User talk:Roxy the dog

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but it appears that participation in an AfD qualifies for this sort of notification. wow. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The infamous Genesis II Church fact from Miracles Mineral Supplement page

So you just undoing a just ‘‘infamous’’ fact with link to his religious movement’s poorly designed website, about his pseudoscience inspired ‘new religious movement’ from ex-Scientologist pseudoscience advocate. And I’m clearly not supporting him or again his new religious movement either because I suffered from ASD. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I don’t understand the point you want to make here. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m saying I don’t clearly supporting him or his religious movement. But I’m just stating informative fact about his pseudoscience religious movement. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I don't think that linking to his "church", which is just a continuation of his MMS quackery marketing by other means, is particularly informative to our readers. The "church" is already mentioned in the article. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, But if someone (but possibly not me) wants created either that guy or his pseudoscience religious movement pages. That fact could probably restated in future. Chad The Goatman (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2018 (EST)

(talk page stalker)If someone creates an article on that church, then we could link to the article. But I doubt anything but the MMS itself will get much coverage in the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

LLLT

Changes made to LLLT page only included missing information. Regarding reimbursement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has changed their policy to indicate that LLLT is considered 'medically necessary'. Plenty more can be cited if further evidence is required. The treatment of Oral Mucositis included citations from multiple papers, including a systematic review and is further supported by the policy changes by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York medical policy states this (emphasis mine):

"A recent systematic review of RCTs on LLLT for prevention of oral mucositis included 18 RCTs, generally considered at low risk of bias, and found statistically significantly better outcomes with LLLT than control conditions on primary and secondary outcomes. In addition, three double-blind, RCTs published in 2015 found significantly better outcomes in patients undergoing LLLT than undergoing sham treatment prior to or during cancer treatment. The evidence is sufficient to determine qualitatively that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome."

Please review changes and tell me which content you feel is not supported by the citations and evidence.

edit: in case you are concerned about the use of static PDFs, you can search Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York's medical policy here, look for Low Level User therapy, you can do the same for Blue Cross Massachusetts and Blue Kansas City.

Academia salad (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have copied the above comment to the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair, will resume discussion on there. Would you care to weigh in further on your thoughts? Academia salad (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

edits to Holocaust denial

This topic is closed. Please discuss at the article talk page -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. You seem to have reverted my reversion of unexplained removal of content at the article. I WAS REVERTING A REMOVAL OF content by the user. NOW THERE ARE STRAY SOURCES FOR NO REASON. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Apologies for the caps! my computer isnt working right.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC) You do not appear in the edit history. article is now correct. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC) OK, you do appear in the history, sorry. I disagree with your edits though. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC) why is that? the content i restored has three bundled sources for inclusion, now those sources are there for no reason. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Any response I make will be at the article talk page. You need to learn to use colons correctly. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC) My edit here was reverting unexplained deletion of content. I was reverting this edit. It removed "conspiracy theory" without explanation and left a huge chunk of sources abandoned. Now they serve no purpose. see here -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Please read WP:TPG and WP:TPL and learn how to use talk pages correctly. I have edited your comment here to correct your use of colons. I'm afraid your comments at the Holocaust denial talk page are so unintelligible that the point you are trying to make is impossible to follow. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) OKAY. Here is a timeline. 1. The lede for Holocaust denial had this set of words "antisemitic conspiracy theory." Someone thoroughly added sources, as "reference #9", and the reference is still there. Strangely, you didn't notice that you yourelf fixed the reference, and that it was there to support "conspiracy theory" 2. User:Beyond My Ken removed the words without explanation(possible vandalism), meaning that the sources are just sitting there unused. I objected and told him to take it to the talk page based on his removal of a sourced phrase, he rejected and said flippantly "you take it to talk." 3. I re-added the words "conspiracy theory" as the sources were still there for that specific term. 4. It was removed again, by you. TL;DR= Currrently, there are sources sitting at the article unused because the term that they supported is deleted. How is this so hard to understand? -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 07:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Update: there is still even a damn template on the page for "conspiracy theory," and no one bothers to re-add the wording to the lede. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Might help if you told Roxy what they were blocked for, John. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't like me Neil. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ping me when you're done with your appeal and I'll copy it over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN I don't see any point in doing anything more. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've copied it over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)*I see you are claiming you do not know what this block is for. It is for edit warring at ayurveda, something you have been blocked for before. It is nothing to do with liking or disliking anybody, but you know fine well you cannot edit-war there. --John (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roxy the dog

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Arbitration enforcement

No explanation for the block has been provided

Administrator imposing the sanction

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notified

Statement by Roxy the dog

No explanation for the block has been provided, I have done nothing wrong. Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Roxy the dog

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)