en User talk:Roxy the dog Archive 9

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Optical head-mounted display

Hello Roxy the dog,

I have two issues regarding your deletion of the entire "Notable Manufacturers" section. I believe your claim is: a) most of the explanation was written to advertise the listed companies and b) many of the listed companies are not actually notable.

For claim a), I do understand where you're coming from. However, as someone who greatly benefited from the article, I would like to point out that the "Notable Manufacturers" section is actually very informative and does provide a good list of the players in the market. Although I partially agree with your perspective that advertisements should be banned from the article, I would like to suggest that you let users have access to the article, as long as it is cited well and obeys Wikipedia's policies regarding Neutral Point-of-View and Conflict-of-Interest - our goal is to sort out advertisements, not to delete the whole section.

Regarding claim b), it would be very nice if you could provide solid evidence to back up your claim that many of the listed companies "are not notable at all". I'm afraid that your claim is extremely vague - I would understand if you could provide a solid definition of the word "notable" and sort out the companies based on that definition; otherwise, it is very difficult to agree with you.

Thank you very much in advance. I hope you take my suggestions into consideration. Gushichan (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be proper to make your comments at the article talk page, not here. That way, other editors with interests in the article can see any conversation we have with regard to it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not avoid my claim like that. You're the one who reverted my edition, hence you do have the responsibility to clarify the reasons behind your action. Gushichan (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I have altered your post to conform to talk page guidelines, forgive me. I will respond when you ask at the talk page. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Naturopathy is not a pseudoscience as many claims but an art & science of healing the body with natural remedies & other therapies.
The therapies in modern naturopathy treatment includes- hydrotherapy(water), manipulative therapy (message, osteopathy, chiropractice,etc), chromotherapy (lights & colours), accupuntture, accupressure, reflexology, nutrition dietetics, fasting Therapy,yoga, meditation & pranayama and many more. It's an alternative medicine groomed to help patient physically, mentally, socially and spiritually healthy (holistic approach to health.) "Naturopaths/ naturopathic doctor doesn't treat the patient but the disease, finding the root cause of ailments rather than suppressing the symptoms" To be a Naturopathy doctor one should have professional degree qualifications (5.5years) from recognised institution or university. The course is named under BNYS(bachelor's degree in naturopathy and yogic sciences) in India (5.5years) where the students learns anatomy, physiology, biochemistry,nature cure,yoga therapy, pathology, community medicine, research methodology,modern diagnosis, naturopathy diagnosis, accupuntture, accupressure,yoga application, nutrition dietetics, fasting & its effect on body, hospital management etc..
It's an evidence based medicine, any treatment given should have a strong scientific explanation before prescribing or giving to patient. Thousands of research papers are published under naturopathy treatment and it's affect on patient.

THe above unsigned comment was a misplaced first ever edit by User:Frommountains, and I moved it here, the correct place, following its removal by a fellow editor. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Frommountains, I have put your comments in the right place on this page. May I ask you not to edit any articles related to Traditional Indian Medicine, as you clearly have no idea of how to write in english. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll Start

There seems to be a huge real life case of Kayfabe going on at the moment, but here at Wikipedia, rather than WWE, (W?F) sorry.

That nice young man User:Doc James had a proper good influence on my understanding of sourcing and wiki editing, and nobody appears to have said a thing. Why? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It was always clear to me why he isn't around, but now that I know what he's been doing, well that's OK, and I'm happy with that. sort of. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 01:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that surprised me

It doesn't surprise me, I've always had more trouble remembering names correctly than other words, except when I notice something special about them, in which case they become more memory-ingraved. Thanks for noticing and fixing it, —Paleo Neonate – 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Was it you? I was doing my due diligence, and it kinda leaped out at me, but I didn't look at the history. I go over stuff I write time and time again and still miss things. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes —Paleo Neonate – 02:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Endometrial

RE: "Reverted to revision 972439206 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk): Return to good"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endometriosis&type=revision&diff=973082394&oldid=973081522

Hi, Roxy the dog!

I a tweaking Endometriosis which you recently worked on and linked “endometrial” and endometriosis in “Rarely, endometriosis can cause endometrial tissue to be found in other parts of the body. Thoracic endometriosis occurs when endometrial tissue implants in the lungs or pleura.”

I want to change “endometrial” to “endometrium-like” as used in Ref 10. Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA (March 2020). "Endometriosis". N. Engl. J. Med. 382 (13): 1244–1256. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1810764. PMID 32212520.

Is that OK? DanMemdmarti (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Memdmarti I have no idea at all ! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Roxy the dog. If you want 99 years of history on it, let me know. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

How is the real Roxy doing?

(copied from user page)

I've just found that the real Roxy has [Lymphoma]. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Reminds me of a riddle:

Q: How do you know your dog loves you?

A: Your dog loves you. He/she is a dog.

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind the interruption from watching the ongoing demonstration of the Law of holes, how is the real Roxy doing? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bless her, she was a wonderful soul. She was so miserable towards the end, about a month later, that I had a traumatic trip to the vet, as I couldn't allow any more. The only dog I ever had, I have only fond memories. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We really don't deserve them. [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

RIP Roxy. ~ HAL333 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I dribbled upon this page by looking at textiles, and I’m very glad I did. You, Roxy the Dog, and Guy Macon, whom I’ve never heard of until today, are amazing. I love this page, and all it stands for. Thank you for Wikipedia. I Am Judge (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome note

Dear Roxy the inedible dog . wooF

Hi! I was expecting little moderate approach and wording because Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user talk pages. Stay polite, and don't threat lets forget the past. Thanks, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you replying to a message I left on your talk page here? Please do not, make your reply in the same section of your Talk page. This is basic talk page manners, you should know this. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

don't feed the trolls, in reply to your message on my talk page

One senior admin says, "it's like wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it."[2] I did not revert any edits, but it is there, and I can see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textile&action=history

curprev 08:24, 27 August 2020‎ RAJIVVASUDEV talk contribs‎ m 32,170 bytes +2‎ Reverted 1 edit by Roxy the dog (talk) to last revision by Citation bot (TW) undo Tag: Undo

May be system error, or you made it. I don't know the solution. Kindly advise, stay polite. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you replying to a message I left on your talk page here? Please do not, make your reply in the same section of your Talk page. This is basic talk page manners, you should know this. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) edit

Hi Roxy,

I saw that you reverted my revert on Cannabis (drug). It seems like you and the two users I reverted are suggesting that it is redundant to say that cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States, after already saying it is the most commonly used illegal drug in the world. This is not the case—something could be the most commonly used illegal drug in the world while being the least commonly used illegal drug in the U.S. or any other country. In addition, the claims that it is the most commonly used illegal drug in the world and in the United States are each supported by reliable sources.

Please let me know if I misunderstood the purpose of your edit, but if I did not, the page should be left as is. Additionally, I'm wondering what you meant by "I tell you three times," since the other two editors who disagreed were using different accounts. Are you affiliated with these accounts in some way? Wallnot (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Have replied at the Talk page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Shrinkage (fabrics)

Hi! I have recently edited the subject page, can you check and advise. Or you can direct me to the concerned helping editor. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:RAJIVVASUDEV I have seen your edits, they are poor. I do not know what a helping editor is. That link takes me to a guideline page that does not contain the word "helping". -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Angles

Can you explain your blind reverts to XLRI - Xavier School of Management?

The name added to the alumni list of XLRI - Xavier School of Management is acceptable as per WP:ALUMNI, WP:LISTCRIT. Also until very recently they had their own page on WP. Also I am not supposed to create mainspace article for a person so that they can be added to their alumni list when their notability for the list can be established via RS in the list itself. Roller26 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Roller26#September 2020. It wasn't just Roxy that reverted you. The link was removed by an administrator per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aroul D. Shankar here[3] and again by a different administrator here.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I wont respond further, but this should have been broached at the article Talk page, not here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mum

Hey, I know you’ve harped a few times on his English knowledge, but it doesn’t reflect great when you’re missing his use of mum to mean silent and assuming he’s using mum for mother. He’s saying that you made the edit to the reference desk but have been mum (silent) on the talk page; yes he’s missing some sort of verb before the mum, but I think his intention is still clear. The twice typo of “unacceptable” as “unnacceptable” also doesn’t help. I’m just noting this as an outside observer; his English skills are certainly not the greatest, but are certainly not the worst.

There are certainly other concerns with the user, but I think harping on that continually isn’t a hill to die on. only (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

He's illiterate, almost, in english. He also is hopeless in his chosen subject. Put the two together and ... I'll back off for a couple of days, but something has to be done if he continues to post rubbish, as he is currently doing. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit reversal

Hello, you reverted a edit that was made to the traditional Chinese medical page. The only explanation that you made was that it was better before, in the lead their was information that is not Lead content also there in no information about its addition to the Global Diagnostic Compendium, ICD and that is the subject of the article from Nature Magazine. Please explain your statement of better before as your reason for wasting my edditing time. Shenqijing (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page the administror suggested the bulk of that edit it was a simple cut and paste, the other information is supported by a valid citation from Nature Magazine. So what do you need to move forward on this one. Shenqijing (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Talk page says nothing of the sort. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to say you deleted a well research inclusion and citation using the same credible source as the other statement in the lead. Shenqijing (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your edits, use the article talk page, where other editors will be able to see and comment. Not here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to talk start talking, Shenqijing (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you talk third person, are you a edditor of this page? Shenqijing (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We are not amused with your continuing to post after being told "not here". It is our suggestion that you instead spend your time reading the many warnings on User talk:Shenqijing. For The Cabal, Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Latest : User has received 72 hr block for edit-warring at TCM. (TINC). -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your breaking of the three-reverts rule in the Turin Shroud article

Hi. You have reverted three aditions of content to the Turin Shroud article, in all three cases removing sourced information that had been in the article for years. You have therefore broken the three-edits rule of Wikipedia. I therefore ask you to please undo your own edit, otherwise, as you know, your breaking of the rule should be reported. Also, please note that there is a discussion going on in the page, which you're politely asked to take part of if you want to edit the article at this time. Arrasarro (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha. You have little idea what a revert is do you? Also, Years? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you read three-edits rule you'll see that, as for the rule: A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.. Again, I politely ask you to undo your last edit, otherwise your breaking of the rule shall have to be reported. Arrasarro (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just fell of my chair laughing. Going to disable my 'undo' button. Also, Years? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arrasarro: That's a rule of no more than 3 reverts (not: edits). It means 3 reverts are okay, 4 reverts are bad. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the affirmation "but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus" that you are removing had been in the article for years, as you can see if you give yourself the trouble. I therefore will ask you a third time to revert your last edit, as another Wikipedia rules states the previous version should be kept while discussion goes on. Arrasarro (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Arrasarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

10:02, 24 September 2020:[5] Wdford edits with the summary "Removed papal opinions from lead, as discussed on talk." 0RR for Wdford

(Discussion is at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Introduction)

12:55, 24 September 2020:[6] Arrasarro reverts. 1RR
13:44, 24 September 2020:[7] William M. Connolley reverts. 1RR
08:41, 28 September 2020:[8] Arrasarro reverts. 2RR
09:33, 28 September 2020:[9] Wdford removes papal opinions. 1RR
09:51, 28 September 2020:[10] Arrasarro reverts. 3RR
09:53, 28 September 2020:[11] William M. Connolley reverts. 2RR
Revision as of 10:01, 28 September 2020:[12] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 4RR.
10:55, 28 September 2020:[13] Roxy the dog reverts. 1RR
11:05, 28 September 2020:[14] Arrasarro reverts. 5RR.
Revision as of 11:09, 28 September 2020:[15] Roxy the dog reverts. 2RR.
Revision as of 11:14, 28 September 2020:[16] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 6RR
12:22, 28 September 2020:[17] Roxy the dog reverts. 3RR.
12:45, 28 September 2020:[18] Arrasarro reverts. 7RR.
15:16, 28 September 2020:[19] Guy Macon reverts. 1RR.
15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC):[20] Arrasarro blocked for 36 hours for edit warring.

Roxy had to stop at 3RR because that's as high as dogs can count. :)

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Um ... One ... Two ... Many. -Roxy :the inedible dog . wooF 15:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage

I am going to assume good faith and extend an olive branch. If you could kindly view the talkpage of the article and comment on my detailed explanation for the edits, that would be appreciated. My aim isn't to "prevail" over you and I have no problem abandoning and withdrawing my edit if collaboratively it's decided that it does not improve the quality of the article. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Which article? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mention it, Camel urine. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I responded there anyway. IP numbers are always a blur to me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to link the diff to you prior to publishing so I've gone ahead and made the edit since I believe it's pretty straightforward and reverting is as simple as a click of a button. Have a look and hopefully no hard feelings over getting off on the wrong foot. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Newslinger talk 15:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Political trolling

Your actions on Natural News show politically motivated trolling. At first you accused me of being a Ukrainian and then deleted the comments but nothing here is really deleted! There is a history of your misbehavior and I have intentionally triggered a security audit because Google themselves verified that the site was NEVER removed for fake news which invalidates the existing sources which claim otherwise and never even contacted Google to get the truth. Seems you are the purveyor of fake news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rritoch (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine? You appear to be confused. I have reported your edit warring anyway. Expect to be blocked. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What a shock. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring, the blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Whodathunkit? The unblock request at User talk:Rritoch#October 2020 is especially entertaining. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rritoch. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Does reporting anything to the Dept of Homeland Security actually rise to the level of a legal threat though. Are wikipedians quaking in their boots in fear? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"A legal threat, in [the context of WP:NLT], is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." Whether or not the Department of Homeland Security would actually bother to respond to a complaint about supposed suppression of imagined "civil liberties" by international editors on a private website is neither here nor there, the point is that they were using threats of potential real-world consequences to scare off other editors, instead of really doing much of anything in the interest of improving an article. "No legal threats" in this instance is really just a convenient shorthand for obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.

By the way, if there's some issue with my subsequent edits to Natural News, please (as always) feel free to correct me. I don't know what the hell PacMecEng is getting on about at AN3 but I've got better things to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If you check their edits around here, they just like to defend in indefensible and shit stir whenever possible. Look at their contributions to Jimbo's page and any ANI contribution. Valeince (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Valeince, who is "they"? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to PacMecEng. Valeince (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bourette

Sir, The subject is very much related with the Silk waste that is why i added it in section see also of silk waste but you find it unimportant and removed it from there, I have added it again with explanation in edit summary. I requested the same to PMC, advised me to discuss with you. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Confrontational areas...

... of this project have become overwhelmingly depressing, to the extent that I cannot be bothered to bother at the moment. I shall treat those areas the same way as I treat Professional wrestling. For a few days at least. I shall continue vandal sniping though. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The people from WWE called. They demand an apology for being compared to Wikipedia's coverage of US politics. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I appear to be more or less back on track. I have laughed a lot in the last few days. This is good. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I do not want to drag any issues. Let's maintain peace with each other and forget the past. I am sorry for my misconduct, and you can stop pulling my leg. You are welcome to correct my edits. I am sure you will agree to be more productive when we spend time together on Wikipedia. Please give a try. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dogThis is my last warning to you, Stop peeing on my edits. EXPLAIN WHAT IS stupid here [[21]]. Do you know in the category [[22]] two daddies Mohammed Zahur Khayyam and B. R. Chopra belong to Rahon. Now you will revert your stupidness or should I report elsewhere? RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

AND Rahon was the capital of Dallewalia Misl, Henceforth I will not let you go unexplained from here. Like you do from every talk page.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @RAJIVVASUDEV: Rahon is not an article about a person. It is an article about a place, and it is already in Category:Cities and towns in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar district. Category:People_from_Shaheed_Bhagat_Singh_Nagar_district has articles about people from that district, not articles about places, even if there are people in the district who live in that place (and even if those people have children – not that I understand why that would make a difference). Being a former capital city does not make a place a person. And you really have to dial down on your hostility. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thanks for your intervention again. May be it was necessary. Please see both sides of story, see his every ed summary which lacks Wikipedia:Etiquette everytime. He intentionally use words to provokeWP:BITE me and making me a person what I am not in real. He makes me boil with his every revert.I can understand WP:BRD. But his goal is something else. Please see my edit history. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) RAJIVVASUDEV - If an interaction on Wikipedia is "[making you] boil", you should take a step away from Wikipedia. I can tell you from plenty of past experience that Roxy the dog doesn't care about people, doesn't particularly hold grudges, and is simply here to make this the best encyclopaedia this can be. Yeah, he's curt, slightly abrasive, and doens't put up with any bullshit - and neither do any of my favourite people here. I would like you to dial down your aggression towards him, and simply... find another article to edit. We have six million of them, you can avoid a user you disagree with if you really try. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Slightly? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You're actually nowhere near as much of an arsehole as you try to be ;) -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand; you are not threatening me. Thanks for your honest piece of advice. But let me tell you, he has the least interest in making Wikipedia a great place. He only pretends as a most faithful dog. His interests are to bite and bark only. And please keep those (worshiping and praising) words restricted for him exclusively. I have no interest in being compared to him. Somebody can follow great, reasonable, and wise users; there are many. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

...and RAJIVVASUDEV has been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. What a shock. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank youRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Textile another intentional edit war

Your recent edits are not acceptable, WP:NPA,WP:DE ,Wikipedia:Tendentious editingInformation is well sourced with reliable sources, you are repeatedly making personal attacks, and using false language WP:RPAepeated or egregious personal attacks this is not the first time you are engaging me and ultimately cause a block. Please WP: AGF avoid this and do not harm the project for your ego. Peace. Having any doubts please discuss them on the talk page and conclude. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I have just wasted an hour looking through your interactions with Roxy the dog going back a year or so. You two seem to exclusively collide on textiles articles (an area in which Roxy the dog contributes a significant amount of good content editing), and I'll be blunt, RAJIVVASUDEV - RTD does a lot of cleaning up after you on that topic, and generally doesn't seem to make a fuss except in really egregious cases. Stop accusing Roxy the dog of 'intentially edit warring' with you, and stop telling them to assume good faith.

Also, re: your contributiosn - You'd do well to re-read WP:V and WP:RS together. If a source doesn't verify the claim you're making, it doesn't matter if it's reliable or not.

I don't want to keep seeing this dispute on my watchlist, and as far as I can tell the ball is in RAJIVVASUDEV's court to resolve this. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Textile

What seems to be the real bone of contention between yourself & the other editor in the textile article? Celestina007 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR I'm afraid. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably, they seem really distraught things aren’t going their way. Celestina007 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a very long story, but this example of an exchange on his talk page is so telling I copied it to my sandbox. It is from two years ago. Nothing has changed and I'm fed up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The reality is his grudges and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. See Mum [[23]]RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

+ + + Raises eyebrows and points at this section. + + + -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s enlightening. You are correct when you say the OWN approach/mentality is at play here. I’m afraid generally the user may mean well for the project but currently isn’t able to express himself correctly using the English language. I’d have a discussion with him over this and try as much as I can to explain things to him. Celestina007 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

An afterthought to this - It is worth noting the friendly and encouraging tone my initial message to this editor takes, (see above link to my sandbox). Note that nowadays I have taken to using a crowbar of understanding or a sledgehammer in my comms with him, sadly to no avail. It may also be worth noting that esteemed Rajiv has never displayed any WP:COI or meets WP:PAID imho. The possibility that anybody would pay him for his contributions to this project seems risible. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Piecegoods

Dear Roxy the dog Hi! Since We were unable to coclude the subject. I am opting third Opinion. Please be informed[[24]]. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Esteemed Relentless Revered Rajiv Sir, Oh dear me. If you were competent in English this wouldn't happen. 3O is not DRN. So, which is it to be? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bolt (fabric)

You appear to be engaged in an WP:Edit war. You are up against WP:3RR. You know what that means. Take it to the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be confused as to the nature of an edit war !!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. You can argue that at WP:ANI if you dare. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

-Edit warring again. WP:3RR 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave you a warning while you were here. What has wallpaper got to do with fabric? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bolt (fabric) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit wrring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I was not going to template the regulars, but you asked for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen No probs with the template, but are you going to stop adding crap about wallpaper to an article about fabric? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We can change the title and subject. The terms are interrelated and in this context they are interchangeable. The sources make that clear.

You are way over your allotment of edit warring. This has become a mess; and you are (at least partly) to blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog, User:Dream Focus suggested on my talk page a name change for the article (Bolt (measurement), which would get us past this kerfuffle. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. We've been through this. a bolt is not a measurement, it's a chunk of fabric. Did you look at the pic on the link I posted? How is one of them a measurement? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I doubt very much I'd be found guilty of edit-warring if it came to court, (NOTE for Pedants - Joke, not threat) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to fix the problem. Not fix the blame. You seem to have an inability or unwillingness to bury controversies that ultimately aren't that important. You don't know how to seize on the opportunity of working this through. But you have choices, and I respect your intensity, while disagreeing with your methods. We can do this the long hard way, but it isn't the direction I want to go.

Editing this article does not have to be a zero sum game.

I guess there was no harm in asking. I'll take it back to the article talk page.

Let me know if you change your mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a first thing in the morning off the wall suggestion, but do we have an article called Roll (fabric)? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabric inspection

Dear Sir, We have some unfinished business at Fabric inspection. You made some promises but never came back. Or you can allow me to restore WP: BOLD what you have deleted over there.RV (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Esteemed Rajiv, Sir, was this to do with your poor refs? I'll look. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sir, but it is a simple representation. ThanksRV (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Esteemed Rajiv sir, your excellency sir, I have fixed your faulty page formatting. I have responded at that page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You have the patience of a saint

Honestly. Thanks for giving a shit about enwiki despite the arseholes, of which there are a good few. We've lost a few valuable editors recently to burnout and I would be incredibly saddened if we lost you too.

Hope your winter period is treating you well, all things considered.

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this note, I do appreciate it, and other supportive comments you have made toward me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mostly I enjoy your snark on my watchlist :P -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 16:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Roxy the dog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Is a terrible film. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Will the sender of that mail note that I have responded to their mail. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

Hello. This is a WP:BLP page, please read the policy. I added a {{cn}} tag for a statement which sounds libellous. You removed it here with the edit summary “not an improvement”. Could you please say why you believe you are entitled to remove a {{cn}} in such a case? Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't see that I'd removed a CN tag too. I just reverted the POV edit bit. The tag isn't needed anyway, tis well covered in the body text. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

advice

I understand completely why you would have lost patience, but responding here is just provoking him. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice, which I fully understand, but I ask a little leeway here on my own TP? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

if they insist on posting here, the urge to respond can be very great. But would you like me to ask them not to do so? I'm concerned that they are so much less experienced in this sort of thing. It isn't really fair. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a need to respond here, I will, despite the chilling effect I feel. His commenting here is no problem, his WP:CIR is. Take the example below. What should I do about that, given his other comments to me at more or less the exact same time on his TP? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You just posted a comment of RS's talk page, blaming them for writing an article on the sort of subject I had explicitly urged them to do. It's an article in need of improvement, but nonetheless a positive contribution to WP. I very rarely do this, but as an admin I am placing a partial block that will prevent you from posting on RV's talk page for the next week. If necessary , I will give a similar block in the other direction. This is not an interaction ban in general , with respect to article talk pages, but I strongly urge you not to follow them there, because I will extend it as necessary. (and there I was, feeling very pleased last night that I had resolved a dispute in the way I like, by persuasion alone. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought you said responding here. + + + Looks up there, points + + + Oh, you did. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Frozen fish? Bah

A trouting with frozen fish?[25] Bah. Feel free to use a fish-hitting template with stunning effect: User:Darwinbish/Stockfish. Just type {{subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}} darwin bish 15:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Krunch! Wham! Biff! Urkkk!

You're way beyond getting whacked with a wet trout. Roxy the dog has walloped you with a rack of dried stockfish. Better take this seriously. She wants you to know she'll send her boys next time.

This is so tempting. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it (Oscar Wilde). I'm afraid Darwinbish tends to assume everybody is a "she". At least all power users such as yourself! Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

I was wondering about that. What clever software did DB use to get the gender correct? Also, power user?-Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lets Stop

Roxy the dog Please accept the peace proposal from my side. I will not argue with you. Kindly be civil. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop what? All I'm doing is improving the project. I shall continue to do so. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Shiatsu

Hello, You reverted my edit on Shiatsu in which I replaced "good" with "scientific" to keep true to the source. I would like to know your reasoning for this decision as "return to last good" isn't an explanation. Thank you. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a matter for the article talk page. Ask your question there. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please

I do not want to see you blocked; please don't give someone a stick to beat you with. You're whittling a point on it for them... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

... and they get away with it? I dont normally bother when "personally attacked" but honestly, my spider suit is worn out. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on Roxy - they called you biased, you called them a plonker, I asked you both to stop, then you basically repeated what you said - all I did was revert you, it's not like anybody isn't getting away with it.

Consider this entirely hypothetical situation. One person is making personal attacks on a talk page, and another person is being all cool about it. Easy decision to block, right? Now imagine they're both making personal attacks, you ask them to stop and they don't, and then you have to trawl through the edit history to work out who started it, consider whether there have been warnings, weigh up the offensiveness of each attack, etc. It gets muddy. And you don't want mud on your spider suit, they're a bugger to wash. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have wasted your time though. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about that - I'm pretty good at wasting my own time, I ought to be marking maths work! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

John A. McDougall

You claimed that the source I cited "does not back up the claim made in the article." Well, here is a SCREENSHOT that shows the source says the exact same thing I posted to the article, with a slight rewording. In fact, I had to change it because I initially quoted the article DIRECTLY. What game are you trying to play here, exactly?

The screenshot

Edsanville (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm playing the game of improving the project. Have you tried the game of signing your posts? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted a link to a DIRECT SCREENSHOT that shows that the cited source backs up the (uncontroversial) claim made in the article. Your revision is lazy, you didn't read any of the cited work, and you're not improving the project by removing content under false pretenses, even when a screenshot is provided to you. But you got me with that zinger about signing my post, congratulations. Let others edit articles, please! How about some cooperation or at least basic etiquette! Edsanville (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have responded at the article. I will not respond further here. You should open a section at the article Talk page. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Arcturus (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave you some time ago. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The NHS ...

... phoned me at 4:45 yesterday afternoon, (a Sunday), and by 5:30 I had had my first shot of the Astra Zeneca Vaccine. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 04:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I hear that one of the side effects is that you start combing your hair like Boris....

Also see:[26] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising when lockdown has meant all the barbers are closed, is it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Beep! Confirmed! But jokes aside, congrats, —Paleo Neonate – 08:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Beep

Lest we forget, THE TRUTH is out there... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Deep down, didn't we all suspect that this was true?

[27] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

they should face Backwards

Wouldn't that be a selfie? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia change the rules concerning reliable resources?

Hi Roxy,

I deleted a citation of a Mr. David Gorski whose statement is based on a blog entry. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources this is not a reliable source for a medicine related article. Note that Mr. Gorskis blog entry partially is based on another blog entry "accurate summation of the Feldenkrais method", which is based on a another bloggers anecdotic experience. http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk36.html

Concerning the quote of quackwatch: Mentioning something in a list, without any citations of scientific studies is not really hitting the high quality standards of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

So, why did you restore these entries? They lack of any citation of a reliable scientific source.

Best regards,

Erik

ErikSchaf (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit[28] was reverted for not being neutral. I would have reverted it myself if Roxy had not beaten me to it.

Use of blogs by David Gorski and Quackwatch as sources are allowed per WP:BLOG: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Oh, is the Feldenkrais meat factory back in action? Science-Based Medicine is not a blog. Both it and QuackWatch have consistently been found to be useful sources for fringe SCI/MED topics, and are apt in this case. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Erik, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with my colleagues here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s nice to see Betteridge’s law being followed. Brunton (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. Betteridge's law of headlines. A classic, right next to Benford's law of controversy and the Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, very kind of you. Erm ... What anniversary am I celebrating !! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you expect me to see something obvious? But srsly, thx. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Technique

I'm not gonna revert your edit because I don't wanna start an edit war, but you can pretty much see on the talk page that I called for a third opinion, and that Aliveness Cascade (talk · contribs) and me agreed on this change vs Hipal (talk · contribs).

I personally think Hipal's POV is not neutral, since he went again ad hominem attacks at first sight and has pretty much taken wp:OWNERSHIP of the article. Franciscouzo (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Consensus again, as the consensus you cite does not seem to exist. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And strike out all your accusations made against me, which make it appear you are taking this personal and are unable to work cooperatively with other editors. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sarcastic edit summaries

"Hang on!! Is this about a script that can automatically write sarcastic edsums? YES PLEASE" You want a script to do that? I'm sure you can be far more creative and adventurous doing it manually. If you use a script, you'll just end up sounding like Father Jack Hackett. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

YES PLEASE, Only for emergency use late at night when I've had too much catnip and cannot be bothered. It seems like such a wonderful idea. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Catnip? Do you have a secret you wish to share, Roxy the dog?? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be an ecumenical matter. Brunton (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Really fighting the urge to drop trees (well, images of trees) on a bunch of user talk pages. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the fuss. video-Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

At my age, it was a hard concept to get around. I actually told an acquaintance, before they said openly they had this problem, that I thought the problem was in the head and not the plumbing. So, for those of us of a certain age, it's been a learning experience. And for those with this problem, the endless mockery and belittlement is a torment. They did not ask to be this way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do anything. Just don't make me listen to Hawaiian guitar! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Vernon Coleman

Say, can you give me some insight into what was happening there? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I posted the following to Roger's Talk page

"Note for reviewing Admin. Nowhere in all this has it been noted that Roger, having driven a Coach and Horses through talk page ettiquette, has also removed at least two entries to the discussion that I had made, messed with my signature at least once, and still has not even disturbed a pixel at WP:TPG. Hence my WP:CIR suggestion. Can we ensure that he stops banjaxing about with his stupid templates, that he still believes he is was placing according to guidelines. Get him to demonstrate some basic understanding of using Talk pages properly in terms of indentation, signing, templates, deleting peoples posts and in making the point economically." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. (You've been cooped up too long. ) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha. I had an eight page letter from Matt the Minister the other day giving guidelines on what extremely vulnerable people should do next. Eight. Closely typed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No one takes the time to write anymore. A dying art. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A little late maybe: "I can't write", "I can't read", "I watch TV".[29] But unfortunately the full quote I was looking for isn't there: "I can't write." (true in his case, reply:) "Who can nowadays! Who has the time!" —Paleo Neonate – 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe savvy help needed at Talk:Blanket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanket#(Dubious)_Etymology_from_Thomas_Blanket_/_Blanquette_-_needs_review?

Geddit? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 18:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Trees

Roxy the Sycamore, have ~~you~~ tree evolved into a tree? Bishonen the Japanese Cherry | tålk 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC).

This was a response to somebody who wanted to be called tree, and the eeng sanction. I suppose going back to grumpy is better. Thank you for these pics Bish, and while the sycamore is lovely, may I say that the japanese cherry is appropriately beautiful. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tree know the back history of the Eeng sanction (which indeed tree lifted treeself). Bishonen the Japanese Cherry | tålk 12:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

If anytree wants to call treeself "tree", then tre rest of trus are treequired to call trem "tree", even if treewe think this is silltree and the treesult is somewhat wooden. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man, that Emmanuel Macron is stunningly handsome! Bishonen the Japanese Troll | tålk 20:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

Is that the french speaker whose wife slept with Mick Jagger? Or am I confuseling him with another tree? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's funny. Some people think tree am french and call tree "Gee Masson", but tree am of British descent, tree was raised speaking the Queens English, and tree name rhymes with "Sea Bacon" (which tree would have for breakfast with some scrambled sea eggs, toasted sea bread with sea jelly with some sea apples and sea cucumbers on the side). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats the last pronounciation for a tree Tree've ever have thought of. Tree've been saying it in tree head wrong for years. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dick move (copied from GBFans talk page)

(Note - the below topic was deleted from GBFans talk page)

Removing that Prod. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing what PROD? ~ GB fan 10:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The one that I placed. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The last PROD I removed was 22 hours ago and it wasn't placed by you? So again what article are you talking about so I can understand what you think I did wrong? ~ GB fan 10:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

According to my alerts, you deprodded it 26 mins ago. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me what article you are talking about? ~ GB fan 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Dick move diff -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the problem I removed a speedy deletion tag that you placed that is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. If you want your speedy deletion requests to go be deleted nominate them for valid reasons. ~ GB fan 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you a Project Arsehole member? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you ever going to acknowledge that you were wrong in all your assertions against me in regards to this article and AFD? ~ GB fan 10:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not!!! Are you a member? I haven't looked. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well there is only one person who made any Dick moves in this whole business, You. ~ GB fan 11:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

... and yet we now have another crappy stub, of wonderful provenance, to add to our collection. Well done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better to blame me for that article being kept at AFD because I didn't delete it for an invalid speedy deletion reason, fine. I don't take responsibility but it is fine for you to blame me. ~ GB fan 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Good. Do you want the last word on this? I'll let you have it? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Good advice (for both of you!):

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Paid False claim

Hey there, nice to see you take on an activist role at Wikipedia. But unfortunately to everyone's disappointment, I am not a paid promotional person or anything, the info which you keep changing back to is outdated, and I am an aspiring student busy with college applications wanting to get into an MBA college here in India. So if you want readers to get the correct info on Wikipedia, please allow the changes to remain. I even cited the sources so that it is clear that the changes are not misleading. Anyone with time on their hands can check if the information provided is correct or not. I merely tried to update the page. Please go through publicly available articles and allow the proper information to be readily available at everyone's fingertips. Anyway, thank you for going through all this trouble to read my message. And sorry for any etiquette blunder I may have committed. Because I am new to Wikipedia and do not really know this stuff that much. Thanks. Housofx (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC) User talk:Housofx

Even if you are not being paid to edit, your edits are still unacceptable as they are almost entirely promotional. See WP:PROMOTION. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please be nicer to me

Hi Roxy, please forgive me for my edits at TCM. I am not a troll, and I will immediately discard all of my dad's TCM from the closet and tell him to stop taking huang lian su for diarrhea and physically stop him from going to buy it in the future. I hope you can be nicer to me in the future. I really didn't mean to anger you. Félix An (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind most marine mammals, but Sea Lions? I can do without Sea Lions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading matter for visitors, published today. "Drink Me" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Laundry symbols and GINETEX

Per MOS:CAPS, GINETEX should be all caps since it's an acronym. It was my error to write it Ginetex in the first place, so I corrected. Carter (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a proper Acronym. The Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour l'Entretien des TEXtiles uses the first three letters of the last word. Thanks for discussing though, but I believe you are wrong. We really should discuss this at the article talk page, where others will see. I will move this discussion there. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GINETEX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clichy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Zamzam Water article issues

Hello, Roxy the dog,

I reverted to my version of "Zamzam water" due to the article not conforming to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. When I said 2-0, that was because another user agreed with me on this issue. I considered it as part of a vote. There was no opposition to my complaint, so I went ahead with reverting it. If you want such a large vote to happen (which I'm assuming), then you should find people to take part in this consensus. If there is no action within one or two weeks, I will need to go ahead with my version. This complaint was brought to light on April 15. Once again, I will reiterate that the current version of the article is misinformation. Thanks for your time.

Xpërt3 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.RV (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Cellulosic fibres, Nylon, all MMFs and synthetics are all from natural sources

You are mistaken here [[30]]. Natural fibers are obtained from natural sources such as plants, animals, or minerals without any chemical process.But Kindly MMF (Manmade fibers) are obtained after synthesizing process only. I hope all is clear. Thanks RV (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RV, Looking at the revision history of Natural fiber, it looks like you posted wrong information twice, Roxy reverted your bad edits twice, and finally you posted the correct information. That wasn't edit warring. It was fixing your screwup. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Respected Sir That was a short description, not a definition. Have you seen his ALL? Is he right? Though we produce everything from natural sources, ALL are not from plants, animals, and minerals. We get ONLY natural fibers from these sources. The human-made fibers are obtained after synthesizing petroleum products. His ALL is Hell. And i fixed that. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not mistaken, you are, as usual. It runs through all your editing. Do you know Dunning and Kruger at all? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog What was mistaken is explained. I know one thing that for you, your ego and your prejudices are bigger than Wikipedia and its projects. Let's finish our business on Staple (textiles). I will not allow you to run away from the talk page where you are an expert (to escape). And do you know Dog training? I am busy in the same, and I shall make you a good one (You will discuss the things on the talk page first). Mind you RV (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be both. It could be that Roxy's ego is bigger than Wikipedia AND that you don't understand what makes a fiber a "natural fiber". The two are not mutually exclusive. See Dunning–Kruger effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Firstly I appreciate your time and thanks for mentioning both. I am sorry to bother you again. How should I react when someone removes [[31]] the information with reliable sources without reading them and his ed sum is ‎Rayon staple: Some terribly innaccurate stuff that was very poor removed. But the source is there and it is a reliable source.^[1]. Page 496. Should not he discuss it on the talk page first? If he does so, i can correct it accordingly. Kindly advise. Warm regards RV (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Wingate, Isabel Barnum (1979). Fairchild's dictionary of textiles. Internet Archive. New York : Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-0-87005-198-2.

Please stop calling me "respected sir".[32] My name is Guy Macon and I work for a living.[33][34]

What part of "ref was to the front cover of a book" are you having trouble understanding? If the book directly supports your claim, cite the page where it does that. See WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Rayon and acetate are both artificial fibers, but not truly synthetic, being made from wood." --Synthetic fiber

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, The Page number 496 was already there in the source See[[35]]. BTW There is no doubt and debate about the Rayon/ Acetate is artficial or Synthetic, The point is Rayon staple. Anyway thanks for your support and time. Regards RV (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Rajiv, Please tell us what it says, exactly, on page 496, so that we can WP:V verify your citation. Quote exactly the section that supports your statement in the article. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This is how the source defines Rayon Staple "Short Rayon fibers of spinnable length manufactured directly or by cutting large groups of continuous filaments. Generally measure 1-20 denier and is usually produced in length of 1-5 inches (2.54 to 12.17 cms). Spun into yarn of different textures and sizes. Often it is blended with other natural and manmade fibers. In general lengths and thickness are comparable with natural fibers. Rayon staple does not include cut Rayon waste." Thanks RV (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My mistake about the page number. The first citation you provided above didn't have it.

When I first noticed this thread you were adding an inaccurate short description to Natural fiber, which you then made more accurate.[36][37][38]

Now I see you accusing Roxy of vandalism[39] because you want to add a paragraph on Rayon Staple to Staple (textiles).[40]

Staple (textiles) already says "Synthetic fibers are produced artificially by humans through chemical synthesis. The process includes polymerization. These fibers are formed with extruding fiber-forming materials through spinnerets. The product is continuous strands with long infinite lengths. These are called filament yarns. Examples of synthetic fibers are Polyester, Polyamide, Acrylic, etc. Silk is the only natural fiber obtained as a filament. If filament fiber is cut into discrete lengths, it becomes staple fiber."

So yes, you could add a paragraph about Rayon staple, another about Polyester staple, another about Polyamide staple, another about Acrylic staple, etc. another about Silk staple, and so on. All of those are filament fiber that can be cut into discrete lengths, thus becoming staple fiber. The paragraph you added adds nothing useful to the article.

Here is what you should have done. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD you should have stopped as soon as there was a disagreement and calmly discussed the issue on the appropriate article talk page. Instead you went right to accusing the other person of "deliberately destroying and damaging Wikipedia" and asking senior editors to stop them. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon Firstly I agree with your advice. The talk page discussion, but i have not given any chance on the talk page. I am considering Natural fiber is settled for now. And we will fix the rest of the things. Thanks and warm regards RV (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Staple (textiles) The text copied is rewritten by me only and in the process of improving the article Rayon staple was considered special for certain reason but removed inbetween along with another important section. Thanks RV (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rajiv. Now could you please tell me what text that supports in the article, because it isn't clear to me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy. For sure i will find it for you. Here it is[[41]].RV (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. I was correct to delete it then.-Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I also note that Rajiv has been blocked for 1 month. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

?

Are you ok?! Chill dude! Or did i disturb your false claims? Taha mosawy (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you. What false claims? -Roxy . wooF 09:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Morbid matter

Does “morbid matter” have some technical meaning specific to textiles, or is this a sort of cloth that stays filthy after washing? Otherwise, I really can’t see what it’s supposed to mean. Brunton (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No technical meaning that I know, it'd have to be astonishingly obscure. I wonder who wrote that article. I haven't looked yet. -Roxy . wooF 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise. He must be watching this, haha. -Roxy . wooF 14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

At least I can tell what “The fabric was good to stand with washing” means. Brunton (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont know what that means. Unfortunately, that sort of shite winds me up. It is typical of his hopeless language skills. -Roxy . wooF 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you forget a couple of...

... biased toward/against, one of which has its own category? Both are well-documented, js. Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Betty. No, Mr. Bacon did a fine job. I was interested to see you suggest something on Gender bias though, which reminded me of this which I find interesting. He got what he wanted, but it still wasn't good enough. I do watch an article that I call Men cheating in womens sports though. -Roxy . wooF 16:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

[1] Wingate, Isabel Barnum (1979). Fairchild's dictionary of textiles. Internet Archive. New York : Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-0-87005-198-2.

[1]

User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 9