User talk:Roxy the dog

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)

{{unblock}}

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)

@Demiurge1000:- in my humble opinion, a WP:RFC/ADMIN in regard to the whole thing, including the 0RR restrictions, Bladesmulti's block and QuackGuru's block would be more constructive. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• You were warned before.[2] What about "fringe editor/s",[3]-[4] irrelevant use of the word quackery[5]. After seeing your unblock request, I would just say that you clearly don't understand that why you were blocked. You have accused other user of vandalism when those edits were not vandalism and you have claimed that I do things underhanded.[6] That all comes from hardly four pages that I have viewed. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:- from my perspective, the comment you were blocked for does seem to be assuming bad faith to other editors. I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. Nevertheless, my advice would be to rephrase your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to thank you for your review using the normal method PhilKnight, as I believe my block prevents those links appearing. As it is very early in the morning here, and I haven't yet had my necessary amount of tea to enable proper cognitive function to set in, I will take your sage advice under advisement, and merely strike my appeal comments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@John I've been trying to understand your reasoning for this block. My best guess so far is that Roxy the dog used the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority" in this edit, and that you interpreted that as name calling in defiance of your editing restrictions here. Was that your reasoning? Cardamon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I, too, am curious about the reasoning behind the block.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this explain it a bit more? The admin John was not interested in this topic area. He became interested in this topic area because of me. It appears he got angry at me after I told him to stop restoring comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John's a passive-aggressive character underneath that veneer of gentility. Your best bet is to lobby other admins to join in supervising the article, the way Bladesmulti has lobbied John. (See John's talk page -- Bladesmulti has handled him well.) 216.3.101.62 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

John

I think John violated the guidelines in several ways when he blocked you. He failed to warn you as required by WP:BEFOREBLOCK. As one of the participants in the debate, he shouldn't have been using the tools anyway per WP:INVOLVED. More fundamentally, I don't think you did anything deserving a block even if warned and even if imposed by someone not involved. I just do not believe your comments were sufficiently rude and directed to clear the hurdle as personal attacks.

When I tried raising my concerns about the block with John (twice! 1, 2) he simply refused (twice! 3, 4) to discuss them in violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. I've never crossed paths with John before to have any personal knowledge but my guess is that if it's that easy to pick out problems in John's decisions, this is not the first time he's shown poor judgment. I'm guessing that if he makes it worthwhile to investigate, for example, by carrying out his threat of new blocks on similarly specious grounds, there's probably a treasure trove of bad decisions to be found and documented.

Since this was only a 24-hr block and it's over and given also how notoriously difficult it is to hold admins accountable for anything, I expect you'll probably decide to let this drop. That's probably the best course. But should you decide to pursue the matter or if he carries out his threat of another block I would be willing to certify an RFCU or to make a statement in support as an involved party in an ArbCom request. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John has taken the discussion to my talk page, starting here. I am now satisfied that John was not WP:INVOLVED. Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Msnicki, in May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me. This is a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. This is a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. Any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Now the admin John suggests there should further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog. That is "problematic". QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rolfing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rolfing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.playnlive.com/blog/rolfing/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   Bfpage |leave a message  14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you mad? Why have you posted this here User:Bfpage -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation of this, in other words a couple of clicks, it appears that User:Bfpage doesn't have a clue what is going on. I will watch developments with interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice

I noticed you alleged at the admin's noticeboard that I have "stated that he does not watch the page". Could you be careful about making inaccurate statements like this in the future please? A good tip is for any claim about another editor's behaviour you should always give a diff, as I have modelled for you here. If you can't (or can't be bothered looking), it's worth considering not making the claim. This is just friendly advice by the way, to avoid the risk of you looking foolish to others. Cheers, --John (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fed up with faux politeness. What do you want me to do? and do your daft sanctions extend to this or other pages outside the Ayurveda article and Talk page? cheers indeed -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider that my politeness may not be faux. I respect your good intentions as you should respect mine. Politeness and regard for editing process are necessary if we wish to make progress, especially in difficult areas like the one we are currently discussing. I am sorry if you think that my sanctions are "daft". What do you not like about them? I'll take your declining to comment on the comment and suggestion I made as implying that you acknowledge your mistake and you will try not to repeat it. That would be great. I do not hold grudges and I look forward to your continued contributions at Talk:Ayurveda, so long as you can avoid insulting others. Best regards, --John (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Lunatic charlatans deserve contempt. People who enable them also. The fact that I am worried that posting such a comment will lead to further sanctions from you is very very sad. So, should I consider my own talk page subject to your sanctions or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And how about userpages? Because there's a userbox for the lunatic charlatans comment, I think it's amongst mine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Its the only one on my userpage ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so it is. Could I persuade you to adopt any of mine? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I notice you continue to misrepresent my statements. You really do need to be careful about that. I will not block you for making false statements about me but if you continue it is likely that others may. My advice would be to let this aspect of the situation drop. Others will (mostly) have the intelligence to read the diffs and see what I actually said; by stating I said something I did not you will only make yourself look foolish and devalue any future points you may wish to make. --John (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• How about disagreeing with you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with me is fine, over matters of opinion or interpretation. Stating I said something which I did not say is a no-no, especially at an Admins' Noticeboard. --John (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Whether it is a matter of opinion or not could be argued, for example at arbcom or in the RFC/ADMIN that another admin has suggested might be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)