User talk:Roxy the dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roxy the dog (talk | contribs) at 12:10, 6 September 2023 (→‎Pregnant people go swimming?: note to tosspot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


71 edits Eastern Medical College
67 edits Otis Clapp
54 edits Hypnotic Ego-Strengthening Procedure
51 edits Laura Veale
48 edits PACE trial
41 edits Cass Review
35 edits Otis Clapp & Son
33 edits Lie Kiat Teng
32 edits Male contraceptive
32 edits Immunotherapy

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 11 May 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Community ban

Hi Roxy. I have closed the ANI complaint against you with a WP:CBAN, and accordingly, set your block not to expire. Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options — I would personally recommend that you wait a minimum of 6 months before filing one. And I would also strongly recommend taking Sideswipe9th's on her generous offer to engage the matter further with you, which hopefully would lead to better understanding. Either way, good luck and best wishes for your health (wishes which I hope aren't in poor taste for me to extend). El_C 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind good wishes. I would be interested to read Sideswipes offer, but I have no idea where it was made, could you perhaps link it for me. - Roxy the dog 10:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link. —Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Roxy the dog 10:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A further question if I may. Obviously I shall be removing myself from wikipedia in the very near future, but does this CBAN act, in the same way as a Topic Ban, ie am I forbidden to discuss the subject area around which I am CBANned on this page? - Roxy the dog 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's constructive, it's probably fine. So if as mentioned you wish to discuss the subject matter with Sideswipe9th, you may do so here. El_C 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and when you say constructive how may I interpret that? If I used it in a response, it would on the thread at ANI, have been picked apart in many many different ways, and given many different meanings. Many people would not like, and interpret my responses and comment as not constructive, and I would be in further trouble, if such is possible? - Roxy the dog 12:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of leaving talk pages accessible to blocked users is to allow them to appeal the decision. So I would suggest constructive should be interpreted as any comment building toward that eventual appeal. Given the nature of this ban, that would certainly include learning from trans editors about their experiences editing Wikipedia and how we can do better, both as individual editors and as a community. – bradv 14:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Nythar's kindly given the link, and I'll expand on it a little here, hopefully that's OK with you.
The offer itself will remain open indefinitely, whenever you feel ready to take me up on it I'll be there. You can leave me a message here, or send me an email through my user page, whichever you prefer. I've no real structure in mind for how it would work, other than I think it'd be best if you lead it. I don't want to come across as preachy or like I'm just bombarding you with links to research papers and philosophical debates. I'll certainly provide those as context, where I think they'll be helpful, provide context, or if they can explain something better than I can. But for the most part, I think this would be best if we treat it as a discussion between two people.
I think what might work well is if we start with questions and answers. You ask whatever you want about the topic, I'll try my best to answer. If something is unclear, you need me to say it a different way, or if you want me to go into more detail about something, just say. I'm happy to discuss pretty much anything on the topic, from the science underpinning it all, to my own personal experiences with it. Nothing would be off-limits, though depending on the questions there are some answers I might prefer to give to you privately by email or via DM on Discord. I won't hold how you phrase questions against you, and if we do this primarily on your talk page if anyone tries to say it's non-constructive or not an appropriate use I will defend you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so pleased I rescinded your page ban (in my head) not thirty seconds before you posted. - Roxy the dog 21:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite late to this, and I first want to wish you, Roxy, a speedy recovery from your health issues. On top of that, I have a background in biochemistry/genetics - but it's from a long time ago, and I didn't study sexuality/gender at all. But what I do know is that ideas along the lines of "penis = male, vagina = female", or "XY = male, XX = female", are just not in keeping with modern scientific knowledge - in fact, not even the science of the 80s when I graduated. Sexuality and gender are the result of complex gene expression, a lot of which was not understood in my day, but I'm sure much more is known now. (And, just a personal observation, I've always thought that flexibility in sexual genetic expression has to be an inevitable, and beneficial, evolutionary outcome). Anyway, I really do encourage you to take up Sideswipe9th in their offer of help... but I would strongly recommend taking it off-wiki rather than here, centre stage, in the bright spotlight. However things turn out, Roxy, I wish you well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You blocked me in the past, Boing. I hope you know that I never resented that. I recognise ("penis = male, vagina = female", or "XY = male, XX = female") your comment, but the mainstream tells us something different, and I will go no further for the fear that Valjean describes below. This comment may broach my extremely narrow page freedoms ("constructive"), this is not uncontructive. - Roxy the dog 07:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't realised I'd featured in your block log, but I tend to forget things like that quite quickly. I'm pleased there's no hard feelings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm sorry to see this. I recommend resources like this and to read on sex assignment, that is not a flawless process in medicine. This is also a topic that's been weaponized to divide and create conflict, including by trolling campaigns of people claiming to be feminists, and the typical anti-science creationist claiming to be fighting for science (with a straw man of pseudoscientific simplified biology argument). In any case, my suggestion is to wait 3-6 months without creating other accounts and to appeal, with a sincere statement about the understanding on why some of your comments could be disrespectful to other people. If you don't return, farewell, I've also seen good contributions from you and that is unfortunate. —PaleoNeonate – 17:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t think 3-6 months is long enough for the community, whose will and discontent is clear. To return, in my opinion, (1) you should not appeal before a year, (2) you need to renounce your transphobic + TERF views and apologise for them, and (3) you will need to apologise for your history of general incivility (e.g. [1]) and explain how you will change. I wish you good luck and good health. starship.paint (exalt) 18:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Your opinion is noted. Thank you very much for your kind good wishes. - Roxy the dog 21:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sideswipe's offer is an excellent way to go, and I want to thank Sideswipe for putting it on the table. I regard Sideswipe as another wiki-friend of mine, one whose advice to Roxy should be very valuable. And I think the comment from Starship.paint should tell Roxy where a lot of the community is at. As for anything on this talk page, Roxy, you should follow Bradv's instructions and restrict it to, eventually, seeking an appeal, and otherwise to learning and making amends in order for that appeal to succeed. If you have questions about that for me, I'm happy to try to answer them here. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the many times you and I discussed how I thought you were doing things wrong, and where, after you thought about it for a while, you came to agree with my advice. I'd love to see you work on getting better at remembering previous times when that happened, so that you don't need to be reminded of it again – so that you go directly to doing the right thing without relapsing into mistakes that you already made before. I'll boil a big part of it down to something very simple: treat other people on Wikipedia nicely, and be aware of their feelings. In the mean time, I think you should take a nice, long break from this place, and focus on getting healthy. See you around sometime, I hope! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reminded of a conversation I had about you a year ago. Seeing your community ban makes me think that one need not hasten the day because it's coming very quickly without our help. Much as I've been a reader of Wikipedia I'm more certain than ever about my choice to stop contributing to articles and I guess I'm glad you're in that boat, too. These folks don't deserve your efforts, Roxy, so please enjoy your well-earned time off. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chris, I've no doubt that this is the approach I am going to take. - Roxy the dog 06:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This little interchange is disappointing. I had hoped that you would have taken another path. Maybe I made a mistake trying to keep you around against significant opposition. Very disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand. How easy it is. This project has taken a huge proportion of my time in the last ten years or more, and now I shall have to replace it. I hope to be able to enjoy it, but a huge hole has been carved out of my life. - Roxy the dog 08:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen people in similar circumstances temporarily migrate to places like Commons, simple English WP and WPO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to guess that Cullen's comment about disappointment is referring to "but the mainstream tells us something different". Roxy, I myself didn't like that either, given the context. This is not the time to argue, but rather, it's the time to listen. Cullen, if I'm mistaken about that and you have any disappointment with anything that I've contributed on Roxy's talk, please tell me about it at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, back at the (MEDRS) ranch

I hope your health improves soon, RtD.

I've never posted here before, but I'm aware of your work, and with the dwindling ranks of medical editors willing to engage anywhere anymore, in your absence, I am worried about who will maintain these articles. Other than Morgellons (and the related delusional parasitosis), I won't, because I'm worn out on the WikiShenanigans everywhere. As far as I know, these articles are likely to fall into disrepair now, so I hope some TPS will watchlist them.

See this article, which summarizes a recent study.

And topics at:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. That's just one reason why I oppose the community ban, but didn't dare say it out loud. (I've learned this topic is dangerous, and sometimes sanctions are tribal and go far beyond PAG.) A Tban would have been better, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but this one is. They are supposed to protect Wikipedia, and a Tban would have done that. It would have protected Wikipedia. Now we're short one more mainstream editor, leaving fringe editors more freedom to exercise their insidious influence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, and I want to make it very clear that I don't mean this as a criticism of Valjean. But as long as good-faith editors are afraid to speak up at drama boards, things like this are going to keep happening. We need to support one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I want to put some more nuance on what I just said. I don't want anyone, least of all Roxy, to interpret me as saying that I think the result was the wrong one. It was properly decided, and should stand. But I absolutely believe that we have a dysfunctional system if editors of good faith are afraid to speak up, for fear of backlash. And the only cure for that is to abandon that fear. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also clarify, lest I also get banned for commenting. I think Roxy was dead wrong and deserves a block, just not a total ban. A Tban would be better. Punitive blocks and bans are wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reply only because I think Roxy might benefit from thinking about my reasoning in this comment. Certainly, Wikipedia has a troubled relationship with WP:NOTPUNITIVE. But there is a legitimate argument to be made, and this argument got consensus at the ban discussion, that a ban prevents future feelings of being unwelcome for editors who are hurt by those kinds of comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wading in to that other than to say I have been consistent. I did not support a site ban on an editor whose issues went well beyond anything diffed for RtD, and for many more years, and in many more places, and several arbcases, and that editor is still editing. I thought there were ways other than a CBAN to address the issues (I could be wrong), yet those were not enacted, so what do I know; that editor is still able to say the same things that brought them to ANI on their talk page, and no one is complaining.
Anyway, I'm here to say I just hope some of you will watchlist these articles; the trend at WT:MED is increasingly towards arguing that content doesn't even need to be cited at all, much less to a reliable source, much less to a MEDRS source, so as I said, the shenanigans have me increasingly worried about FRINGE and pseudoscience topics. As well as everything else. I wonder if I've cleaned up my last medical article given some of the environmental issues of late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I may well come to regret it, but I just put every article you listed that wasn't already on my watchlist onto my watchlist. I'm not saying that I have the energy to really take care of any of those pages, but I will hopefully notice if something egregious crops up. I hope some other editors will do likewise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All but Cow urine, Ritz-Carlton Hotel urine, and Trump at the Act nightclub were on my watchlist.
I can handle Cow urine at least (along with a few others). Definitely in the realm of agriculture fringe stuff I deal with that I never had thought to check before. Hopefully a walk in the park compared to GMOs. KoA (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pages I may have removed from my watchlist are the ones related to LGBTQ issues, which is sad. I'm still traumatized. It's just too dangerous an area to venture into unless one has lots of experience, knowledge, and never makes a mistake. Newbies get crucified and risk CBANs. Errors are punished hard. Forgiveness is in another universe, with the exception of a few editors, who do show understanding for the difficult learning curve required for editing or discussing there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both for watchlisting those. Please ping me if I can be of any help, but know that real life has not been kind lately and I am barely able to manage real content work. And then when I do real content work, I always have to deal with trivial complaints; not worth it anymore. Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much (see: none) experience with pseudoscience or fringe science topics, but I am willing to help maintain Neuro-linguistic programming if nothing else because it's a topic I am somewhat familiar with and I'm worried that fringe POVs may seep into the article in Roxy's absence. I don't know enough about other fringe or medical topics to commit to maintaining those, but every extra set of eyes helps, I imagine, even if only on one article. I'll further add that while Roxy's CBAN was likely the right call I wish them well with their health and potential appeal in the future once they have grown as an editor. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just done one of my periodic watchlist blankings. Probably picked the wrong moment. Oh well, I'm away from today until the end of June with no Wikipedia, so wish you all well in the meantime. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to put this here

Roxy,

I'm not looking for a response as this is not related to the discussion on your block. I'm not going to comment on anything above because I think that discussion has been had and a consensus of our peer editors made a decision. I have always wanted for you, an improved health and a wholeness in life. Through our limited discussions here I believe you to be an extremely strong willed human and I think we need to be that sometimes to make it through the things we go through. Yours has been a difficult journey but you are and continue to be an inspiration to many going through similar things. This may be an end but it is not the end of your journey. As you go forward searching for something meaningful to fill the void of not having Wikipedia, consider that. Always work to improve as a human being, in the way you treat yourself and others. Recognize your limitations, vices and faults but don't focus so much on those things that you miss out on celebrating your successes and achievements. I will continue to sing a song of health over you, my friend. --ARoseWolf 12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for thes kind and thoughtful words. It is appreciated. Roxy the dog 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In hospital again

Obviously I’ve avoided this depressing website, it hasn’t been easy. I see many pings unanswered about what used to be my user page. My thoughts are “meh” what is the improvement to the project tagging that, what sort of a user would do it? I should respond that apart from one hater, people who actually pinged acted AGF. Thank you all for that kindness.

i thought the haters would be amused at my plight so here I am. It’s unrelated to scrotum issues, probably due to recent ending of two years of chemotherapy.

In in the meantime, looking at this page, I obviously have to correct my dissembling, but I’m still not in the right frame of mind to do it yet. Roxy the dog 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's important is that you be well. This website is... just a website. You are in my thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you are better soon. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear it, Roxy. I don't know what people get out of tagging your userpage, indeed. Especially not the admin who did it with reference to a non-existent subheader of the banning policy page. I've removed the tag. Anyway, I'm somewhat cheered to see the fly still crawling about. Hope it's a good portent. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you all very much for your kind thoughts. I see a little unfortunate back and forth, but no worries Bish.
my heamoglobin levels have tanked horribly and we don’t know why. Must rest. Roxy the dog 10:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... just a website. Developments have developed. I have found it odd how friendships developon just a website. It happens a lot.
i have dreaded the bone marrow test tomorrow for fifteen years. Wanted you lot to know, and don’t really understand why. Must rest some more. Roxy the dog 14:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping everything crossed for you. I copied your fly onto my own page ages ago, and every time I see it I think of you and the help you gave.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, my sincere apologies if my behavior has contributed to your stress in any way. You're in my thoughts and prayers. I hope you get better soon. --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the stress of waiting for those results and hoping the news was positive or at least not worse than it already was. You are in my thoughts, Roxy, especially in those moments. Remember that you are a cherished human song and, though this particular fight is yours to experience, you are not alone. Many, many others have had similar fights or are going through it right now too. It's a bond that connects us and we can lean on that bond as human's at our darkest times. Courage and strength is your crown, my friend. Keep fighting for life and I wish for health and wholeness to come your way. --ARoseWolf 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biopsy was a piece of cake, despite my worries. What is FAR FAR worse is that I have tested covid positive and exposed a major city hospital. I am now in their isolation unit. Roxy the dog 22:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biopsy outcome is really good news. I'll admit to having been worried about it. But that's very good news. I can certainly understand how unsettling it can be to be moved into an isolation unit, but I think you have a very good chance of kicking Covid. It's a terrible ordeal to go through what you've been going through, but I sincerely think you should feel optimistic. Hang in there, and know that a lot of us here are rooting for you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Released from isolation yesterday evening. I've had three blood transfusions to up my heamoglobin to normal levels, and biopsy reveals no CLL evidence (it always comes back) and Pure red cell aplasia which explains the need for transfusions. Awaiting second half of biopsy results here at home where I will be very closely monitored. - Roxy the dog 09:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear you're home - keep strong Roxy! Bon courage (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's very good that you are back home, and it sounds to me like they are monitoring closely all the right indicators. Please be of good cheer, and as Bon courage said, keep strong! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm so glad to hear you're at home again, really glad that the biopsy was ok. That sounds frightening. Incredibly unlucky to catch Covid.But I guess it's more likely in a major city than anywhere else. Keep on truckin, that's important. I'm expecting chemo again next month. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxy

I think we've only interacted twice on here, you gave me a bit of advice about another editor. I've followed some of your posts at the fringe noticeboard for a while which have kept me entertained through some intensive (and extremely painfu) surgery. I really hope you start to feel better soon. Sorry to hear about your bollocks 😄 Please take care 🙂 Knitsey (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up. It was good straightforward advice that I’m so glad you heeded. And thank you for telling me, I wish more newbies followed advice like that that many of us give. Thanks so much. Roxy the dog 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant people go swimming?

Seen in the Grone, they (the Grone) appear confused! Roxy the dog 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, I was thinking just the other day that I should check in with you, and see how you are feeling. But, that said, I think that your post here is going to do you no good at all, in terms of ever getting unbanned. It makes you sound like you don't get the message, and maybe don't care. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[sighs heavily] they don’t and they don’t. Obviously. Dronebogus (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny. Up until the hooha that got me blocked, I used to think that you, Dronebogus, were a good chap, reasonable editor, reliable, edits normally good. Now I see that you are a tosspot. -Roxy the dog 12:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog&oldid=1174113850"