User talk:Roxy the dog

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roxy the dog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm too disruptive to be allowed to vote. haha. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 20:09, 20 November 2018 (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:

Block was applied based on a spurious reading of the block log, (see comment from blocking admin below) mitigating factors of poorly applied previous blocks, (one of which was for calling a sockpuppet "not here to improve the encyclopedia", and another for criticising the admin who applied that block. A recent one for calling out the uselessness of an admin on this page where a little more lattitude is expected. Clearly I'm not disruptive, more misunderstood. Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (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.

This is in response to your disruption at Fiber rope. In no universe is simply overwriting an article with the contents of another constructive editing. The duration is in consideration of your past disruption as per your block log. Sandstein 20:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh roxy! :( Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear. See [1]. I like Roxy a lot, but this was well over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @Jytdog: - Yeah, that's why I had reported for this. Warned and reverted 3 times but nothing. Didn't have any other option. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That page is ridiculous and should not exist, but Roxy handled it in a bad way. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC0

@Jytdog: Though I somewhat agree, it was probably in response to my closure of that AfD (which I closed as keep per WP:CONSENSUS) but it wasn't taken well, as you said. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Sandstein:, did you consider the specious nature of some of the blocks on that rather petty block log? If you had, I suspect you might have considered a week a bit too harsh. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

While any individual block might be questionable, in the aggregate a long block log is likely a good indicator of repeated disruption. Sandstein 10:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

But did you? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Well? @Sandstein:? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 11:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not evaluate all blocks to see whether they were "specious" or not, no. Sandstein 15:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

In NRP's decline for not addressing the reason for the block, stated by Sandstein as disruption at Fibre rope it would appear to be self evident that I will not be disruptive again, as the problem I had is no longer extant. I can't see how it is actually possible to be disruptive at Fibre rope as the project is now as it ought to be in this respect. Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 00:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Blocks are preventative not punishment. Roxy states "I will not be disruptive again" and I think it is reasonable to take them at their word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose an unblock for the reason given. What would prevent you from doing this again on another AfD closure that triggers you? Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Redditaddict69 what will prevent them from doing so again I would hope is the realization that it would be disruptive and would result in them being reblocked.

Roxy I have unblocked you on the understanding that further disruption will not occur (either of the type above or other). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James. I will not be causing any further disruption. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 09:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A question following on from this mess. Jytdog has sorted out the issue, achieving in a moment what I had been trying to do for some time. I still do not understand what he did, or how he did it without any criticism from those criticising me. How? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 09:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sir John Nelthorpe School

Please explain your recent edit to Talk:Sir_John_Nelthorpe_School where you have added that you are an alumni of John Nelthorpe School. So am I, probably many years before you, but I don't feel the need to brag about it. I deleted your edit because I thought it was not relevant to an encyclopedia. Dsergeant (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you get this attitude there? What happened since I left !! (Hint: Maggie Thatcher) -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 18:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Health Australia Party

Hi there. Could I ask for some feedback on your revert of my edits to Health Australia Party? The original article was a little biased, and I've attempted to rewrite it from a NPOV. You specifically said you reverted the 'NPOV edits'. How is that constructive? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If you ask this question on the Talk page for the article, I will respond there, where anybody else watching the page can see my response, and where discussion regarding article content should take place. Thanks. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cameron Kasky

Roxy I corrected inaccuracies on Cameron Kasky' page. He wasn't shot at. He wasn't shot. He didn't even see gun fire. That makes him a bystander at most. He is not a survivor. For reference only, I witnessed a shooting outside my apartment at 3:00pm a couple of years back on my sister's birthday. I was a bystander. I was not a survivor if it served a political agenda or my own teenage need for attention. I was just a bystander. Please let my edit stand without trying to undo it. I won't make the correction to his page again until I hear back from you. I'll pray for your recovery. The sleepwalker (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)The sleepwalker

See my edsum at the article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF?

You reverted me and templated me for fixing a typo/grammer issue. Which I clearly marked as such. So why did you accuse me of vandalism? Afootpluto (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Because of your lying edsum, and I see that you've done it again. Please stop. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop, for a second and listen. Assault rifles are select fire rifles, while Assault weapons are semi automatic. So I was fixing that. Afootpluto (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please use the article Talk page to discuss article content, so that other editors can see. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would have posted it there, but I am not recreating a deleted page. Afootpluto (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mk 153 Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.

Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System).

FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon).

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is very biased against science.

Wikipedia is biased against Anatomy, Biology, and Psychology. Wikipedia actively promotes the fringe transgender ideology, even though it violates the most fundamental laws of anatomy, biology, and reason, and it is an established fact that transgenderism is considered a mental disorder in psychology.