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.
I don't get what this diff was, but you can't remove other people's comments. BMK alone has that right, but can't universally "ban" someone from his talk page. I would strongly recommend undoing that edit, you have no right to make that call. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised someone who's been here slightly longer, with still plenty of edits doesn't understand you can't remove other people's comments or ban people from user talk pages. Common sense, really. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Let me start by thanking you for the small edits you just made on the page. Trying this out as a hobby again and am always grateful for any help I can get. As a page reviewer, is it possible to ask for a bit of help with the page to get it up to speed a bit. Again thanks for the assist, and hope to get to work with you soon ;). JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have the page watchlisted, mainly because of what I thought was an attempt to make the article very promotional some time ago. I know nothing about the company or the man, nor do I have any sources. I will continue to watch. -Roxy the dog.bark21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Digging up the sources for edits is on me. I'm new to Wikipedia editing though and as much as I'm trying to research guidelines and the such I'm sure I'll make mistakes in my edits. I saw all the issues with things being viewed as promotional when I first started looking at the article and I wish there was more in the Talk section of the page to get a clearer idea of what went on without going through the changes one by one. I've been documenting the changes I've made with the reasoning and sourcing behind it, but if you see that something I've edited is overboard please let me know so it can either be rewritten to fit the Wikipedia guidelines or removed entirely. Very much appreciated. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Roxy the dog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
Hi! I added the Natural News videos as examples of what they show. I thought it was important to SHOW the kinds of things they promote and skew. Want to discuss on the talk page?Victor Grigas (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
CSD Wordpress article
Hi Roxy the dog, I noticed you CSD'd the article "What Can Wordpress Plugins Do For You" earlier today - which has since been deleted. I had this as part of NPP a few weeks back and watchlisted it. At the time, the article contained inline links to external websites which flagged up my malware / compromised website scanner, so it may have been a vandal/malicious article. Did you by any chance follow those links and was this the case again? If so, I was wondering if this may possibly require further action. Copying Kudpung who deleted the page for advice. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks both. I guess now that it's salted it should be fine. I was wondering if there are any mechanisms to block that external link from being added to prevent it from being used to divert people to with questionable intent. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Needs more solid sources, at the moment, it's a vanity bio. awful. Just because she was a minor presenter with Shirl, doesn't give notability. -Roxy the dog.bark11:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If the topic isn't notable then you can use proposed deletion or articles for deletion to get the article deleted. A7 is a kind of shortcut for those processes but it only applies to articles about real people, animals, organisations, web content, musical groups or organised events. Hut 8.521:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really, people often respond on their own talk page after the first response, and most of the people who leave messages for me are new editors who may not check someone else's talk page for a response. Hut 8.506:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
/* Thanks */
Dear Roxy the dog , thank you so much to inform me about deletions of Nizameddin Isgenderov. i understand your message. and i added reliable references to my article.
I noticed that you tagged the article for speedy deletion. Could you be please more specific about" because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia"? The article sounds inline with bios of other French computer scientists having similar profiles, e.g., Michel Raynal or Serge Abiteboul. Thank you in advance, Pierre
I'm not sure how I could be clearer with the phrase ... " because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia". Also, with regard to the other articles you mention, I have no idea at all, I have not looked at those articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -Roxy the dog.bark14:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean that is the first time you've ever transposed letters? My edit count would be half of what it is if I typed things correctly the first time. -Location (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
BLP PROD vs PROD
Hi Roxy,
You should really only use BLP-PROD for articles with no sources at all. Kinya Claiborne is promotional and uses self-published sources, but isn't completely unsourced. Actually, after re-reading and checking the sources, I would actually not contest a CSD G11. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. the template that you put on the page says "This article is about a living person and appears to have no references." You need to either re-do the CSD, but this time use G11 instead of A7, or you need to change to PROD instead of BLP-PROD. --Slashme (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You are talking in a code that I don't understand. Despite the fact I've been here a couple of years, your sentence "You need to either re-do the CSD, but this time use G11 instead of A7, or you need to change to PROD instead of BLP-PROD." doesn't convey what you are trying to tell me. It isn't your fault, it's my lack of understanding of the shorthand. I just want the awfulness gone. -Roxy the dog.bark22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry!! I meant that your first speedy-deletion notice was based on the Criterion for Speedy Deletion numbered A7: no indication of importance. This is for things like "So-and-so is a model living in New York City" (so no indication that the person is in any way notable), whereas this article claims that she's the founder and editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine. That's not a solid claim of notability, based on the details of the online magazine in question, but it's a claim of notability, so A7 doesn't apply. I was suggesting that you instead use G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion.
If instead of speedy deletion, we go the gentler route of proposed deletion, there are two options. The one is WP:BLP-PROD, which you used, but that's only for cases where there are no references at all. This article has references, but they're bad ones. For these cases, a normal PROD is the correct one. Hope that helps! --Slashme (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue here Roxy is that the BLPPROD can be removed by anyone as it contains references. Albeit bad ones. So its not eligible for BLPPROD, which was specifically put in place to counter biographies with zero references. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This is very useful, thanks. I have been under the impression that any ref must be valid in order for it to "count". It seems that isn't the case, and it doesn't matter that a ref doesn't support the content at all, as long as it is a ref. (silly example. A ref supporting the fact that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon would not support anything in the now deleted Clairborne article, but still counts as a ref for these purposes. That's daft, but I didn't know. -Roxy the dog.bark17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
... and another thing, while I'm on my high horse. How do I find out how many times an article has been deleted? I reckon at least twice, but I have no idea how to find out. -Roxy the dog.bark17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
... and another thing, I think I will read all the guidance in this area again as it'll be worthwhile, before plunging in with all four paws again. -Roxy the dog.bark22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, it depends on the admin sometimes who checks the prod. If a biography has one citation to what it is clearly say, an open web-forum, some admins may delete it anyway. However the problem is that primary sources are still valid primary sources. A personal website on a biography is a perfectly valid reference for lots of non-contentious info, but it would prevent BLPPROD. (Of course what some editors do is go through the article first removing invalid ref's then BLPprod it, but that potentially can have repercussions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Roxy the dog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
Hello, I'm Cameronbrooks. I noticed that you recently removed content from Morgellons without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cameronbrooks (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Roxy
Though I type the four tildes, I'm not able to sign with my user name. What is wrong?Dr Kurian John Poruthukaren 18:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpjkurian (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I see them, and Summer has done some other ones. You guys are impressively efficient at doing this sort of thing, puts me to shame. Things have raced ahead of me in the last couple of hours. I was rude though. -Roxy the dog.bark21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I've seen similar pages to this get tagged under WP:G11, when they have one single source, under the rationale that the article is being used to promote the source. But according to our rules, that couldn't apply if the page has no sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The real Roxy
Has been ill for some time, and died a couple of hours ago. My constant companion for more than ten years, it has amused me to use her name here. She was much nicer than me. -Roxy the dog.bark17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
if you read the bbcs website it wasnt a journey of a lifetime,its actual a documentary about how other countries treat their retired persons,miriam amonst others went out to see if it was suitable for her!
It seems you want to vandalize this page and therefore your privalages maybe limited,please read the bbc websites page plus also Jan Leemings page!
Did you watch the programmes as i watched everyone and it wasnt a journey of a lifetime at all.Neither did it say in the uk bbcs website it was a journey,it is your understanding or your idea in your head it was this.
Im guessing you not from the United Kingdom but in other foreign parts of the world.
I never even thought about that, but I was annoyed at the time, for just a moment. My watchlist really does jump about annoyingly, until it has fully loaded;) -Roxy the dog.bark22:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Gillian Keegan
Hi, have you been keeping an eye on goings-on at Gillian Keegan re: the photo. I am becoming very confused but I think there is consensus for the one that has just been removed and that the IP and User:Lvta are the same person. On User talk:Drmies, Lvta claims to be a constituent but the coincidence makes me think it is Keegan or her husband, as previously. The GillianKeegan account was blocked by Drmies some time ago due to concerns re: identification.
The photo is, in a way, a side issue here. I'm more concerned about the principal, ie: that they should not be editing the article. Let it slide and they'll be back when some scandal breaks etc. trying to massage things. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I've actually been away for a week on holiday. I'll take a look, though as I recall, this is about replacing a pic she doesn't like, (despite Theresa May saying it was lovely), with another one which she does. I very much objected to her involving herself in editing, hubby too, and I agree that wikipedia should continue to discourage their involvement. I do not think a checkuser would want to be bothered in such a trivial thing in this case regarding lvta and the IP. -Roxy the dog.bark18:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Susan Adele Greenfield was born to a Jewish father[11] and a Christian mother in Hammersmith, London. Her mother, Doris (née Thorp), was a dancer, and her father, Reginald Myer Greenfield, was an electrician.[12]"
On that basis perhaps you could categorise her as a Christian scientist perhaps? This discussion, about content, belongs at the article Talk page. -Roxy the dog.bark09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Jewish ethnicity/religion tends to be a special case due to the multiple issues with sourcing. Ethnicity does not equal religion. To address your above - having a Jewish father (for many types of Jew) would not make her ethnically Jewish. Absent a reliable source stating her ethnicity and/or religion (not that of her father), the categories are inappropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If your biological father is a member of XYZ ethnicity, then that makes *you* an member of XYZ ethnicity, regardless of what people like Rachel Dolenzal might tell you. Asarelah (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)}}
Rotter OID. Matriliniarnessitity was my hole card. My Grandfather was a dentist, my father isn't. Does this mean I should keep a Kosher kitchen? -Roxy the dog.bark09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
To begin with, I do not appreciate your snide remark that we should categorize her as a Christian scientist. I am a Jew, and I get this kind of garbage when I try to explain what Jewish identity is to people. That was rude, obnoxious, and completely uncalled for. I also don't appreciate the dentist remark. Anyway I have located a source saying Greenfield's grandfather was a first generation immigrant from a shtetl in Austria and spoke Yiddish. I have inserted this info into the article, along with the information that she has worked as the director of a Jewish Cultural Center. By the way, the occupational category of Category:Jewish writers is listed as an ethic category. Wikipedia does do its categorization by Halachic Law, and a patrilineal Jewish person is a Jewish person. I have reinstated the categories, and I hope that will be the end of this. Asarelah (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
P.P.S. - I didn't take this to the talk page because how Jewish identity works is a matter that isn't limited to the scope of the article. Asarelah (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Asarelah, I couldn't care less about your feelings about my Jewish Grandfather the dentist (in Kidderminster), before, during and after WWII. For me, she is equally a Christian scientist, it is there right in the article. -Roxy the dog.bark18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. Just stop removing the categories please. 19:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
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. The article you edited was Answers in Genesis.
You, together with some other users, seem to be reverting my edit without apparent reason - exacerbated by the fact my edit is the result of this discussion on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you could explain the reasons for your edit in the discussion I provided. OlJa22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, you're wrong. Not every word ending in s takes the possessive apostrophe without a following s, only where the s is a plural. The name Collins is singular; the plural form (a family group, for instance) is Collinses. Therefore, the plural possessive for the name is Collinses', while the singular possessive is Collins's. Pyrope17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Obviously I don't agree, or I wouldn't have corrected the article. In my experience with people from Canada and the French language, people from Canada are normally wrong - however, we are dealing in English, my mother tongue, and I am prepared to be corrected, but not by a stranger on teh internetz. Or by a reference in an American or Canadian source !! -Roxy the dog.bark18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Umm... I'm English, born and raised. This isn't about "agreeing", it is the standard grammar of our mother tongue. That you choose to flaunt your ignorance and bigotry rather than educate yourself doesn't do much for our national image, now does it? Pyrope18:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You were displaying a complete ignorance of my origins, yet because you thought I was Canadian I therefore must be wrong. Ignorance and bigotry, succinctly demonstrated within just one sentence. Nice one. Pyrope18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You tell yourself whatever you need to salve that conscience and tell yourself that you weren't leaping to judgement about someone based purely on their (assumed) origins. Mind you, lauding your "experience with people from Canada" and how this had led you to believe that "people from Canada are normally wrong," based on no other evidence, sure does look like bigotry. You probably want to watch that in future otherwise people might get the wrong idea about you. The difference being, they would actually have evidence. Pyrope19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And while we are at it, would you agree that teh Oxford University Press, publishers of the OED, are a good source for English language usage and grammar? Yes? Good, so this might be of use to you. That a good enough source for you? Now, in the idiomatic argot of my home town, wind your neck in and stop being a berk. Pyrope19:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Will do, and in turn do try to base your arguments on fact rather than prejudice, else you might look a bit silly. Pyrope20:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Knock 'em out John!
WP is a big place, and I'm sure that if you'll find some truly productive things to do (like sign-up to be a reviewer at AfC and/or NPP) instead of stalking pages I edit, we'll both be much happier...less entertained, perhaps, but much happier. Oh, and there are much better ways to get exercise than jumping to conclusions, or trying to tree a coon. Atsme📞📧19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)11:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I gave up that bit a few weeks ago. I was too frustrated by wikilawering admins not deleting pages I had nommed, on purely technical reasons. I'll be blowed if I want to go through those hoops on a regular basis. So no, but thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus17:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I get the impression the reviewing admin reads the first criteria I listed, but not the second or the third. Anyway, I like your new signature. L3X1(distænt write)17:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback on the MSG page. I have been trying for 8 years to make a single edit and always been denied. I bring facts and they are simply ignored. I've tried doing things by Wikipedia rules and against the rule (I just got out of the penalty box last week). No joke, it feels like there is some weird pro-MSG cult. The crazy thing is that I am not trying to say there is a link between MSG and headaches, only that the research findings are mixed. I am deeply frustrated. Should I do a dispute? What would you do? FFN001 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wait what? They write, “Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference." Seven studies four significant findings. I am not reading that wrong. FFN001 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy the dog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Why don’t you follow me on twitter or Instagram and you will see all the videos/photos from me playing around the world in the bands that I have suggested. And also my Billy Elliot Workshops.
Then you’ll have the source you need.
I need to put these things on here for business and work.
Thanks Jamesjlomas (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha this is hilarious, I can’t even add about my own life. So funny! If I knew how to add a photo I would show you lol! Never mind you keep running what ever you want! Perhaps do what I say though and figure out what I’m doing now. Which is exactly what I’m writing 🤦♂️ Jamesjlomas (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked this user multimple times to not interact with me, and I expect them not to interact with me in the future. I don't like them following me arund Wiki like that.I'm asking him (just for now at least) to refrain from all interactions with me regardless of their justifiability. If Jim1138 does not follow this, I told him that I would be extremely angry because of my kindness in my innitial "please leave me alone just for now" statement. so please let Jim1138 know that he must not interact with me for a little while even if he feels he's justified, this way I won't feel like he's stocking me and truyig to ruin everything for me. I am from Papua New Guinea originally, and I always like to be sure that I follow the one rule my British girlfriend Karen enforces with me online, "you must be civil." Unfortunately, if Jim1138 insists on forcing himself upon me, then Karen's rule will fall way apart. thanks.199.101.62.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I will, as long as you're willing to be a good dog and keep jim1138 away from me. I'm sorry if the joke was bad, again it is in reference to my old dog who's name was also Roxy. (R.I.P. Roxy). Nothing bad was meant by that joke i promise.199.101.62.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Removing the category is removing the subject from the category. I have simply returned it. No worries. You of course understand this. I recall banning you from this page, please respect that. Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus22:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Pseudoscience category
Hello Roxy the dog. I noticed that you restored the category at Traditional Chinese medicine. I also saw those multiple removals lately by the same editor from multiple alternative medicine and quackery articles (I watch the category) and wondered if they're appropriate. These also include the removal of articles to Category:Health fraud. It's possible that in some cases the pseudoscience category is found higher (as part of another category) and that the removal is appropriate; I didn't have time to properly inspect those edits yet... —PaleoNeonate – 06:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I made an addition that is extremely pertinent to the Anne Frank diaries page regarding an outdated fact. It was regarding Raes' claim that the Anne Frank Diary was not the sole work of Anne Frank. The Anne Frank Fund changed their claim to authorship from exclusively by Anne Frank to a co-authorship with her father. This is well documented at EXTREMELY pertinent to the paragraph as it completely reverses the valence. If there is something technically wrong with my entry, please advise so that I can correct. If I am mistaken about the facts, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
Thanks for your edit. I see that my edit only changed one line when I thought it had restored the infobox and first paragraph. I am not sure what happened but apparently I somehow made a mistake and that you corrected it. Donner60 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
My fridge has broken down. Damn. Freezer still working. Emergency measures in place. Silly thing is is that the weather here has just warmed up above freezing. For the last couple of weeks it has been below freezing most of the time. Damn. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus20:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
So, I paid £130.00 ish for a repairman, who could do nothing, so I got my money back per our arrangement. Then I turned it off, and turned it on again, 48 hours later. It is now working perfectly. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
David Wolfe
Hi Roxy the dog! According to the source, Wolfe has "Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara". I'm not quite sure where the confusion is. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought it would be politer to just get clarification here, given your edit summary. But no hassles, I'm happy to raise it there instead. - Bilby (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, at first I was a little surprised that somebody with your service here could read that ref in that way, and now that I discover you are an admin, I'm even more surprised. The source doesn't support your interpretation is all. I do recognise that you aren't acting an an admin capacity though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus12:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to know how we are reading that differently. The source states that he has Bachelors in of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science, and a Juris doctor in law from San Diego. What am I missing? - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The little ifnobox in the source about his education doesn't actually say he has a BSc. it actually says "Education: Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara. Juris doctor in law from the University of San Diego." which is subtly different (Bachelor's? to me that's fishy). I've seen too many quacks claim degrees and doctorates that they don't actually have, so AFAIC, I don't actually think it can be stated in wiki's voice, with that source only. You are going to disagree with me, I can tell!! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus12:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Its shoddy writing. But its "Batchelor's" because its trying to indicate he has multiple degrees in both in both 'Mech & Environmental', and 'Political Science'. I suspect he has neither given his history of less-than-factual claims. But we shouldn't be second-guessing a staff-writer on a paper like that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
While we're all busy expressing skepticism over the claim the Avocado-for-brains has a bachelor's, is nobody going to comment on the liklyhood of him having a Juris doctorate? o_O I mean, this is a guy who said that the sun will fuck you with sound if you eat chocolate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that - it seems that my reading of the source was correct, so there was just some passing confusion. I'm glad to see it cleared up. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
As a Brit, no that does not surprise me MP. I of course base all my knowledge of the American legal system on Boston Legal, and that's no madder than anything Denny Crane does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, you have withdrawn your Delete comment from the deletion discussion here, which is no problem as you appear to have withdrawn your ivote, thus changing your mind. I have no idea why you started another deletion proposal, as the deletion discussion I started is already extant. If you want to register your opinion, do so at that discussion, do not start a new proposal.
The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
I have a personal rule. If you can't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all. Internet tough guy. Get out of the house once in a while and give yourself a reality check. Hawthorne01970 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
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’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.barcus14:44, 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)
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'[1][2]. Plenty more can be cited if further evidence is required. The treatment of Oral Mucositis included citations from multiple papers[3][4][5], including a systematic review[6] 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."[7]
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.
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)
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.barcus06:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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."
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)
ALSO bollocks is the statement you made that I was previously blocked by you for edit-warring. Keep up please John. act like a competent admin at least. -Roxy, the dog.barcus13:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
My mistake, but my statement that you have been blocked for breaching editing restrictions there stands. There is an edit notice in place there that you must have seen each of the three times you reverted in less than a week. --John (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
So, you blocked me for a week for a first time offence of making three reversions (of poorly sourced text) in a week. That's a fucking outrage. -Roxy, the dog.barcus14:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Unblocked
As a result of the ongoing discussion here, where there is a consensus of admins that your block was improper, I'm unblocking your account. The discussion about the block is not yet closed, but I do think that as a matter of fairness there is some urgency in undoing a block which, in the opinion of uninvolved admins, lacks merit. MastCellTalk18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I was looking for something else at AE, and saw this (after the fact). Sorry this happened to you, and welcome "back". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It's about time I said thank you to everybody who commented at my appeal following John's block. Because developments are developing, I don't really want to say much more than that for now. -Roxy, the dog.barcus16:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Only just become aware of this. Have been on the receiving end of this kind of fuckwittery in the past. Glad sense seems to have prevailed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 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.
How are you Mr. Roxy? I hope that all is with you. I need your help in North Africa page. The user "Mameab1989" keeps vandalizing the page constantly and ignoring all the facts, sources and what have been discussed before on the talk page. Ryanoo (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The first thing I would like to ask is that you stop using the word "vandal" and all its derivatives when referring to what appear to be good faith edits, as indeed your own are, in edit summaries etc at that page.
Unfortunately, I have no expertise or knowledge of the dispute, just an interest in an area of the world that I lived in for a couple of years over a decade ago. I don't think I can usefully contribute at the article, but would suggest you open discussion at the Talk page rather than edit war any further. -Roxy, the dog.barcus22:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Not so misinformed.
I will because you are so insanely wrong and Tea Tree Oil is very effective and there are countless journal studies in favour for it. did you even read my sources or did you just assume that government and university research pages are wrong. "thanks" --Dontfeedmebs (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Roxy, Awaiting your explanation. (See my message below) I will again try to edit the page to reflect a more neutral interpretation. Thanks - SB
Still getting the hang of how this Wiki communication is supposed to work. Thanks.
[Resubmit to RTD]
RTD -- puzzled by your change to Dr. Andrew Wakefield's Page (reversion to the original biased version using language like "discredited former ...". Do you have a dog in that fight? I encourage you to reach out to me to explain your block threat. I am not a trained clinician (perhaps you are) but what I added was clarity and a neutral point of view that WikiPedia is supposed to espouse. You on the other hand dismissed my edits with an unexplained "vandalism" accusation which I strongly contest and would like to see your factual basis for. Look at the changes that I made. I linked the original 1998 Wakefield Lancet Paper (strangely absent from the previous version), removed a bunch of opening references from a single critical source: Brian Deere, and left Brian Deere's criticism in the criticism section. It is not accurate in my view to characterize a figure as discredited, when there is an ongoing debate about the science involved (you may disagree, as is your right). The facts are that this topic has aroused considerable interest, and the fact that Wikipedia simply copies and pastes a single critic's accusations across the opening section of any individual is troubling to me. Please educate me as to what agenda you are trying to push RTD. Thanks Slinkblot (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I just repaired the damage your incredibly silly edit caused. If you do something like that again, you'll find yourself in hot water, if I've got any druthers. Now go away. -Roxy, the dog.barcus11:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the page history further back. You didn't originally introduce that phrase, and we both appear to be trying to remove it. My minor snark is not called for. Sorry Bellezzasolo. -Roxy, the dog.barcus10:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Personal favor
Hi! I would like to ask you, along a couple of the editors I know, for a personal favor. I choose you because every time I see something that you have edited I have been impressed with the quality.
What I would like you to do is to help expand our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This topic is something that Jimbo has been pushing on his talk page,[1] and there may (or may not) be a SOPA-style blackout of Wikipedia to try to influence the EU legislators.[2]
Oh dear Guy Macon, I am discovered. Are you sure you didn't see another Roxy's work? I fear it would be impossible for you to be impressed with the quality of my editing, as my editing quality is honestly useless. I just tinker around the rough edges. I will watchlist though, and hope to be able to help. -Roxy, the dog.barcus16:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I checked out your user page for the first time and saw the news about your dog from September last year. That’s sad to hear. Is your dog still with us? I lost a pet recently (and a mother also, but as a pet owner herself, she’d commend my having grieved more openly for the cat). I hope you’re well. You do a good job cleaning out woo from medical articles. Edaham (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to ask about the real Roxy, who sadly died a couple of weeks later last year, a loss that has been difficult, and my mother a couple of years ago. I get the grieving thing. That picture isn't Roxy, but a random cute dog I saw on somebody's user page with a nice hat!!. All the best. -Roxy, the dog.barcus04:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
May I ask why your tampering with the hard work and energy that went into creating UK charity, Prisoners' Advice Service's wiki page? Geof Jarvis (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You've twice now asserted, on the talk page and in your edit summary, that this film is not a documentary, despite what I feel is evidence to the contrary. Could you please outline your position on the talk page so I can address it? --85.211.212.153 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Roxy the dog, I saw you undid the page on the Feldenkrais Method on which I added fact based information. could you provide an explanation? Eric.x.ferron (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
See my latest Edsum. If you need to discuss this further, please use the article Talk page, where other editors will see what we say. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog.barcus19:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Mokele-mbembe article (which you reverted to the gutted version here), some culling may be warranted, but not the complete removal of the expeditions of Powell and Roy P. Mackal.
It is actually perfectly fine with me if William Gibbons (the creationist) is not used as an authoritative source, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Did you guys know that I once caught a bullet with just my teeth and thereby saved the mayor of Brooklyn from an assasination plot by ninjas? Machine gun ninjas? I figured since we're bragging about stuff no-one believes or cares about that I could at least up the game a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
