User talk:Roxy the dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

BEWARE. People have recently tried to email me, but my own incompetence has meant this isn't the way to get in touch at the moment. Ask me to supply some contact details, and if I trust you I might. If lurkers can make this tidier, please feel free.


Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Root analogue dental implants reversions[edit]

Can you please explain why you're deleting an entire article - including valid references - without any prior discussion or warning? Your revision comment is: "Rvting to last stable (not effected by a COI edit) version". It is not clear that there is a COI. Check the article prior to your edit: the COI label was removed! There are more than four international groups working on this subject, all of which are represented in the article. 28 publications are listed in the references, from everyone working in this field - including reviews and meta-studies - so where is the COI? There were criticisms to missing references which we had painstakingly added. All this was undone by your edit. Wikipedia is meant to work by consensus, not by solitary 'drive-by' edits and reversions. So, please explain why you did this. Logicwhatelse (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Another comment: have you actually looked at the article you reverted to? Can you explain the rationale behind EIGHT references left 'hanging' in the article without any supporting content? And what is this article actually about now? There is no meaningful content any more. It's ridiculous! Logicwhatelse (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."
"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work."
My Talk page fully discloses any COI. Have you checked it? Have you reviewed the article to check that it adheres to the above guidelines? Now you should respond to the issues raised in my previous comment. Logicwhatelse (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:
Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
But did you read the Root analogue dental implant article? I have already declared that there is no COI. From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text... If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale.
and: Focus on content Focus on article content during discussions.
Only ~ ToBeFree (talk) has commented on the article content. The Root analogue dental implant talk page has none of your input. My complaint is that you're blindly reverting with no explanation or rationale. Why? Logicwhatelse (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you not read my edsums? My edits are perfectly explained, but just in case, I have also explained here, see WP:COI. Your conflict of interest is huge, you should not edit on this subject. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Deaton-Flanigen Productions[edit]

I'm not sure why you keeping removing the list of music videos that the Deaton-Flanigen team has directed, but they are supposed to be on their page for reference and information purposes. There are other music video directors (particularly in the country music field: Shaun Silva, Trey Fanjoy, Michael Salomon, Steven Goldmann, Wes Edwards, Peter Zavadil...just to name a few, and I welcome you to check those pages out) whose Wikipedia pages include a section of a list of videos they directed as a means of info and references, and nobody has ever deleted those sections. I only bring this up because I had this exact same problem with another Wikipedia user here who tried to give me an argument about how the Deaton-Flanigen Wikipedia page is "not the company website," and I tried to give this user this same explanation. Zredman (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That stuff belongs on the company website, as the Deaton-Flanigen Wikipedia page is "not the company website," also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Don't worry, I'll correct it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Time to make a bowl of popcorn[edit]

Highly entertaining discussion of the talk page of our favorite COI toothologist. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? (rubs elbow)[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There comes a point when the tolerance one has for newbie mistakes gets used up. I am at past that point with Wolfgang. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It was nice to see "Please see Guy's comments below, which are more or less accurate" in the unblock decline. I really thought that I was going to get flamed for citing XKCD.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
XKCD has always been very inciteful. The person who creates those I swear thinks like I do in many ways, but they are far far funnier. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoga for therapeutic purposes[edit]

Hi Roxy the dog, as you've seen I've rewritten the whole context bit of the YfTP article. What now stands out is how poor the 'Research' core of the article is, despite the list of systematic review articles it cites. There are actually many systematic reviews available, and finding one's way through them isn't easy. We ought however to use the best of them to show that there is quite a lot of good evidence for benefits and mechanisms, not leaving out the many lacunae but showing there is the beginning of knowledge. How to do that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you are doing there, I was particularly satisfied by that highlighted edit. I have a couple of problems, the main one being my inability to write encyclopeadic material. A more concerning problem is that when the word 'therapy' is used, my WP:MEDRS sixth sense gets triggered, I get all worried that silly efficacy claims are made by believers in that therapy, often far in excess of what can be supported by wiki suitable sources. I agree that yoga has potential health benefits, but no more than any other exercise regimen, and I doubt that we can source specific medrs health claims. I wonder if we have an article Exercise for therapeutic purposes? which ought to cover yoga too, if it exists. (I checked btw.) Not sure how I can help further, but it'll stay watchlisted. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of J. Mark McWatters Page[edit]

You mentioned in the edit history that you thought this page would not be deleted. Can you explain why? As creator if I do not want the page published anymore is there a recourse for me to take to get this deleted?PublikTrust (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Because McWhatters is notable as wikipedia defines it. I cannot think of a reason for it to be deleted, and as the creator of the page you have no special rights. The page is not going to be deleted.
I look forward to your reply to the question you have been asked on your Talk page regarding WP:COI on your part. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your restoration of the Science navbox[edit]

Roxy, maybe you'll be o.k. with removing {{Science}} if I explain how it came about. A few years back, there was a discussion at Template talk:Science#Science sidebar about this navbox. Everyone agreed that it failed the guidelines for navigation templates, and it should be deleted. However, there is no deletion criterion that allows deletion of a template simply because it is no good, so I undertook to remove links to it and see what the reaction was. Some were restored, and other editors made the template even more bloated by adding stuff like glossaries. So I'm trying a new approach - improving the template by drastically reducing the bloat. Only the highest-level links are left. I took out skeptical movement for a few reasons: it's one step removed from skepticism, which itself is part of scientific method. And according to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, a navbox box should not be transcluded on pages it doesn't link to.

This article already has two much more appropriate navboxes - {{Philosophy of science}} and {{Skepticism}}. If you really want a sidebar, you could consider converting {{Skepticism}} into one. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I knew a rock magnetist on a sciencey forum once upon a time. I bet it's too much of a coincidence. I do bow to your obvious expertise in this area, and wont be reverting again. best -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)