012).Efficacy of directional preference management for low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2012 May; 92(5):652-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100251..

44. Lam OT., Strenger DM., Chan-Fee M., Pham PT., Preuss RA., Robbins SM. (2018). “Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Jun;48(6):476-490. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.

45. ^ Machado, LA., De Souza M., Ferreira PH., Ferreira ML. (2006). The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine 2006; 31(9): E254-E262. [PubMed]. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.

46. Garcia AN., Costa LC., da Silva TM., Gondo FL., Cyrillo FN., Costa RA., Costa LO. (2013) Ef¬fectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93:729-747. https://doi.org/10.2522/ ptj.20120414

47. Garcia AN., Costa LC., Hancock MJ., Souza FS., Gomes GVFO., Almeida MO., Costa LOP. (2018) McKen¬zie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised pla¬cebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:594-600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097327

48. Moncelon S., Otero J. (2015) The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in chronic low back pain with directional preference. Kinésithér Rev. 2015;15:31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kine.2014.11.086

49. Murtezani A., Govori V., Meka VS., Ibraimi Z., Rrecaj S., Gashi S. (2015) A comparison of McKenzie therapy with electrophysical agents for the treatment of work re¬lated low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015; 28:247-253. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140511

50. Halliday MH., Garcia AN., Amorim AB., Machado GC., Hayden JA., Pappas E., Ferreira PH., Hancock MJ. (2019). Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Apr;49(4):219-229. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.

User has posted at the article Talk page. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage

Why did you delete my post on talkpageBaratiiman (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman Because I thought that the post didn't conform to our talkpage policy WP:NOTFORUM. However, it has been reinstated by DeaconVorbis, and he has replied. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Ed6767. I looked at the Redwarn page you linked above, and it doesn't display properly on my PC. I question the competence of anybody who lets a page they are responsible for appear like that, so I'll probably not bother. Thanks though. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, bummer! Usually, the images scale to fit to the page - thanks for pointing out that issue, I'll see if I can rework the Wikitext to make it appear correctly. Have a good day! Ed6767 talk! 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ed6767 Also want you to know that the "over 35" link isn't helpful at all. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, that was an early version of the template. I've updated a newer version with a more specific link. Thanks again, Ed6767 talk! 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page of "Simulation Hypothesis"

Hello, Roxy. I've been trying to improve the article on the Simulation Hypothesis exactly as prescribed by Wikipedia, namely, on the Talk Page with enumeration of proposed improvements. There is no question that I'm in compliance with WP:COI and other policies.

Yet you left a warning on my talk page and have ignored my responses to you there. Your warning was as follows:

"This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Simulation hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)"

I don't quite know what "personal attacks" you mean. (If you choose to be more specific, please include the exact persons toward whom the "attacks" were directed.) I also note that nothing has been done about venomous personal insults against me by "Nigerian chess player" and others by "Gary", who was recently blocked for trolling but then inexplicably unblocked.

In any case, now that I know of your concern with "personal attacks" and violations of WP:TPO and other talk page guidelines, I assume you've warned "Nigerian chess player" and "Gary" to stop their abuse on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia article on the Simulation Hypothesis. (As you made a non-administrative comment there before your warning, I assume you're aware of this abuse. Yet the abuse continued after your warning to me.)

If you are not a legitimate channel for reporting such violations, kindly direct me to the proper page. Thank you. Chris Langan (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific Assurance of Vaccine Safety

You reverted my edit to Vaccine hesitancy‬, is that correct? If so, why? You wrote "Better before, hand waving unnecessary" but that is not a specific argument. Why do you say the article was "better before" and call my explanation "hand waving"? How about some facts and logic before you revert someone's good faith edit? Incidentally I am very pro vaccination but I think that one sentence does a bad job of setting out the pro-vaccine argument. Dratman (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Your edit added qualifications to the sentence that are not needed, and watered down the well sourced point. We dont need to handwave about it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method 2

See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I don't doubt that you're already well aware of this - apologies for spamming your talk page, I just don't want to be accused of one-sidedness, having just put this on somebody else's page. Feel free to remove immediately. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Honestly, I cannot remember the last one I had, but I edit in many areas of high tension, and I rarely get them. I would never deny knowing about sanctions in an area I hadn't specifically been warned about. On a related note, with the de-sysopping of John and the end of the shade he cast over that page, isn't it time for ordinary sanctions to return there instead of the silliness to placate him? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I don't know the history there - can you point me at the relevant discussions (don't worry if you have to dig to find them - I can do that myself, but if you can give me some hints about dates it would help...) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll try. AJWilley tempered things, but it's going way back. Ha, I'll be able to look at my block log for the timing!! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the page is sort of in a reasonable state right now, with whatever the current sanctions are working. In Nov 2014 ordinary sanctions were working too, until John banjaxed it. after that, maintaining the page became too troublesome for me, bearing in mind john's silly sanctions. I returned a few years ago and AJ tempered things as I said. Dont trouble yourself on this, unless you feel really inclined, it probably isn't worth it. Thanks, -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, ha - I try to avoid the temptation to snoop around in people's block record, but every now and again I'm weak. I tend to agree, the current situation is working, but do please try to avoid labelling that stuff as vandalism - it's most likely good faith, if misguided, and there's no sense in handing someone a stick with which to poke you. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct! (BTW. the last time I was in York, was to see Hockney exhibit.) -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I like a bit of Hockney - I've got a couple of prints of his dogs hanging in the living room. They're not very elfin though, they're round little dachsunts GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Returning to the Ayurveda article after a while, I do think it would be good to remove the odd custom rules that were devised as part of the rather erratic admin intervention used on that page. The admin who placed them is retired (lapsed bit[6]), so I suppose any other admin could do this - I am sure normal DS is enough to cope with any disruption in this area. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time. Stop holding your mop like a cudgel. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Roxy. I read that you unwatched that page, so I wanted to personally invite you to the RfC (link) I launched to resolve this dispute. Best regards, El_C 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank uou for the notification User:El_C, I shall consider responding, but it would feel hypocritical. At least you have read my posts there, a fine example to other admins. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Roxy, I've read much of it. I agree that it was not ideal. Regardless, I encourage you to comment with high-quality sources attached. I don't think it would be hypocritical of you to do so. Your contributions are welcome on that page, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really worth it, at least some activity at the page. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 06:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Craig Revert

Good catch, the discussion I was remembering was about the bio, not the lede. Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Godwin's Law.

I just caught myself breaking it. What has become of me? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gender Article Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Rab V (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Undoing BLP Edits for Self-Promoters

Recently, you incorrectly undid an entire series of well-cited and sourced updates to the BLP Ebi. Pursuant to Wikipedia policy, please edit only those pieces of information or line items that you see troubling rather than wholesale undoing edits to appease BLP self-promoters, which is evidenced in the activity of the article. This is not the first time that your user name has removed several well-cited links from this particular BLP and the issue will be subject to escalation and penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeweyDecimalLansky (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be written in Balderdash, rather than English. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from any rude comments as per the talk page guidelines. I will clarify: you vandalized a BLP by undoing proper revisions to it and this is not the first time on this article for Ebi that your name can be found doing it. If you have specific lines to edit, then do so and please state your reasons. If you have additions to make, then do so, and please state the reasons. Please do not undo a series of edits by manually inserting an old source code or reverting all the way to an old version to undo all the edits in between that are authentic. This is just a warning as WikiPedia policy asks that we settle this together before I need to escalate and lock the article appropriately. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You are new at wikipedia editing, are you not? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Bishonen is on it: User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky#Strange warnings and accusations: admin note. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I got no joy from asking questions, though. I've blocked the user for 48 hours for persistent personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

You said to leave a note

I was not violating any policy, you called your "admin" friend to abuse the power.

Give me a solid explanation on the articles i posted/linked were against community guidelines such as web MD?

And the edits I made were presented fair. I am willing to work with whoever to make this fair, but it seems one sided?

WP:TOOLMISUSE WP:RAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has now been locked thanks to WP:SPA edits from you and the other one. I suggest you take the time before the article is unlocked to read the advice links I left on your talk page. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Günter Bechly‎ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ivoted, again. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for the support

Thankyou for your support in opposition to Lugnuts truly unjustified attempt to create another ban on my actions. It is bad enough that I have to sit back and watch tryly non-notable articles languish for over a decade because of the annoying one a day AfD rule implemented against me. It is even more egregious to watch as Lugnuts tries to prevent people from trying to enforce GNG. What Lugnuts either fails to realize or refuses to admit is what he is really pushing for is a grandfather clause that gives huge power to people who create articles despte the fact that in the past we did not even require a person to have an account to create an article. Thankyou again for your support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, but I'm not certain that support from me is of any use to you! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RV owning articles

Care to explain your reverts RailwayJG (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Improvements. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your not improving your just reverting without a reason RailwayJG (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But I can spell, and format Talk pages correctly. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And I can't is what your saying right okay. Just remember no one owns a wiki page. Always nice to mention why it is changed then just revert because you disagree RailwayJG (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

well done. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay big mouth RailwayJG (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Haha. In a few minutes, I'm going to format this section, to show you how to format a talk conversation. You may find it useful in your dealings with fellow editors. Dont go away. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"stop your poor series of edits to these NE england towns" - Personal attack? Keep your issues with me to yourself. RailwayJG (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You should read WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks) in order to understand what a personal attack really is. As is quite clear, that comment is not a PA, but a comment regarding your poor editing, quite a different thing. You should also learn to format Talk pages correctly. If you post here again, try harder to format your post correctly, or I will delete it, unread. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Badly formatted comments removed unread, as promised. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(restored, see below) You know I wouldn't have had an issue with you if you just suggested improvements. But to call my editing poor. To me makes you sound like you are above me and everyone. Maybe you don't mean it that way or don't mean it in anyway. But using the term poor edits. To me is just a boasting reference. Anyway I won't post further on here. Good day. - RailwayJG (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Roxy, I restored the comment above (but with a proper indent) so that I could reply to it. If you would like me to move this to RailwayJG's talk page I'll be happy to, just revert me and I'll get the jist.

@RailwayJG:, Roxy's criticism of your editing is correct, even if it's not particularly helpful. Your edits have been poor, and by that I mean "below the standards we expect for encyclopedic contributions". That's not a comment on you personally, and maybe if Roxy had phrased his criticism less rudely, or tried to explain at the time why he was reverting (which is strongly advised by policy, Roxy) then maybe this section could have been avoided. I reviewed just a few of your edits that Roxy reverted without explanation, and as best I can figure he was correct to do so, even if he did it improperly. For example:

Your edit on Darlington: you deleted a referenced population figure from the article. You explained that the population was already indicated in the "population box" (we call them infoboxes), but if you have a look at the WP:INFOBOX guideline, you'll see that infoboxes are supposed to repeat information written in the body of the article. You should also have a look at the MOS:LEAD manual of style, which explains the purpose of the top section (lead or lede) of articles is to summarize information in the body, so it is supposed to be repeated. These are two very common "new editor" mistakes, but don't be discouraged, we assume you're trying to help (at least we're supposed to).
You also added the text: "Also part of the Tees Valley city region.", which is a sentence fragment. It is not a personal attack to describe this as "poor", because it is: it's poor because it is not grammatically correct. It doesn't mean it's bad, but it needs to be fixed. I see you've added that same fragment to some other articles, and one particularly poor example is this edit at Stockton-on-Tees where you wrote "Part of Teeside." as an entire sentence, which is, grammatically, quite poor.

Our articles are written prose, which we expect to contain complete sentences, not fragments of ideas scattered throughout the text. Formatting complete sentences is so fundamental I can't even find a guideline for it, but you might benefit from a good reading of Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and if you're not sure about something you can ask questions at the help desk. I hope this helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Right okay thank you Ivanvector for your input. I'll take on board your advice and criticism. Appreciate it RailwayJG (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I want to just say I apologise for any insults made. I'm not on wikipedia to make enemies. I obviously have a way of editing you disagree with and I do with you. I'd rather we didnt have any grudge. I just like editors who revert to specify why they reverted. You made some I my opinion some edits I disagreed with but I won't hold that against you as this isn't playground politics. I'd rather end with us agreeing to start over and maybe contribute as I live in Batley West Yorkshire. You obviously know the north east very well. Anyway sorry for any hard feelings. RailwayJG (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I do know better. Allow me to make a proper (conciliatry) response tomorrow. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been thinking this over, not ignoring it. User:RailwayJG you should know that I have been particularly critical of User:Ivanvector recently, as you can see on this page. Any issues I had with you are in the past. Ivan, I suspect you have pulled punches a little here, there is no need. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, I'm not exactly "pulling punches" but if you've interpreted my comments to you in the advice above as jabs, well, that's a pretty accurate analogy of my intent. You and I have enough history that I know I'm not going to get anywhere waving policies in your face or trying to tell you to do things the way I think they should be done, it's just going to start a fight, and nobody benefits from that. As much as I sometimes criticize your approach (as you do mine) I respect your work and I'm not here just to be in your way. I'm sure it doesn't surprise you that I watch your page (not to stalk you, I just rarely clean up my watchlist) and saw an opportunity to provide advice to a new editor, and/or diffuse an easy dispute over what I saw as a misunderstanding. We don't have to be friends but I hope that doesn't make us enemies, I have enough already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pssst...Ivanvector, I think you meant defuse.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

D'oh! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And so you won't feel bad, you're good. It's actually covered by law: WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that, on Wikipedia, WP:OWN is often conflated with simple WP:STEWARDSHIP, which I suspect is the case here. Ivanvector, I suppose there's WP:PROSE, though indeed, it is implied that sentence fragments on the mainspace place those pages in a state of disrepair. El_C 14:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, the section that WP:PROSE refers to begins with an incomplete sentence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, it is a manual... El_C 15:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of lying

Hi Roxy, could you please clarify your accusation of me lying and threat to block me? I went into more detail about my reasoning for the claim I removed as being unsourced on the talk page. Thanks. --136.24.55.183 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. Note that I have no power to block you, and made no such threat. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the post in question was a bog-standard vandalism4im warning followed by a bog-standard DS alert. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Didn't realize such aggressive language was bog-standard. Will try not to dwell on it. I also probably could have made my edit summary clearer. Thanks for getting back to me! --136.24.55.183 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we have an entire group of editors working to create standard warnings that are not aggressive. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. By cutting and pasting the standard warnings, as Roxy did with you, we know that the exact wording of the warning has been gone over again and again. I believe that the problem here is on your end. It seems that you seen non-aggressive warnings and interpret them as being aggressive. The fact that you imagined a threat to block you when none existed supports my theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For vigilant reversal of whitewashing and original research on pages about anti-vaccination groups and others. Thank you! Robincantin (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)