User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 6

Crystal healing

I will ask the editors, admins to review your controversial posts as quite biased based on your contributions to wikipedia to violate the very foundation of neutral view the goal of wikipedia is not an opinion based resource. You can create your own blog if you want to argue what is science vs whatever you choose to argue about. I checked your history and it's very clear that you have biases and you are prolific in trolling and spamming wikipedia with your content to assert your biases.CristieJ (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Learn to sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of signing when you edited this page... again intimidation tactics Roxy, the dog. You don't own wikipedia, you cannot proliferate content with your own biases and you clearly lack neutral view CristieJ (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Learn to format Talk pages properly using colons to indent. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Crystal Healing has been reported for violating NPOV guidelines and POV Check

Roxy, the dog. In compliance with reporting you -- Please reference the Talk section of the reverted article that shows clear bias, which has been reported for the following:

Galobtter Please note the following:

Crystal Healing: [[1]]

1. Lack of Neutral point of view in content and language to show bias for science and scientific study in an article clearly about: Crystals and Crystal healing. This is an opinion piece thinly disguised as educating people on Crystal healing. 2. Requests an editorial and admin POV check on the the entire article for using very strong biases in wording to substantiate it's claims that Crystal healing is not a science even though it doesn't claim it is a science... 3. Claiming editorial wars when wikipedia guidelines show that ANYONE can edit the articles and author in attempting to maintain opinion and bias by reverting edited content that was addressing the topic from a neutral perspective.

See referenced, the violations noted 1, 2 in dispute : [[2]]

CristieJ (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Daily mail

How is Dailymail an unreliable source? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was reliable, partially because it's a printed newspaper. But looking at the article, people had criticized it of being unreliable. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept the Fail as a reliable source. There was an ivote and everything. Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Just curious do you have a link to the discussion? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:DAILYMAIL Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Æbleskiver

No, it is a list of common foods. Æbleskiver is mostly eaten at dinner, and very rarely at breakfast. » Shadowowl | talk 14:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

But, gasp, the article doesn't say anything about common, just notable. Therefore, it could be argued that unusual=notable. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Articles belongs at the article talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of breakfast foods, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I very much doubt Rat-on-a-stick is eaten for breakfast anywhere. Plus you did not cite your source. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Articles belongs at the article talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:13, 2 August 2018 (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. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of breakfast foods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bacon and eggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wut??? That was deliberate, and two days ago You should change your username to SLOBOT. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:textile

I think that the edit that you moved on Talk:Textile belongs at the bottom of the page in the discussion of merging Textile with Clothing material. I have left a message on the editor's talk page asking him if this was his intention. Leschnei (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Performance fabrics

Hi Roxy, appreciate your observations.i have added the required references to the chart, The basic difference between Fabric and Performance fabric is performance.which is enhanced in these fabrics. Don't hesitate to ask me again ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have moved this reply to Rajiv's talk page, where I opened the discussion. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, the dog. hello, I will add more sources, and for your queries 1. You asked ..So exactly what performance do you mean...and enhanced from what state? @@Performance, it is about the attributes of the fabrics totally opposite in a manner to achieve added functionalities (Interestingly these added attributes enhance the scope of use of those fabrics) @@enhance from what state....The added properties/performances do not belong originally to those fabrics but they are enhanced by different things see the definition.And properties of fabrics basically belongs to their origin and their polymers and polymer structure etc. But in this case, these properties are engineered to achieve added advantages. Examples of Polyester which is hydrophobic becomes water-loving(makes it useful for sportswear) and cotton is possible to behave water repel(You must have seen types of denim claiming rain guard, stain repel ) I tried to answer everything but you are welcome any time, don't stop asking, One last thing should we improve the definition part, please advise thanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RAJIVVASUDEV, you have used a lot of words to say almost nothing. The only meaningful remark is that these fabrics purportedly make polyester hydrophilic, and cotton hydrophobic. Please address Roxy's concerns in a more direct way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)Hi let me elaborate it little more without repeating what is performance and enhancement, Performance fabrics they are purposefully manufactured to meet the conditions(sometimes extreme) with a predetermined objective. The originally owned properties of those fabrics also remain important in the whole consideration. Allow me to redefine and add some more relevant sources,Drifit from Nike is a more convincing example anyway thanks Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I give up. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I know my explanations are technical and not understandable easily,need your help and Roxy to improve the things,that is why we are here.I have added sources,hopefully more convincing and reliable.Please comment .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for butting in.

SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And a tiny bread toast to go with it. —PaleoNeonate – 16:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And who can forget Goat Yoga? Alexbrn (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Another Sealioning RfC

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Homeschool missing reference

You were missing some references and that was the only way to let you know and I have been told before by administrators that's the best way to let someone know. Then when they have their reference for that part they can add it in st a later date Wifey93 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the sockpuppeting! ; in reference to the Performance Fabrics Articles for Deletion vote, obviously

Gotcha.Get back to meThemessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 19:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea on what basis Twinkle decides to notify people about things, and as for pocksuppetry, I'm stymied as to your meaning, but don't worry, the sun is over the yardarm. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Themessengerofknowledge please describe your relationship with user:rajivvasudev. thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rajiv blocked for engaging in sockpuppetry on this and other fabric/textile articles and drafts. Fabric. Sockpuppet. HaHaHaHaHa. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Shari Lewis featured in my childhood, in the UK mind you. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deja vu...

I just saw that ANI thread about blanking. Man, did that give me deja vu. It's the same exact disconnect from the rest of the community, the same I-can't-possibly-be-wrong-about-anything-and-you'd-best-recognize-that attitude, the same hurling-insults-while-whining-about-being-bullied behavior...

For the sake of fun, the next time somebody starts whining about ad-hominem fallacies, point out that it's not actually a fallacy unless the criticism has nothing to do with the topic. So, for example, pointing out that someone probably should not be trusted with a mop because they generally act like a spoiled brat whenever any sort of conflict arises is not a fallacy. It's just a statistical syllogism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well said MPants at work. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 21:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rant mode on. Somehow I expect if I asked at RFA, "Are you you prone to whiny tantrums when people disagree with you", my ability to ask questions at RFA would be strictly curtailed. Part of the reason I rarely contribute to requests for adminship is that often the wrong questions are asked, and editors (and other admins) focus on completely the wrong things. I would spend half my days just refuting bullshit opposes. At one of the current ones, the very first oppose is based on the editor (requesting tools) applying our NFCC as per the community consensus, and the opposer does so by using a bullshit comparison. There are valid arguments to oppose there by others, but frankly any argument at a consensus-discussion that is not based on a valid application of current policy should be disregarded. Which almost never happens. RFA is a popularity contest with the most success when the usual torpedo'ers are not paying attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've never voted at an RfA, except once, and the resulting Admin isn't too bad. With regard to the current issue, if an apology isn't forthcoming as one of the first post block posts, then I shall be proposing a site ban. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing that's always struck me is that the way RfA works, we use a popularity contest to decide whether an editor is a good enough content creator to be handed a bunch of tools that have little or nothing to do with content creation. Hell, an admin using the bit in the process of content creation regularly would quickly and repeatedly fall afoul of WP:INVOLVED, because the only way to use the bit in the process of content creation is to use it to win a content dispute. Admins do not exist for the purpose of content creation: they exist to mitigate problematic behavior by other editors.

So yeah, the whole process is completely bass-ackwards. Content creation has absolutely no bearing on one's suitability as an admin. MH is the perfect example of this. Great content creator, but arguably the worst admin still editing. There are plenty of editors with 1% of his contributions who would make a much better admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I'd support that site ban. Or rather, I'd support a desysop. Because, for all his immaturity, he's a good content creator (at least as far as I know). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Roxy the dog?

What became of Roxy? The prognosis is usually passing over 4 weeks after detection. William Harris • (talk) • 11:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC

I lost her more or less twelve months ago, she was better than any other dog in the world, ever!!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies. My boy went 2 years ago at age 6.5 years - the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. There are two types of people who live in this world - those of us who have loved and lost a dog, and the others. William Harris • (talk) • 11:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Right to arm bears

I must have accidentally reverted you without knowing it when I reviewed diffs the other night. Damn tiny phone. Sorry! - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) The right to bear undo buttons —PaleoNeonate – 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I frequently exercise my constitutional right to arm bears. Local hunters hate me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

LuckyLouie My fat paws have hit the undo button on my ipad a few times, but honestly, I thought you just disagreed with me in the long term edit war that I joined. A few days I even asked successfully for the page to be protected for a while to wake em up. I think that'll rumble on for a while, as the topic is sensitive to certain factions. I tend to avoid American Politics topics though. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have an SE, basically a 4 inch phone. Super light and easy to carry, but the keypad is hell ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WAAMOP

"Wikipedia Administrators Apologetics Ministry On Patrol" is currently fighting a strange rearguard action to enable a disruptive admin to get unblocked.

It is really happening [here] and I have become obsessed in a wikiway. This obsession is unhealthy, but watching swarms of admins fawning around desperately trying to insert some kind of understanding into this fifteen year veteran editor lacking any wp:clue whatsoever is galling. HE'S BEEN HERE FIFTEEN YEARS - HE SHOULD BE TEACHING YOU GUYS ALL THAT STUFF.

-Roxy, in the middle. wooF 06:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, they have unblocked <redact PA>. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop

The consensus over Michael Hardy seems clear, so stop the shit-stirring or you will end up as the one who is blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, having just seen the blatant personal attack just above this section (which I have redacted), you have been blocked for 24 hours. When the block expires, tone it down or you will be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Fuck off Boing, you and your colleagues are enabling a <PA redacted> here. You should all be fucking ashamed. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

For continuing with your personal attacks, your block has been increased to 1 week and your talk page access has been revoked. You said above that your "obsession is unhealthy", and I agree with that 100%. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, Boing!. I agree the criticism would have been better without the epithets, but a week? It feels a bit like Michael Hardy's block won't stay down but has to go somewhere, and now it has bounced over to another long-time editor, complete with tpa removed. Can't we instead try to do without those blocks for a few days? Bishonen | talk 11:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC).

  The escalation was partly due to Roxy the dog's record of blocks for personal attacks, and doubling down by repeating a personal attack after being blocked was simply not acceptable (neither was the ad hominen comment at Michael Hardy's talk page, but had that been the only thing then a warning would have sufficed). Have you seen the sheer number of words and the amount of bad faith this sorry episode has generated so far? It's been blown sky high by repeated baiting by both sides, and that baiting *has to stop*. I'm quite prepared to lift this block the moment we get a commitment from Roxy the dog to stop the personal attacks, or to approve the same being done by any other admin who gets the same commitment. All Roxy the dog has to do is make such a commitment via WP:UTRS or by email. But I won't restore TPA for someone who is abusing their talk page by continuing making personal attacks on it without such a commitment. Alternatively, if you or any other admin can think of another way to stop this, you are welcome to amend this block however you see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Of course I've seen it. More blocks just encourage more of it, IMO. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC).

  (It was rhetorical). So what should we do, just let people carry on kicking chunks out of each other indefinitely? As I say, if you have a better way to solve it, please go ahead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is a case where everybody (including Roxy) needs to recognize that we're all human and we all have limits and cut a little slack to editors who are venting. Look at the point Roxy is making in (in all caps, but read the entire thing) the section above: He's absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is incompetent to be an admin. MH has no excuse for getting into this much trouble, and it's extremely distressing to people who care about this project seeing that kind of behavior excused and forgiven. I might have supported the 24 hour block based on Roxy's edit at MH's talk, but this one-week block over venting on his own talk page? That's really over the top. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  It was for repeating the personal attack after having already been blocked for the first personal attack here (and for an ad hominem comment at MH's talk page). But if the consensus suggests the 1-week is excessive, I'm prepared to reduce it - but the back-and-forth personal attacks from all sides simply have to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) 72 hours. Less than the current week, still an escalation. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've actually reduced the block back to 24 hours (from now), and we'll see how it goes. But I really do implore everyone who has become involved in this to please do their utmost to help reduce the hyperbole and the escalating bad faith. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. MH's temper tantrums aren't going to be snuffed by the rest of us reacting with the same level of maturity. If we're not going to block him, then we need to ignore him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Damn, Roxy. Sorry to see this. Get it out of your system first it you must, but I'm ready to unblock. Awaiting your commit to cease and desist. It ain't worth it. My email is always open and I review WP:UTRS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what happened too; what I see is overreaction on two sides. I'll be glad to see you back after whatever break is necessary. I've read absolutely everything (that was public, anyway) in relation to MH's case, so I understand your concerns. There are proper means for followup including arbcom if necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 00:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already apologised to Boing, and I wanted to thank everybody who has commented here, and who contacted me by email, before I do anything else. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 15:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 18:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

something...

I thought about saying "Angry white male-ness?" Then I remembered that I'm an angry (mostly) white male. So then I thought about saying "Good-ole 'Murikan muleheadedness?" But then I realized I'm muleheaded, 'Murikan good-ole boy.

As you can imagine, I was starting to feel pretty confused at that point. But then I settled on "a fact-proof, self-centered POV" and realized that I don't have that. At least I hope I don't... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually cannot remember if I took part in forming that consensus. I think not, as it doesn't enter into my life at all. It seems reasonable to me. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Polyester not a fabric

Re: removing Polyester from the List of Fabrics list: Why? It is a fabric, is it not? Johnnysama (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll keep this for another month, it makes me laugh. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Holiday, (Vacation, for Merkian speakers)

I’m afk same as last year.

I may respond from time to time, and will be back to services as usual within a week from now.

Lancaster canal for the curious.

Note that I’m on an ipad and can’t be bothered to go through the ridiculous rigmaroles I need to do to corrupt that link.

Roxy, in the middle. wooF 08:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee Clarification Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing comments

The way your comment was formatted makes mine look like it's in reply to yours when it's actually in reply Blue Raspberry's. My formatting change to make it clear that I'm replying to Blue Raspberry. The way our comments are formatted differently gives the appearance that my comment is directed at someone it isn't actually directed at.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that. Fix your own comment, do not change mine. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The formatting change was to make it absolutely clear that my comment was also in reply to Blue Rasberry and doesn't alter yours in any way. I added the bullet point because the way your comment is formatted affects the way mine is presented. Even if I change the formatting on my comment (I've already tested this out by removing the bullet point or removing the colon without saving the page), mine still doesn't convey that it's in reply to Blue Raspberry. Everyone else is using the bullet point before the colon. Please restore the bullet point because your formatting only makes things confusing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No. (add extra colons and remove the * to make your comment appear as you would prefer.) -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, having had my second cup of coffee, I will fix it for you if you allow me to alter the formatting only of your post, if that would be OK with you? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as it shows that we're both replying to Blue Raspberry, fine by me :)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I ought to apologise for being snarky to you. I've altered my own comment too, adding a colon. I hope that this does the trick. I feel a need to comment again, but I wont until you are happy with my alterations. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This was more what I had in mind but I think we're good now.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I should've discussed this with you and requested you make the change instead of making the change myself (by asking and not just assuming that you was also replying to Blueraspberry). Although WP:TPO does mention something about formatting, I should've discussed things with you from the start by asking if you meant to directly reply to Blueraspberry, so I also apologize for my own lack of prior communication and prior discussion (by shooting first and asking questions later) before modifying your comment.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This was very rude of me. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

wwoof wwoof

you have email JarrahTree 10:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah. That explains a lot, thanks -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the North Africa Wiki

I just wanted to thank you for your reply on the talk page. I think I might have misspoke when titled what I had to say as defining. I responded to your comment. Also, since I am new, how can I tell when I have sufficient support from Wiki users on the talk page to revert the article back to my changes or leave it alone? The user who disputes my edit has threatened to block my IP address if I make any more changes to the article, calling my contributions vandalism. I don't want to chance getting blocked! Thanks.Itaren (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. You can safely ignore the templated warnings placed on your Talk page. That editor has exactly the same rights here on wikipedia as you or I. Only Admins have any power to sanction ordinary editors like us.

With regard to the page concerned, I wont make any suggestions in that area (the attempt to define) as I can't see how the situation can be resolved as there is no defining authority that we can point to. Nobody is being collegiate and trying to solve, just to bludgeon their own ideas in. Be assured that Ryanoo has no more power to block you than I do, or you do to block them.

Feel free to ask me any further questions you may have. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm incredibly grateful for your intervention and input! I have never found myself in a more unpleasant situation contributing before. The article was also generally untouched by onlookers for sometime until Ryanoo came along, which leads me to believe my additions were not "vandalism" and were in fact relevant to the article which they dispute. Anyway, Ryanoo and I have talked a bit on the "talk" page and I am still being attacked for sticking by my verifiable sources and being accused of all sorts of things. I wish I knew more about Wiki formatting to pose a case to the Admins myself but my knowledge with code on Wiki is severely lacking. Itaren (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not comment further until the sockpuppet investigation has been completed, there is no point, though clearly I have been (WP:AGF) assuming good faith in this regard, I have formed no opinion.. My attention has been elsewhere in any case, and will be taken away further by health issues for 24 hours at least. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am here because I saw a recent Ryanoo edit in the Horn of Africa page and as usual he scraped the words Northeast Africa from it. This person also targeted me and harassed me because I requested Wikipedia upholds its integrity to proven facts and not be biased toward a specific racial group but this user objected to it because he wanted to push is racial views. The racist comments he spewed in the talk page of North Africa lead me to believe that this person is a white nationalist and I am baffled Wikipedia lets this user run amok. I have requested that the Northeast Africa region be created but the Wikipedia editors who work with Ryanoo objected to it. Anthropology, archaeology and dna have shown that in the past there was constant migration in the Northeast Africa corridor representing Egypt, Sudan and the Horn of Africa through the Nile Valley but the words Northeast Africa can't be used anywhere in Wikipedia because Ryanoo and his friends would censure it. This level of censorship rivals china and I am convinced Wikipedia condones it, so I request that as an Admin you look into this issue too because they are denying Horn Africans their history. Arboleh (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Roxy, in the middle. wooF I think that this is clear evidence of what I was talking about Mr. Roxy. I and other users have reported this user Arboleh before for sock puppetry and now he is trying to attack me and do the same thing as the suspected sock Itaren which is another unmistakable behavioral evidence that he is sock of Midddayexpress, This Arboleh also had disruptively edited some Wikipedia pages, attacked me, editwarred me, reported me asking for administrator intervention and now he is asking for your help exactly same as what Itaren did!!!. The Somali user Middayexpress ( has the Canadian Nationality ) is a very persistent sock puppeteer who has been using many fake accounts in order to promote his racist Afrocentric agenda and vandalize Wikipedia, this user is trying to whitewash Horn Africans and link them to Middle Easterners and North Africans while distancing Horn Africans from their other fellow East Africans brothers which is very racist. At the same time, He is trying to black-wash Middle Easterners and North Africans and linking them to horn Africans:), this guy got really no life, he has been using hundreds of sock puppet accounts in order to vandalize Wikipedia and promote his Afrocentric agenda, for example, he is trying to deattach modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptians origins and link the Egyptian civilization to Sub Saharan Africans who have nothing at all to do with Egypt or Egyptians which is extremely racist and ridiculous!!!. I have already filed a sock puppeting report against him but It was reverted because some other user before filed a sock puppeting report against the same user and the result was inconclusive because he is using proxy. You can check his IP history and you will find that he uses only proxies and that he never logged in through a legit IP address which means that he is trying to hide something, also this account was created shortly after the block of confirmed sock puppets Middayexpress, Soupforone, Geneticanthro, ....etc and he has been making the same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries. You can also check the behaviors of these accounts and Middayexpress/Soupforone, you will find that the behavioral evidence is very clear and unmistakable. I wonder how can such person get blocked and then make a new account on Wikipedia and continue vandalizing it while remains unchallenged and me who is battling such vandals and puppeteers is blamed and warned!!!! How come?!!!!Unfortunately, users like this, are why Wikipedia occasionally gets a bad name. Those Afro-centrists are 24/7 insulting us Egyptians everywhere and are doing their best to to dattach us from our ancient Egyptian origins and appropriate our heritage and culture and all our mistake is that we are Egyptians!!! which is very racist and offensive, Enough is Enough!!!!! I didn't think that I will encounter such racist people on a main source of knowledge like Wikipedia. Thank you. Ryanoo (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Arboleh Bring a map and look where your country Somalia is located, you will find It is located in East Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa which have nothing at all to do with Egypt which is a Mediterranean transcontinental country located in North Africa and West Asia. Love yourself and stop trying to lump yourself with Egyptians, Middle Easterners and North Africans because you guys are simply not from the MENA area. Also please stop deattaching modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptian origins like what you did on the Page of DNA history of Egypt because it is very racist. I am an Egyptian and you know and I know that Somalis are totally different racially, genetically, racially, culturally and in every aspect from Egyptians and other MENAs. Your history is in Somalia which is an East African country in Sub-Saharan Africa, not in North Africa. Ryanoo (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, racists like you are what is wrong with Wikipedia and why people don't trust it, I hope unbiased Admins deal with you but I don't have a high expectation, however know this, I will continue to fight for an unbiased Wikipedia where people like you don't spread racist views or censure facts. Arboleh (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Does anybody expect me to read today's contributions to this page? I wont be reading them. see WP:TPG -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Would you like a summary? 'Modern Eqyptians (historically quite legitimately) do not consider themselves of the same background as much of sub-saharan Africa and do not like it when same try to muscle in on what they consider their heritage, despite conveniently forgetting Egypt kept both slaves and military units made up of sub-saharan African background'. Think Greece and FYROM for a similar ethno-geographical conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Only in death does duty end Thank you for your input and by the way I am an archaeogeneticist. I can tell you that we don't consider ourselves of the same background of ALL Sub-Saharan Africa because we simply aren't and our country definitely isn't located in Sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt is a Mediterranean Middle Eastern transcontinental country located in North Africa and West Asia which has nothing at all to do with Sub-Saharan Africans. And regarding the salves and military units, well Romans and others also have Black slaves and military units, so?. I don't think this example of conflict is right, because simply Greece and FYROM are to great extent related racially as well as geographically, which isn't the case at all for the racist Afrocentrists who are trying to appropriate our culture and history ( as well as others history such as Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Chinese and almost every ancient culture on this planet and probably other planets! ). Egypt is a Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern, so are the Egyptians!. Thank you.Ryanoo (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I thought there was a subtext going on from the Talk page, which, behaviourally, is a shambles, and the personal attacks, going in every direction, despicable. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind that is an extremely watered down summary. It doesnt touch on (for example) Cleopatra wasnt remotely 'African' (she was from a Med dynasty - there are on-wiki disputes about this in oddly of all places, about Liz Taylor being an example of white-washing in film casting - how can you whitewash someone who wasnt black being the response), the various points Eqypt was conquered from the outside (Hyksos and so on). Egypt (like Greece etc) has a rich and extensive history that many can only envy. The two sides of the coin being they want to protect it, and others want to associate with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you again for your input!! By the way neither Cleoparta nor the Egyptians were even remotely Africa, both were Mediterranean, Cleopatra was Northern Mediterranean while Egyptians were Eastern Mediterraneans.Ryanoo (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I knew the Liz Taylor thing, but probably from reading found here, as My knowledge of this stuff is next to zero. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 21:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, I read your comments where you said you’ll withhold your input until the SPI investigation is complete. Fair enough! Hope your health improves soon, health comes first! Itaren (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Side Note

Hello Mr. Roxy, I am a 35 years old aracheogenetist and academic lecturer in the University, I am not a teenager, so please use more decent language while talking with me like what I am doing with you, I am not a vandal or sock puppet, I am just a scientific person who hates scientific dishonesty and misleading others, I might react harsh with scientific dishonest people, but that's because I respect science and myself. I am here for editing as a volunteer, you are n't my manager or something. I really think that registering on Wikipedia should be by using Identification card to avoid vandalism and sock puppeting which will save the community here a great deal of time wasted in fighting sock puppeting and vandalism and will also give more credibility. Moreover, I don't mind at all leaving Wikipedia if they don't want good users, it is OK :). Anyway, I plan with other scientists from around the globe to create an encyclopedia in the future and who knows it could be more famous than Wikipedia one day, it is crazy but there is nothing impossible. Regards. Ryanoo (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I will delete any further posts you make to this page for the time being. Not too long I hope, but that would depend. Thank you. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 00:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Roxy, this racist user Ryanoo is deliberately vandalizing a page I edited to make it less racist and less biased can you do something about him. Thanks. Arboleh (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• He's also vandalizing other Wikipedia pages, this is really getting out of control, I cannot check all the pages he is going to vandalize can you please report him, this is clearly a person who is deranged. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_of_Punt&action=history

Arboleh (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You can disregard this Roxy, I have reported him to @Doug Weller and the vandalism channel. Wish you best with your recovery. Arboleh (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, are you wearing some special scent that makes these *cough* "special" people come out of the woodwork? Or is it just the fact that you are incredibly good looking that attracts them? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you know I'm incredibly good looking? Are you a Stalker? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 07:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the policy "Assume Good Face" applies... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There has got to be a clever joke about butt sniffing in here somewhere... I got nuthin' --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, butt sniffing. A way of life for dogs like me. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 20:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Velcro edit...

I'm sorry 124.150.24.103 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuck off. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

:'( 124.150.24.103 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, sometimes you are just too nice. If you have an opinion you should feel free to express it instead of bottling it up and posting some wishy-washy overly-polite wish that 124.150.24.103 would experience increased sexual opportunities (albeit with himself). If you have an opinion, let it out. Tell us how you really feel.

124.150.24.103, this edit[3] was incredibly stupid. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. Your edit emits more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other drivel. Duh. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou Macon, you have given me what I needed and I was finally able to achieve orgasm xo 124.150.24.103 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey have you guys ever been on Everipedia.org? 124.150.24.103 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia is the Wikipedia for being wrong --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

oof! 124.150.24.103 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fiber rope and rope

Why have you copy/pasted everything from Rope over to Fiber rope? I'm unsure if that is vandalism or not but please refrain from duplicating articles that underwent an AfD discussion with a Keep consensus. I've reverted your edit, and if you do it again, I will report you to an admin for vandalism. I find your attitude surrounding this discussion improper. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article Talk page, so that interested editors can see the conversation. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Fiber rope

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roxy the dog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm too disruptive to be allowed to vote. haha. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 20:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roxy the dog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Block was applied based on a spurious reading of the block log, (see comment from blocking admin below) mitigating factors of poorly applied previous blocks, (one of which was for calling a sockpuppet "not here to improve the encyclopedia", and another for criticising the admin who applied that block. A recent one for calling out the uselessness of an admin on this page where a little more lattitude is expected. Clearly I'm not disruptive, more misunderstood. Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is in response to your disruption at Fiber rope. In no universe is simply overwriting an article with the contents of another constructive editing. The duration is in consideration of your past disruption as per your block log. Sandstein 20:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh roxy! :( Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear. See [4]. I like Roxy a lot, but this was well over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @Jytdog: - Yeah, that's why I had reported for this. Warned and reverted 3 times but nothing. Didn't have any other option. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That page is ridiculous and should not exist, but Roxy handled it in a bad way. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC0

@Jytdog: Though I somewhat agree, it was probably in response to my closure of that AfD (which I closed as keep per WP:CONSENSUS) but it wasn't taken well, as you said. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Sandstein:, did you consider the specious nature of some of the blocks on that rather petty block log? If you had, I suspect you might have considered a week a bit too harsh. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

While any individual block might be questionable, in the aggregate a long block log is likely a good indicator of repeated disruption. Sandstein 10:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

But did you? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Well? @Sandstein:? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 11:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not evaluate all blocks to see whether they were "specious" or not, no. Sandstein 15:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roxy the dog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In NRP's decline for not addressing the reason for the block, stated by Sandstein as disruption at Fibre rope it would appear to be self evident that I will not be disruptive again, as the problem I had is no longer extant. I can't see how it is actually possible to be disruptive at Fibre rope as the project is now as it ought to be in this respect. Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 00:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Blocks are preventative not punishment. Roxy states "I will not be disruptive again" and I think it is reasonable to take them at their word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose an unblock for the reason given. What would prevent you from doing this again on another AfD closure that triggers you? Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Redditaddict69 what will prevent them from doing so again I would hope is the realization that it would be disruptive and would result in them being reblocked.

Roxy I have unblocked you on the understanding that further disruption will not occur (either of the type above or other). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James. I will not be causing any further disruption. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 09:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A question following on from this mess. Jytdog has sorted out the issue, achieving in a moment what I had been trying to do for some time. I still do not understand what he did, or how he did it without any criticism from those criticising me. How? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 09:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sir John Nelthorpe School

Please explain your recent edit to Talk:Sir_John_Nelthorpe_School where you have added that you are an alumni of John Nelthorpe School. So am I, probably many years before you, but I don't feel the need to brag about it. I deleted your edit because I thought it was not relevant to an encyclopedia. Dsergeant (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you get this attitude there? What happened since I left !! (Hint: Maggie Thatcher) -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 18:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Health Australia Party

Hi there. Could I ask for some feedback on your revert of my edits to Health Australia Party? The original article was a little biased, and I've attempted to rewrite it from a NPOV. You specifically said you reverted the 'NPOV edits'. How is that constructive? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If you ask this question on the Talk page for the article, I will respond there, where anybody else watching the page can see my response, and where discussion regarding article content should take place. Thanks. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cameron Kasky

Roxy I corrected inaccuracies on Cameron Kasky' page. He wasn't shot at. He wasn't shot. He didn't even see gun fire. That makes him a bystander at most. He is not a survivor. For reference only, I witnessed a shooting outside my apartment at 3:00pm a couple of years back on my sister's birthday. I was a bystander. I was not a survivor if it served a political agenda or my own teenage need for attention. I was just a bystander. Please let my edit stand without trying to undo it. I won't make the correction to his page again until I hear back from you. I'll pray for your recovery. The sleepwalker (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)The sleepwalker

See my edsum at the article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF?

You reverted me and templated me for fixing a typo/grammer issue. Which I clearly marked as such. So why did you accuse me of vandalism? Afootpluto (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Because of your lying edsum, and I see that you've done it again. Please stop. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop, for a second and listen. Assault rifles are select fire rifles, while Assault weapons are semi automatic. So I was fixing that. Afootpluto (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please use the article Talk page to discuss article content, so that other editors can see. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would have posted it there, but I am not recreating a deleted page. Afootpluto (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mk 153 Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.

Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System).

FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon).

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is very biased against science.

Wikipedia is biased against Anatomy, Biology, and Psychology. Wikipedia actively promotes the fringe transgender ideology, even though it violates the most fundamental laws of anatomy, biology, and reason, and it is an established fact that transgenderism is considered a mental disorder in psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.0.118.41 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a very low profile page on which to complain about wikipedia's way of dealing with what you see as issues. Nobody here cares. I find your position that wikipedia is very biased against science to be unsupportable. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Roxy the dog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Ask to review an extremely clear way

First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest! But my previous revision did not match my current content version. I changed it 3 times. And the latest is the most complete and clear and completely different from the last time you saw it. It won't bother, if you can read every single word and every single citation that I wrote. It was completely rewritten and it was impossible to stick any errors. Give me reason and look carefully before reverting. Thank you! I spent a lot of hours writing it, you can't delete many hours in 1 second. Please don't, you are making me cry! Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:Enrico Vandenberg#Wikipedia and copyright and User talk:Enrico Vandenberg#Edit Warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Morocco talk

Hi, Why did you just alert me in the Morocco talk.--Sakiv (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:22, 28 December 2018 (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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnysama (talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll regret making a fool of yourself on this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You win. Case closed. Johnnysama (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a battle. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm done dealing with you. Good day. Johnnysama (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

CAM COI RfC IDHT (smh)

re [5]: There's no agreement it exists (nearly 2 in 3 said it didn't), so why edit like it does? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of your Acronyms in the title, YMBJ. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Do you have a substantive answer? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, stop your COI editing, it’s disgusting that you have the bare-faced gall to involve yourself in this article. You already know this. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep pretending the RfC didn't happen? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 15:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep pretending you are not conflicted in this area? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What a wonderfully constructive way forward, Guy Macon. And Happy New Year to everyone here! Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I dread to think what would happen if there was a Genesis Narrative/Myth issue discussion on this page. The repercussions would be ... interesting. WWE et seq anybody? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not modify my consensus !vote

As you did here. -- GreenC 00:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether the edit was right or wrong, but the link you posted only gives half of the story. The second half is here with less than a minute between the two edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that one is also a problem indented as if I was responding to someone, fabricating my intention. -- GreenC 05:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m very happy with my edits there, it is a pity some people don’t read the RfC properly. In fact, if I have been undone, I may have to do something about it. Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It says move comments, not the actual !vote rationale itself. The idea is to avoid trains of comments in the voting section, which is reasonable to avoid clutter, but it's totally unacceptable to move a !vote rationale out of the voting section. Rationales are integral to the !vote, they are needed by the closer (and other users) to understand why someone !voted. That's why it is a "!" (not) vote, we don't merely vote we make rationale arguments. You are welcome. -- GreenC 11:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

... and that was a comment, in the vote section, so it got moved to the discussion section where it should have gone. Get over it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to agitate you. -- GreenC 11:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

I have closed this thread ([6]), where you made a personal remark (Grow up, and grow a thicker skin) that probably cannot be justified. Looking through your talk page posts for the past month, there seem to be a pattern of combative tone (I have not looked further; it may well be just isolated events). I am somewhat familiar with your work, and perhaps it's just me but these recent tone seem to be escalating. May I ask if you could be slightly more mindful? Thanks, and happy new year. Alex Shih (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching your remarks in the last few weeks...

Following the edits you made at Fiber rope recently. You said you would stop if your week-long block was removed early. Keep it up and I will get an admin involved again and prove that your block was ineffective, and that a new one should be reinstated with a longer time on it. Please do not reply to this with any personal attacks or you will only be proving my point. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please may I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. Regards, -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't let yourself be provoked Roxy – remember: eyes on the prize (of decent content). Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I was so polite. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops! I dropted it!

I am going to stop responding to a certain criticism. I don't see further discussion as being productive. Please consider dropping it as well. Or dropping it into a well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hYItcm_daM --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No more from me. Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I finally deleted the dumpster fire of a discussion from my talk page.

    |                                            .--.
    |                              ______.-------|  |
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |    __..--``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
    |    __..--``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |                                    `-------|  |
    |                                            `--`

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Vital articles

Hi Roxy. I see you share my concerns. I've never really looked at the Vital Article project, but this introduction has me quite worried. Have you ever done work with the project or had other interactions with editors who do? --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing at all. When you see things happen like that on your watchlist, you ask questions, and I get wound up not knowing. I decided to calm down. A good move. But I have no idea what drives vital articles. I would like to find out, as a whole load of alt-med crap is vital it appears, yes? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Vital Article project is trying to identify articles that are important to an encyclopedia. They are working on the level 5 list, identifying 40,000 articles to focus on improving. The goal of the level 4 list was to identify 10,000, and is basically complete with 9998 entries. Level 4 included Alternative medicine and four subtopic articles (Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Herbalism, and Homeopathy). The proposed level 5 list includes Holistic health, Naturopathy, and Osteopathy. Editors are going ahead and identifying level 5 articles on the articles' talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm over reacting to a degree, but Holistic health surely not, it redirects to Alternative Medicine. Perhaps I'll be able to think better tomorrow, but thanks very much for helping. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and took it to the more general case: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Probably_best_not_to_include_new_topics_or_redirects_under_sanctions --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm always finding new stuff even after being involved for some time. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Roxy

I just wanted to let you know that Ferryhill does have a history society, which was deleted from the page. Darrellsnixon (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Roxy. I am removing myself from editing pages on Wikipedia as I don't want the hassle, and I realised that there are other editors on here which are quite possessive when it comes to pages, which I don't blame them as they do it on their spare time. You are more than happy to contact me or follow my pages on social media etc. All the best to you. Darrellsnixon (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a hassle once you've got the basics, but good luck. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This explains EVERYTHING

This pretty much explains everything we see on Wikipedia: [7] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that the This way lies madness linky thing you posted on your talk? It frightened me!!!!-Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

OH. it isn't. OK then. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Has the writer been shadowing me? It is a good analysis, particularly here in these circumstances, with strict and restrictive behavioural expectations imposed by a huge community, that wouldn't work in for eg my pub. The fringe theorists and quacks would be laughed off in no time, and we'd be back to discussing why Gentlemen play a Thug's game, Rugby Union, and Thugs play a Gentleman's Game, Association Football.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

...when everyone who really matters agrees tha Australian rules football is superior to either...

(Although I must confess that for me, the very finest sporting events all follow FIDE rules.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ice hockey. Boxing with sticks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits

I noticed by your characterization of my edits as "disgustingly bad" and your statment that something should "be done about it". It's a shame that you see me in this way, as I think our ultimate goals for the Rope worms article are basically the same, we both seem to want a factual and well sourced article that makes it clear the rope worms are not parasites and that enemas of ClO2 are harmful (I know that is what I want, and I assume you want the same). We disagree about how best to word things, but I still think we have the same goals and can work together to improve the article. I was arguably edit warring, which was a mistake, but as for the edits themselves, what did you find "disgustingly bad" about them? If you are confused by anything I say, don't be afraid to ask. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Bleach burns people. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I know that! That doesn't address the issue at hand. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no issue. Why do you want to enable the bleach enema crowd? they're nuts. Go with the sources which say bleach, which burns people btw. I haven't decided if I am taking this to AE yet, but I have been asked to. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The bleach enema crowd is nuts, I totally agree! That is why I don't want to give them an easy way to discredit our article by failing to clarify that it is ClO2. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Parents torturing their children with bleach enemas don't need an easy way to discredit anything as they have already decided to trust crazy over rationality. You really think adding the chemical composition of the bleach is going to convince them to stop when their children's vomiting, fever, and bleeding did not? The best we can do is be honest and hope this fad dies as quickly as possible.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There are some crazies who nothing will change there mind, and then there are people on the fence whos minds may be changed, We can mention that it's bleach, but we should also call it "chlorine dioxide". The best we can do is be honest... Yes, honest is saying "chlorine dioxide (a type of bleach)", this is perfectly accurate and is consistent with the sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That is far less accurate than Bleach (chlorine dioxide based). These people are doing home chemistry with Sodium chlorite and acidic juices. You really think they are getting anything close to a pure chlorine dioxide solute. There is probably measurable amount of acidic acid, sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide as both solute and gas. All of which helpfully falls under the rubric of bleach and not chlorine dioxide.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Content discussion belongs on the article talk. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm so stupid, I have only now, today, seen the elephant, and it is huuuuuuge, in this room. Facepalm. Good grief, Charlie Brown, where is that pic of Jean-Luc? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

?? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things really. Firstly, I don't do much if any searching for diffs to prove a point in discussion here. If it isn't an obvious point, I wont bother and I'm useless at finding stuff. Secondly, I try my hardest to WP:AGF in any editor until doing so proves pointless. If the community sees things differently, then sobeit, but I don't expect myself to interact with them, and I don't. There are editors I have outlived who I stopped interacting with, and extant ones who when they have contributed at a noticeboard or talk, well, you wont find a response from me anywhere in the vicinity. I bet that doesn't help. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog

Jytdog has been banned by the Arbitration Committee notwithstanding your birthday wishes. Eschoryii (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but what the hell are you talking about my birthday wishes. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. "A 10 fireplane" sent Jytdog a First Day Edit note from the Birthday Committee. I thought you sent the message and I wanted you to know Jytdog was banned. That's all. Eschoryii (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't understand what is going on, Which clearly by your example here you don't, why bother at all. Seriously, go and find something useful to do. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 03:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Bye Bye Eschoryii (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The 2018 Cure Award

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

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

Root analogue dental implants reversions

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

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

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work."

My Talk page fully discloses any COI. Have you checked it? Have you reviewed the article to check that it adheres to the above guidelines? Now you should respond to the issues raised in my previous comment. Logicwhatelse (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

But did you read the Root analogue dental implant article? I have already declared that there is no COI. From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text... If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale.

and: Focus on content Focus on article content during discussions.

Only ~ ToBeFree (talk) has commented on the article content. The Root analogue dental implant talk page has none of your input. My complaint is that you're blindly reverting with no explanation or rationale. Why? Logicwhatelse (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you not read my edsums? My edits are perfectly explained, but just in case, I have also explained here, see WP:COI. Your conflict of interest is huge, you should not edit on this subject. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Deaton-Flanigen Productions

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

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

Time to make a bowl of popcorn

Highly entertaining discussion of the talk page of our favorite COI toothologist. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? (rubs elbow)[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There comes a point when the tolerance one has for newbie mistakes gets used up. I am at past that point with Wolfgang. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was nice to see "Please see Guy's comments below, which are more or less accurate" in the unblock decline. I really thought that I was going to get flamed for citing XKCD.[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

XKCD has always been very inciteful. The person who creates those I swear thinks like I do in many ways, but they are far far funnier. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)