User talk:Roxy the dog

Chopra

"if Chopra turns his back on the modern world to promote his magic, then so be it. If the cap fits." If you have strong, pejorative feelings about Mr. Chopra, are sure it's appropriate for you to be trying to influence the content of that article, especially since it's a BLP? Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Query

I was asked what you were trying to do here. Can you explain? --John (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Supporting DV. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. And would you stand by this edit? --John (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you threatening me? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a really simple question. Nevertheless, I will rephrase it. Do you plan to make more edits along the lines of the one I have highlighted? --John (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No. But I note you didn't answer my question. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you. In answer to your question, no, I am not threatening you, but doing my job as admin. I would not be doing it correctly if I did not point out that any repetition of this edit would lead to a block. This is not a threat, but an inevitable consequence. But as you said you wouldn't be doing it again, neither of us has to worry about that. --John (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the only good thing to come out of this is the knowledge that John doesn't play any favourites -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

The message you're about to read is not particularly important...I just wanted to say "hi!" I appreciate that you took the time to look into my edits I explained on TRPOD's talk page (the inclusion of "Derp and Merp" characters on the "Derp" article). Most "talk page stalkers" I have encountered immediately agree with whatever the owner of the talk page thinks and don't even look at the article edits that are being talked about. So, this isn't a question, concern or anything. Just a compliment on your ethic! Thank you, Squiddaddy (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this note, Squiddaddy, I appreciate it. My comment on TRPOD's talk page was a late night after two whiskys throwaway, but it was clear that your own "Derp" edit was a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia, and I wanted to make a comment reflecting that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss here

Now that you have already refused to make any discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine(per your statement - I shall not be contributing further to this), can you inform that how official guidelines disallow you to wikilink the technical terms at least once on the section? Also what's the reason behind removing the terms like Toxicology, Psychiatry, etc. when they are clearly supported by the reliable citations and there's clear consensus to include them. I am doubtful that why you are telling me to follow BRD, when I am already doing with this longstanding content. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets not discuss here, where other people who may have an interest wont be aware of a content discussion, unless you do your normal canvassing of sympathetic opinion to your cause. Instead, discuss it at the proper place, the article talk page. Note that though you didn't hear it, I did raise the issue at the project medicine discussion. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you had stopped responding there already right after you had made an irrelevant one liner comment. I don't see that you have raised issue anywhere, or else you are saying that your last contributions got deleted, which is just not possible. Anyways I have posted on talk once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary here. I don't think this is a revert, but I don't think it's right either. For what it's worth I believe on Wikipedia we capitalise Internet. --John (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A convention among early geeks was to use lowercase i for interconnected networks, and an uppercase I for the global interconnected network. However, the lowercase version is now very widely used in the real world. And when I seize control of the English language, I will ban all prescriptivism. bobrayner (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So, can I call on you?

Just saw this on your page: "This user resists the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans." Are you up to facing a very resilient editor working on a number of pages that are relatively out of sight (not major subjects) pushing extreme lunatic fringe views? Let me know. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'd take a look at anything interesting, but no promises ;) . -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the same userbox. I too would be willing to look at things, but I too have my limits. Let's hear it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we should find a very resilient editor in such unpleasant surroundings, we could perhaps convert them, and make them into a WP:NPOV editor? What do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What's the problem, and can I help? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, this is so encouraging. I saw your replies only now, and it is now 01:10 AM here. I will get back to you guys tomorrow. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

[1] Do you feel that WP editors should at least make an attempt to be neutral about the topics we edit, especially since it's actually a policy that we do so? Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of policy is monumental. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Travelan

The IP WP:DEPRODded it, and even though it was clearly bad faith we can't revert it. I started an AfD, so please comment in that. I'm not sure if it goes with the "obvious vandalism" anti-criteria in that section, but I'd like to play it safe. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 05:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Origamite, thanks for putting me right on this, it's often the only way I learn stuff. I also have WP:PROD open in another window - there is always something else to learn. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked your account for 24 hours for the latter part of this comment. I don't especially care what you think of me or my motivations, but you will not disrupt this article's talk page with comments on the motivations of other editors. On your return, please use article talk to discuss improving the article, and raise any concerns about editor behaviour in one of the other locations for this. --John (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have re-read the latter part of this comment for which you have blocked me, and there are no personal attacks or harassment there. There are general observations certainly, but no harassment or personal attacks. You have stated Harassment and personal attacks in your reason for blocking, so I expect to be unblocked quickly. Thanks - Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have re-read the latter part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&diff=633457205&oldid=633363479 this comment] for which you have blocked me, and there are no personal attacks or harassment there. There are general observations certainly, but no harassment or personal attacks. You have stated Harassment and personal attacks in your reason for blocking, so I expect to be unblocked '''quickly'''. Thanks - [[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have re-read the latter part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&diff=633457205&oldid=633363479 this comment] for which you have blocked me, and there are no personal attacks or harassment there. There are general observations certainly, but no harassment or personal attacks. You have stated Harassment and personal attacks in your reason for blocking, so I expect to be unblocked '''quickly'''. Thanks - [[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have re-read the latter part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&diff=633457205&oldid=633363479 this comment] for which you have blocked me, and there are no personal attacks or harassment there. There are general observations certainly, but no harassment or personal attacks. You have stated Harassment and personal attacks in your reason for blocking, so I expect to be unblocked '''quickly'''. Thanks - [[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

John -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin

Roxy the dog made these comments in full knowledge of the editing restrictions I placed here. I would rather see an acknowledgement that the comments were out of order than an appeal based on the legitimacy of the block. --John (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and I was very very careful not to make personal attacks or to harass anybody. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In my view you crossed the line I drew when I said "No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations." when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority". --John (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your reason for my block. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Further note to potential reviewing admin If we have interacted in the past, thank you for your interest, but allow an uninvolved admin to review this. I will of course accept any further review. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair warning to any reviewing admin; I am considering taking this block to arbcom for consideration, as an initial request to the blocking administrator has not met with a helpful response. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)