This is an archive of past discussions with User:Roxy the dog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you so much. I had an edit conflict, and thought I'd backed out successfully, made my comment and left without checking the history. I've been afk for a while, so I suspect the other two notifications I see will be you helping me. I bet I've missed something really obvious. I'll make the appropriate responses at that page, thx. Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF21:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Related to recently restored versions of Aromatherapy
Hi, I was wondering why you restored so much to the recent revisions on the Aromatherapy article. You cited a lot of POV when you restored it though there was source material from books to guides to back up the applications I put in. Based on the journals and books I used, I thought the most comprehensive/responsible approach to the article would be to have aromatherapy be seen as a self-care treatment rather than it being seen as a cure (which can be really dangerous and misleading to imply). That's why I included a lot of information from aromatherapy methods people typically use to real safety concerns even to condensing potential redundancies within the article. I also tried to separate aromatherapy details from essential oil details (since there's a whole page to essential oils). Kindly, let me know your thoughts. I just thought it was strange to remove so many edits even in places like the history part. Thanks!! :) Chocolataupain (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
My edsum reads, "Return to good following POV edits. needs MEDRS sources for BMI edits". Much of what you wrote wasn't supported by WP:MEDRS sources, and changes you made moved the tone of the article away from a mainstream scientific point of view. I just returned to a point before your edits started. If you wish to discuss this further, please open a new section at the article Talk page, where other interested editors will see. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF12:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I will say I have had something similar happen in the past. It looks worse than it is. It's still bad that it happened but I think it's more a technical error rather than an intentional action. --ARoseWolf15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Dont edit the lead. WP:LEAD explains the purpose of the lead, in a nutshell it is a summary of the body text, containing the most salient points on the topic from the body text. The body text should be reliably sourced as defined by WP:RS. I must say that this isn't a very good article, and doesn't cover what tufting is when you consider that tufted carpets are probably 95% of the worlds wall to wall carpets, and Tufting as defined by this article is a craft hobby, meaning that the article is sadly lacking.
If the history is wrong, correct it first, and reflect changes in the lead.
I prefer to discuss specifics of articles on the article Talk pages so that watching editors will see developments. If you have further questions or want to discuss further please open a section there. regards -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF22:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your advice. I agree that the article is inadequate and lacking information on the broader topic. I know a few experts in the field and will be enlisting them to rectify the article. Further discussion will be made there Eadster (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I expect to be undergoing chemo myself shortly if they don't operate on my bowel cancer first. Roxy maybe we should chat sometime, sorry to hear you are needing it. Doug Wellertalk15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I archived this thread during the recent brouhaha, which has a very brief explanation. I am in fact very fortunate in that my condition is managed very well, my current therapy hadn't even been thought of when I was diagnosed and I intend to keep on doing sequels's like Picard. I haven't seen it yet btw.
Doug, It's very clear there is lots of support for you, so keep us informed, but only as far as you care to.
Gronk Your recent outing of yourself at ARBCOM came as a surprise to me, and really made me smile, so thanks.
Successful bowel cancer surgery in that they removed all the bowel cancer. Still cancer in lymph nodes and liver, so about 3 months of chemo (I'll find out the type in a couple of weeks) followed by liver resection. I'm reclaiming my strength slowly, able to walk over a mile at a time. Doug Wellertalk13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I always love hearing good news Doug, so thanks. I had a CT scan once, specifically to see Lymph Node involvement, and my specialist said that they lit up like searchlights. I'm on Venetoclax for a couple of years going forward now, tablets, so I have a monthly hosp visit for bloods and issue of gobstoppers!! -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a bit scary, but I don't think the scans showed anything at that scale. I guess I'll know in about 4 months or so when the chemo is through. The possibility of a drip was mentioned, I hope it isn't necessary. Doug Wellertalk16:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
23 April 2022
Dear user,
I just saw you immediately undid my revision on the article about the Great Barrington Declaration, where I removed the reference to "climate change denial" since it seems to be unsupported, and none of the sources cited is actually an article by any of the members of the AIER stating that climate change doesn't exist.
I can provide evidence of the fact that AIER exponents do not deny climate change:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201022221830/https://www.aier.org/article/climate-catastrophism-and-a-sensible-environmentalism/https://www.aier.org/article/the-battle-for-1-5-degrees-of-warming-is-already-lost-so-whats-plan-b/https://www.aier.org/article/climate-alarmism-reconsidered/
Both these articles acknowledge climate change as a problem; they just disagree about the common proposed solutions, while supporting nuclear power as a sensible and free-market-friendly solution to it.
Since I guess you are very sensible about fake news, I would just ask you to provide evidence supporting the idea that AIER denies climate change, otherwise the statement expressed in the beginning of the article is just a fake news.
I would ask you to send me a link supporting YOUR contention. Since you are claiming that the AIER denies climate change, you have the burden of the proof. I have just sent a sample of articles to show that they don't deny climate change, but I cannot prove that all swans are white by looking at all swans in the world; if you want to prove that some swans are black, you have the burden of the proof. 93.47.219.174 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I shall not respond further here, as other watchers of the GBD page will not see our conversation. The article talk page is where you should argue for your point of view, rather than a user Talk page. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I will do so, hoping that anyone will bother to answer as quickly as you bothered to undo my edit.
The article "Scardust" has had extensive editing issues in the past. I was dissatisfied with the previous iteration of the article, so I did extensive research and spent about seven hours last night and today fixing up some inaccuracies, cleaning up irrelevant information, properly sourcing claims, and providing a more comprehensive history of the band. At the moment, I believe the article looks fine, but I am afraid that the same users who have caused problems with the article in the past may aggressively change the article again, for the worse.
Would it be possible for you to check the sources, and make sure the article is indeed good and if not, let me know what needs to be changed and I will change it (including sourcing), and to moniter the article so that it remains high quality?
I did message the band themselves who suggested I make the changes I did, and provided me with several sources I cited in the article. I can send you that email exchange if you need.
I don't know it was essentially random; I noticed that you're an admin, or at least a highly regarded editor who frequents "Biographies of Living People," under which this article falls. If you're not the right person, please let me know where to go. thank you.
As stated there, it appeared to me as if you weren't interested. Situation under control though. Thank you for the response. Eyesofagony (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Roxy. I'm assuming when you said Already in cats that exclude these in this edit summary, you're referring to the English Male set of categories? If so, as Quentin was transgender, as is discussed in the article lead and body as cited to his last published work, why did you not remove the other set instead? Could I convince you to self-revert and remove the other categories instead please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wont be self reverting, sorry. If you want to ask your question on the talk page of the article, I would be happy to respond there so other interested editors can see. - Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your concern about my health, it is much appreciated.
You are somewhat justified in questioning my edsum. I certainly wasn't thorough enough in checking before actually reverting you. All I did was try to figure out where the strange unencyclopeadic text was coming from by googling huge sections and finding millions of results. It was an easy way of removing the edit that didn't at all justify itself in a list of topics characterised as Pseudoscience. Nevertheless, a load of marxist critiques and quotes doesn't validate "Economics" as pseudoscience. Would you like me to open a section at the article Talk page to discuss this? I note that another editor reverted your previous edit? -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF21:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello!
I'm glad to hear that. Hope you're doing better soon.
I would be happy to see a section opened on the talk page, then I can answer you there in more detail.
Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
thank you for your comments there. Do you think I should add that the careful comments Sideswipe made about DS awareness aren't really necessary? - Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I beat you to it, and better it come from me rather than from you. You should focus only on "what you did right", especially post-notification, and not on what Sideswipe did wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if you present it as indicating that you have no ill will towards trans people, and are (at the Crisp page) just trying to stick to sources. But the best thing is to explain in your own way how you are interested in improving the page and, post-aware, have been trying to do the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for a very good statement, that I think will help you. One suggestion: the part at the very end, about if you had known it would be weaponized against you, comes across the wrong way, because it deflects blame. Maybe change it to something along the lines of if you had known that it would be taken as insensitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
You have reverted my proper edit on the article Clothing where I corrected the nonexistant word "bicep" to the correct singular "biceps". I will correct it again and I would ask you to refrain from trying to revert it again until you learn more about that word.
Thank you.
--Arny (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
AS a veteran fashion and textile industry proffessional who cannot spell proffessssional, I am correct. In describing bicep length sleeves, the word bicep is used, not biceps. - Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced as the proper word is still "biceps" and using the other version in fashion is obviously some sort of slang. My opinion is that vernacular words, although much used do not belong in an encyclopedia. We shouldn't have words like "wanna", "imma", "cos" nor "bicep" in normal encyclopedic text, unless quoting someone or something. However, I'll let it go now if that word is really part of the accepted terminology in the given context, although I'm still not comfortable to see slang words creep in. Arny (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Delusional parasitosis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Sundayclose, you added a "See also" for an article about a movie to Delusional parasitosis. Roxy the dog reverted it, and you reverted him back, with an edit summary that read in part "If you want it removed again, get consensus on talk page". That seems to be a mistake. It's you who should attempt to get consensus on talk, per WP:BRD. It's an even bigger mistake to post a warning template intended for newbies on Roxy. Please take the issue to article talk yourself, rather than attempting to force it through with such inappropriate actions. Bishonen | tålk20:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen: point taken, and on reflection I agree completely. I marked out the warning, and my apologies to Roxy the dog. Thanks for this message. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I feel that I normally do pretty well with edsums, but dropped the ball with this one, so SC had some justification for commenting. For some years now I have ignored any templating silliness, intended or not, as life is calmer that way. Thanks to both of you, it's all good here. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Roxy. Wish I had a dollar for every time I forgot to leave an edit summary. I could take a nice vacation. :) Sundayclose (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If one goes to user preferences, editing, section on editor, there's a box one can check, labeled "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I've been using that for a long time, and I find it helpful in saving me from forgetting to leave an edsum. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
and thank you for the report. If you come across something like this again, could I ask you to use the procedures outlined at WP:REVDELREQUEST or WP:RFO? I know the contact methods there aren't ideal, but the AN(I)-Streisand effect can unfortunately be fairly strong for cases like this. Thanks! --Blablubbs (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I really should have known to do that rather than ANI, and I had some reservations but couldn't, in the heat of the moment, think of a better way. Thanks for your prompt actions too. I'm going to put WP:REVDELREQUEST and WP:RFO in my sandbox for future reference. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to take a risk, with the hope this isn't plonker-like behavior, and post here. I've been a long-time fan of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain, but it's always bothered me that they don't use a bass ukulele more often, and instead use a standard acoustic bass guitar. I've got one of these strung with these, and it sounds absolutely amazing. They've got all manner of other ukuleles in use, I think I've even seen them use some banjoleles, but they seem to shun the bass uke. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that if I cannot remember the reason I asked you to stay away, there is no longer any need to stay away. It will have been something petty that enraged me at the time. I'm pleased that I dont remember. Please dont remind me.
They all look very young on that video, Kitty has not been with us for a couple of years I think, so sad.
I did know that he used an accoustic bass guitar, but didn't know there was such a thing as a bass uke. If they didn't use a bass instrument of some type I dont think they would be as entertaining musically. It grounds the sound, so to speak.
The bass uke is a pretty unusual instrument. The strings are basically very thick, round rubber bands. I can pull the e string almost a foot from the body. I'm not much of a string player, although I've been a percussionist for a few decades. I recently picked up concertina as well, which is a fun little instrument. I also took fiddle lessons for a while, but I don't have the ears for fretless instruments.
I learned my ukulele skills from my wife when we were dating. She's got a few decades on strings, and had an absolutely huge collection of ukuleles, mandolins, dulcimers, banjos and guitars. Ukulele is fun because it's so easy to pick up and strum songs. You can learn the most common chord progressions in an afternoon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Roxy,
The symbol of ìṣẹ̀ṣe religion added is the genuine symbol of the religion, as it's been explained by ifá
- Iwájú Ọpọ́n
- Ẹ̀yìn Ọpọ́n
- Olùmú Ọ̀tún
- Olùkànràn Òsì
- Àárín Ọpọ́n Ìta Ọ̀run.
I have no idea what the yoruba language in your post on means, but I believe you made those two images yourself, which is imho WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I had, and still have, every justification for removing those two images because of this. I have not yet decided what to do because you have reinstated them. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is on my watchlist because of you. I saw that you had removed that Image just now before I saw this. There is another image they made, equally synth and imho meaningless in an english language wiki, that they added back, which I am tempted to remove. I was in the process of trying to remember where my interestwas sparked too, so thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF08:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. I have no idea how to find similar behaviour on articles that aren't on my watchlist from different IP's. I just thought I was sweeping up some rando. Let's see what happens from your report. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF23:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The way to find that is to look at the user contributions of the IP (along with checking the edit history of the vandalized pages for other recent vandalism). I tend to do that as a matter of habit with vandalism, so I can revert the rest of the vandalism. I just posted at ANI that the IP here is now doing block evasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You both get all the fun. I get stuck in boring notability discussions over whether someone should be called a producer, executive producer or film financier. I need another hobby. Perhaps BASE jumping. I hear that's kinda interesting and edgy. --ARoseWolf16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's exactly fun reporting a vandal who keeps posting about hemorrhoids. (Arguably more like a pain in the... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, don't want to interject at Talk:ජපස because I kicked them off my talk page so its not really fair for me to jump on theirs but what is the Guerrilla Skeptic Arbcom case and what does it have to do with me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, guess I was wrong, but the case, in a nutshell, was the one that ultimately made the GSOW people become a little more transparent about their activities on Wikipedia, and I got sent to the naughty step for barking too loud. -Roxy the English speakingdog19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Still too high level for me, I don't even know what GSOW is either. The naughty step? I thought it was straight to the doghouse for you... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
"Guerrilla Skeptics On Wikipedia" are a facebook group, dedicated to improving wikipedia. They do great work, follow the rules rather admirably, and mind their own business. They also pride themselves in giving newbies to wikipedia a basic grounding in how to survive the rough and tumble of editing in what is a controversial area, sceptical topics. I see, as I write this that you have further responded, but I think it worth noting that those on the otherside of the subject, those that complain about them (gsow) I do not consider to have the right idea about this project. fwiw. ;) -Roxy the English speakingdog19:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
For what its worth if you're searching for meaning you will find it at the beginning of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#"Congress Set to Approve Endless Make-Work Paranormal Program for UFO Grifters", Doug posted a blog post[12] with absolutely zero comment and I took one look at it and went "oh yeah Doug is right thats hella fringe he's calling senators loons etc" when apparently thats not at all what Doug meant. The whole thing happened because of a misunderstanding. I appear to have trodden into a minefield when I thought I was making uncontroversial edits (which I stand behind) which would have broad community support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll be honest and say that I cannot understand what is going on at FTN in that thread, and when that happens, I will usually step back and not concern myself too much, as in this case. I do hope that whatever is going on gets sorted out amicably for all concerned, as I respect all concerned very much. I dont know you as well as JPS and Doug though.regards - Roxy the English speakingdog19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate that and I'm not asking you to pick a side, I get where you're coming from and its genuinely unnerving to find myself on the other side from such well respected editors. One last question, who that I've been interacting with is a GSOW member? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I will confess that I know very few actual names of members, and I dont know who you've been interacting with. A couple that came out during the case pleasantly surprised me, as I had known them for a considerable time. For me, the point is that they are editors here, following P&G. The main issue of the case as far as I could see, was transparency, the thought of thinking people collaborating outside of the project being an anathama to some, very petty problem to me as they follow our standards onwiki. I could be wrong, but I think that the fall-out issue may be related to this, but I'm uncertain.
Well I guess I leave with more questions than answers but its been nice having the background explained to me. Thank you and happy editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Sorry if this gives Roxy (and me, for that matter) any bad memories, but here is a link to the ArbCom case and to the list of named parties: [13]. For your still-unanswered questions, you can see there who the GSoW people were (the 2nd and 3rd people on that list) and what the case was about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If I may add my 2 cents without turning Roxy's Talk page into a message board: in this context, mentioning GSoW is a red herring. Most people editing fringe topics and using "skeptical" sources are not part of the group. In any case, we never encourage our members to gang up on a discussion page. What you stated in the discussion seems to be correct: you're finding yourself at odds with editors with a long history of good work, that's a good reason to take a moment to reflect (I've been there, many times). Robincantin (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I mean, you aren't banned from my talkpage, Horse Eye's Back, and in spite of it all, I really do hold no ill-will towards you. I am happy to explain, but somehow imagine you won't be interested in my explanation. In any case, I'm not accusing you of being a member of GSoW. I rather see you as acting on certain principled advocacy by those opposed to GSoW that caused the case in the first place. What makes things worse is that you are convinced that the "larger community" is somehow "solidly against" those with whom you are fighting. That's all I'll say for now in hopes of not causing more disagreements. jps (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
A request
I have no issues with someone disliking what I have to say in a specific situation or in general. But I'd appreciate not being pinged in the future to comments where you specifically note that you generally dislike what I say, even if you're making an exception to your general dislike of what I say. If there's a specific discussion where you disagree with me, I am fine being pinged as that is part of the collaboration process. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Request
Hi Roxy the dog. Your edit here breached our civility policy. You are entitled to say that you regularly find yourself disagreeing with someone, but to say that someone's positions typically do not command[] any respect from myself is inappropriate. Members of collaborative projects are always [to] treat each other with consideration and respect (WP:CIV). I ask that you strike your comment. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 17:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I shall not be striking, and if members of a collaborative project want treating respectfully, they should warrant such respect. I consider my comment at AN to be showing such respect. I also suspect if I had not pinged BK, I would have been in a more shady area than where I currently am. The civility warriors get far too much respect, and ANI is not even as toxic as the lounge bar where I drink on a Monday evening, the quietest night of the week. Roxy the English speakingdog 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC) -Roxy the English speakingdog19:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Roxy the dog. Thank you for your reply. It's not really your call on who warrant[s] such respect on this project. The community has already made that call in enacting WP:CIV – it said, loud and clear, that editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect (emphasis added). Your reply here suggests that you believe a particular editor (Barkeep) does not warrant respect and I ask that you strike it. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I shall strike my comment above momentarily. You will understand that in order to calm down, I shall not respond further on this project for tonight, till after I've slept and had a nice breakfast of humble pie in about twelve hours.- Roxy the English speakingdog19:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Appealing a ban?
Hi Roxy. It has been 6 months since this happened: "Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter." Do you know anything about how one does an "appeal"? (And by the way, "associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is SO broad that I find it utterly ridiculous. Any famous person on the planet may have made a statement at one point or another that they became "of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed." I almost cancelled my account and turned my back on WP due to this ruling, but decided to hang in here to see what happens in 6 months, but I have to say it soured me on the entire WP project and I backed of on editing most anything since. A few times I did what I thought were innocuous, non-controversial edits spur of the moment as I was reading something on non-BLP articles -- and even then I was accused of a violation.) So anyway, what do you know about an appeal? Rp2006 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Rob, I'm glad you decided to hang on for the six months, and I completely get that the project was soured by that awful process. I might also note that our sceptical view is merely the mainstream approach to things and to be handicapped by a topic ban on science effectively, is rather over the top imho.
However, you have asked me about appealing the topic ban, and I'm not sure why. I'm currently feeling foolish for something I did, and both clerks from our ARBCOM encounter are currently active on this page, being oh-so-polite to me. I had decided to take more than twelve hours off, and am only replying to you because it is you. I never had to appeal any sanction, but I never had an indefinite one. I have seen appeals go well, and expect that for yourself, having such a good record, and only being held on a technicality.
I am very jaundiced against that body, having seen time and again that lovely people dont get a fair shake, and the project is worse off by their loss.
Conversely, I have no doubt that should you ask the clerks aforementioned for procedural advice, it would surely be forthcoming.
FTN would be another sympathetic place to discuss this imho.
I am happy to respond further on this topic, but will otherwise resume radio silence for the time being. -Roxy thedog with opposable thumbs 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Roxy, those two people are not ArbCom clerks. They are actual Arbs. And in one fish's opinion, they are both people I respect very much. You would be well-advised to follow their advice. Take as much radio silence time as you need, within reason, but then you really need to strike that comment.
Rp2006, because the ban was issued by ArbCom, the only way to appeal is through ArbCom. Basically, you have to email them, and convince them that you will never make them regret lifting the ban. You can find the instructions for the process at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals, and you should follow the steps there. Before you do, it is very important to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and to think about all of it seriously. The worst thing to do is to assert that anything about the ban (or the broad topic area) was flawed or unfair. They'll turn you down, and make you wait a long time before requesting again. Start from the premise that you were in the wrong and the ban was justified – even if that makes you want to gag! Make a convincing case that you understand why the ban happened, that you regret what you did, that you want to contribute positively to Wikipedia, and that you know how to do things differently if they grant your request. I cannot emphasize that too strongly. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Trypto always gives good advice. I commend it to you. He doesn't mince words. Note what he tells us is the worst thing to do and don't do it. Start from the premise that you were in the wrong and the ban was justified – even if that makes you want to gag! - Roxy thedog with opposable thumbs 15:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for the info. And I will consider your advice while pondering if I have any future on Wikipedia. And good luck to you Roxy. Rp2006 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Help with sourcing on the dore program
Hey, not hapitual wiki editor here- sorry if this is a breach of etiquette- I'm looking for some help.
You reverted my edit covering the Dore programme extension into "Zing performance". I think the sources are unreliable, but there's no reliable direct coverage of zing, and I think it's important to note that Dore appears to be attempting to continue his heavily discredited programme(as documented by the page) under a different name/medium, with the same problems- It's substantially the same programme under a different name and with an app attached, so I think it should be on the same page.
Zing Performance is substantially lower profile than the original dore program was(thankfully), so it's not attracted the attention of reliable second or third party coverage so I can only document the claims of the "new" programme in the context of earlier reliable sources debunking the "old" one. Is there a way to use these sources of first party claims to produce something which meets wikipedia standards? I'd also like to update my edits to [Wynford_Dore] to meet these standards(which probably also need reverting if the dore programme edit does). Adacable (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If there are no reliable sources, it's best just to leave it out entirely. If they are making claims and no one is discussing it in telltale sources, it basically didn't happen as far as Wikipedia is concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I'm still a bit unclear- The app and company exist, and i think they have reliable sources on this(app store and companies house, respectivley). Obviously "there is an app by the same person as started this programme" is not enough to warrant inclusion in the article- It only becomes relevent when you note they're essentially the same programme as was widley debunked. The conparison of which does not have sources, only the first party claims and descriptions of the 'new' programme(probably because reputable media googles him and decides not to report his press release, so he receives little coverage).
Overall this has the effect of no assosciation between the two programmes- Does documenting this link on wikipedia require a reliable source saying "they're both claiming to give the same results using the same intervention on the same mechanism", or can we note "X claims(sourced to first party statements) mirror those of the original programme(sourced however)" Adacable (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your help. I knew about original research, just didn't realise what seemed like a trivial comparison was considered to be such, and it wasn't the reason for the reversion, so i was confused. I'll go look at the edits on Wynford Dore, and see if they meet that standard. Adacable (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I want to tell you about Morocco. I have official data of WorldBank and UN Nations they are more reliable sources then your source. I am Moroccan by myself and that website is not reliable which you use. MoroccoGoals7 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Please note I said above we need reliable sources; I'd be against using the subject's website as it is not independent. We need magazines, books, and newspapers, online or offline. Further, we cannot have content from any website pasted into Wikipedia; it has to be in your own words. Chris Troutman (talk)21:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
'''' I understand this, but like I said before I have no way to use other sources. those are my words I helped create this site. Zombiebob1990 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
forget it I was just trying to add info about this project, I'm kinda over it this site is not very user friendly not once has anyone tried to help out with people not familiar with this site sorry for the bother Zombiebob1990 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Kindly accept my edit on unani medicine as I myself have collected the information from a scholar of the medicine and ayush medical officer. Tuba shabbir (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Bias against the Alexander Technique
This editor has a demonstrated bias against the Alexander technique, possibly affiliated with Feldenkrais method (a competing service); suggest he not be allowed to edit the Alexander Technique wiki page 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you talking about me? If you want to complain about me, this isn't the place. You should try the article talk page or try reading some of the behavioural guidelines. You'd need to supply some evidence to support your wild and irresponsible accusations though. Good luck. - Roxy thedog15:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
On investigation I have discovered that Feldenkrais for Doggos is a 100% real thing which is apparently mainstream in Feldenkrais[14][15][16][17]. This adds significant weight to these disturbing allegations and they should now be taken EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no citation for AT being taught by music teachers not trained in AT; this is a false statement in the wiki. Why are you still trolling? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This age expectancies are wrong and are causing distress to child patients and their families I see in clinic at the National XP Service in the Uk (3 just yesterday)- are you happy with me attaching a caveat until I can find a more appropriate reference? Scissorpaperstone (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the above post to this new section because it made no sense where it was originally posted.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lia Thomas. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Roxy, I am genuinely confused about your take here. Could you explain why you don't view your repeated reverts as edit warring? Similarly, please let us know at the article talk page why you prefer "male-to-female transsexual" over "trans woman" as a label for Thomas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll echo the feathery critter above too. It looks like the reversion you're adding is a new edit, so the WP:ONUS is on whoever wants to keep it unless I'm missing something. That said, there doesn't seem to be anything seriously wrong with the edit itself as other editors are claiming, so they seem to be a bit over the top too. Your edit was a bit more descriptive, while the bare wikilink original version seemed a bit vague, so it does seem like something to articulate on the talk page at least. KoA (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
With respect KoA, there appears to be something wrong with repeatedly adding unsourced and outdated terminology (e.g. see the CfD for Transgender and transsexual categories) after objections from multiple editors, which is why discussion on the article Talk page was requested and emphasized with an EW notice for the DS topics (gender and BLP) for which Roxy is aware. Beccaynr (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Roxy, I think that there is pretty widespread (on and off-wiki) consensus that trans woman is the respectful choice of words, and not something like "male-to-female transsexual". The underlying logic is similar to saying "transgender" (a matter of fact) in preference to "transgendered" (something that happened to or was done to someone). Reverting in the other direction is a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see, I was focusing more on the male-to-female part being a little less ambiguous, but I can see how transgender would be more accurate over transsexual. KoA (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll also just note to @KoA: "American trans woman competitive swimmer" is not the original version. Prior to a preceding edit by another user, it just said "American swimmer". Putting transgender status in the first sentence like that is not established standard practice. --Pokelova (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
If you don't see repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version of the lead sentence as "edit warring", I'm curious what precisely the canine understanding of edit warring might be. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose it's a good job I stopped then. I always (eventually) go with consensus, as a number of you already know. Our policy in this area is frankly atrocious. She is notable for having been a man prior to competing in womens swimming, like many other people we cover in many other womens sports. This is considered by many people to be cheating, and unfair on other competitors. Our coverage isnt neutral though. -Roxy thedog17:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Equating "being a trans woman in women's swimming" with "being a cheat in women's swimming" is a violation of WP:BLP - please don't do that. If you persist in making bigoted statements about living people, you can expect a topic ban (under the WP:ACDS) at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Transgender people and sports has become a controversial topic. Editors can comment on that topic, however, without violating wikipedia policy, and I would encourage you to do so. :) Also, typo fixed.Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
How is it? To say of a trans person "being a man" is not good; having "presented" as a man is better. There may be "many" people who consider it cheating, and there may be "many" people who believe all sorts of garbage. For a BLP, it might be appropriate to attribute the accusation of cheating to a source, but it's a BLP violation and POV pushing to say it in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I just thought I set out my position more clearly. In heraldry every emblazonment (a specific drawing of the CoA) that follows a given blazon is heraldically correct. This is a core point about Coats of Arms, which makes it different from a logo.
As Wikipedia prefers free image, using a free emblazonment is almost always preferred of a non-free one. This is what I was trying to demonstrate by linking to York, Manchester, ect (these are not the emblazonments used by these entities, or drawn by College of Arms).
But it extends way further than that: Most of the coats of arms on major articles will be one created by an artist under a free licence, and not an official emblazonment. Look even at the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom which is not the *officially* used emblazonment, by either the government or the royal family. But it doesn't matter, as it's author Sodacan has followed the blazon correctly making it a correct rendering of the coat of arms.
Secondly, I can see no reason to believe this is the Emblazonment used by Stockton council. The more likely source (as with so many CoA on Wikipedia) is civic-heraldry England (see http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/north_east.html) which I believe does it's own emblazonments, making it not even an emblazonment from Stockton council.
TLDR: this isn't a non-free logo just somebody's interpretation of a blazon. It's non-free and we have a replacement of equal heraldic weight. And as we do in so many other articles I think we should replace it.
This belongs on the article Talk page, not here. As I said in my edsum the second time, your image is not sourced. The one that appeared in the article after your edit was not the one in the source. All your obtuse heraldic handwaving, repeated above, which appears to me to be gobbeldy gook, does not change wikipedia sourcing requirements. We follow wikipedia rules, not the ones you seem to be following. -Roxy thedog17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I removed the fly as I see it as a direct violation of WP:SMI and thus should be removed; If you don't see it as a violation I'm all ears to hear your argument, but I saw it as a clear cut case as it disrupts the user interface. →AzaToth11:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, you do not have the authority to ban users from your talk page and nothing AzaToth has done rises to the level of needing admin intervention. --Pokelova (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
For anyone who cannot tell the difference between a fish and a dog, please note that it was me who reverted the removal: [18]. And I think my edit summary provides all the "argument" anyone could possibly need. And WP:SMI has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this entomologist wholeheartedly approves of the environment this Dipteran has been given to freely roam and believes it should not find its way back to the kill jar that it just escaped. KoA (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my edit
Hello Roxy, I was wondering about the reversion of my last edit. I'm aware now after further reading that there are more instances of inconsistent spelling, for example the infobox reads colour but there's also a caption saying color. I wanted to ask nonetheless, is there a specific rationale behind keeping the British spelling only in certain sections? Specifically because I personally don't mind switching to that spelling, but only if there's consistency throughout the article. I thought I'd let you know so we can work on common ground, before I go ahead and unify the conflicting spellings without worrying about further reversions. Cheers! NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Besides from flavor and color, so far I've found the following non-British spellings: hemoglobin, cesium, totaled, aging. Do you mind if I change those today? I've also spotted some minor grammar mistakes so I was thinking about fixing those as well while I'm at it.
About the color image, it is certainly placed rather awkwardly, not really accompanying the text in a meaningful way, though I don't know if it should be deleted. Maybe working on the article layout and moving the images to the most relevant section would better, but I digress. Cleaning up layouts is not my forte anyway hehe. NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my simple edits of the Rolfing page and your immediate deletions of them
Hello Roxy,
I am really wondering about your motives for vandalising my few basic edits at the Rolfing page just now. Is is such a problem for you that Ida Rolf had a PhD and you really had to remove that fact? Is it also a problem for you that Bessel van der Kolk, a Harvard-trained physician and psychiatrist wrote a book called The Body Keeps the Score which details how memories can be stored in the body tissues, andwhich is relevant to Rolfing - which you then also felt the need to delete?. Why should these facts bother you unless you have a private desire to keep the Rolfing page quite a negative read for readers?
I suggest you keep your own edits balanced and not try to vandalise other people's factual and truthful edits for your own agenda.
Seeing as how you still haven't managed to make a decent edit at that page, and you have been reverted by two incredibly experienced editors and myself, I wont be following your suggestion.Roxy thedog14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Respected sir,
The article I've been editing on unani medicine is much appropriate and exact as per my local findings, scholars of the system and ayush department of india. Kindly allow me to edit it properly this time. The edits I added were a hundred percent correct. Kindly take my request into consideration and place my edits back. As the fellow students of the system it's a shame to find such inappropriate and unproven information on internet. Hope you will look after the matter. Regards, Tuba shabbir. Thanks! Tuba shabbir (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This age expectancies are wrong and are causing distress to child patients and their families I see in clinic at the National XP Service in the Uk (3 just yesterday)- are you happy with me attaching a caveat until I can find a more appropriate reference? Scissorpaperstone (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Roxy. I hope this note finds you well. Your recent comments at BN (12) appear not to accord with the remedy relating to you from the ArbCom case earlier this year, in which you were warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others. Similar comments will result in a block. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 10:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Bit harsh. I dont consider my first remark uncivil, the second only a response to another editor with a poor attitude. - Roxy thedog15:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
You have perhaps said things about our privileged class that you ought not to have said especially in light of prior incidents. As someone who has been chastened by the community in a smaller way I have had to choose to throw up my hands and walk away from my computer lest I type things that I know will only enrage the same audience who is entirely deserving of rebuke but are stubbornly unwilling to humbly hang their heads in shame for their repeated misdeeds. As you are longtime contributor here years before my arrival I defer to your judgement in large part but might suggest you draw a line between being forthright and calling a spade a fucking shovel. I still have a clean block log. Chris Troutman (talk)16:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. There's plenty to disagree with on Wikipedia, and some people do and say things that can be very annoying, but there are times to speak out, and times to walk away. And when you do elect to speak out, choose your place, time, and wording with care. When someone is leaving, there is no need to provoke them as they walk out the door. My general approach is to type out what I want to say, then edit it down, edit it down, edit it down. At some point I will either have calmed down and walked away, or found a way of saying it that doesn't find offense. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
