User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 10

Your revert

I suppose this is technically correct, given that the only forms of allopathy still being practised are things like Unani and Ayurveda. Brunton (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

deleted my edit

why did you delete my edit on the 420 page? Haydenwaffles (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User has been blocked 31 hours, and had an edsum revdelled, presumably for saying something unpleasant. -Roxy . wooF 03:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Bow wow

I must admit their editing makes me doubt it, but never the less: is BarkyMcWoofWoof related to you at all? Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

I assure you that this is the only account I have on the project, thank you for asking ;) -Roxy . wooF 21:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, If you ever do make an alt just to make jokes, please promise me you'll tell funnier jokes than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I can do funnier than that in my sleep. -Roxy . wooF 14:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Me too, as long as you like fart jokes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Gentle warning

@Roxy the dog Stop your silly edits on Albatross (cloth) and Fabric inspection. You are playing wrong again. Discuss on the talk page. RV (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR -Roxy . wooF 05:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Same old one. I have new for you Dunning–Kruger effect. Suits you the most. Need references. I have reliable sources [[1]] [[2]]. My piece of advice to you, please consider this training offer [[3]]. Stop your provoking techniques you are exposed and understand that we all can make mistakes but it is a teamwork. Hence respect and avoid any conflict. RV (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, that isn't fair!!! I told you about Dunning and Kruger!!! -Roxy . wooF 10:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My father and the Duke of Edinburgh

... shared a birthday, June 10th, though he never met him. My brother, (birthday june 8th) however, did. He was walking in Windsor Castle gardens with a ladyfriend once, and noticed a monkey bike parked against some bushes they were approaching. The bush moved and the Duke appeared, adjusting his fly, looked sheepish and apologised. My brothers friend said "That's OK sir, its your garden and you can piss where you want."

Ask me when my mum's birthday was. -Roxy . wooF 07:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC) (Birthday June 16th)

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.).

You deleted an edit that hyperlinked the D.O. to the Wikipedia page on medical degrees. Your rationale was that only in the US, DO is a medical degree and now where else in the world; the page read that D.O. is a medical degree offered by medical schools IN the United States. Where exactly did it claim otherwise? It didn’t say outside of the US. DO is a medical degree offered by the US, is there a lie in it? Were you aware that the D.O. is only offered by 37 medical schools in the US and this degree is not offered by any other schools in the world? These 37 schools exist as medical schools in the World Directory of Medical Schools. D.O. is also listed with MD in the medical degree page on Wiki. I do not see how this could not be “good” or misleading in any way. Iamdoctah (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rabbie?

It wouldn’t be the first time he’s used fiction as a source (see [4]), but in this case it was just that he hadn’t read the source carefully enough to see that it obviously wasn’t Burns’s poetry. Google Books seems to have the wrong bibliographic info attached to it. Brunton (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At this stage of the game, I must note that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and he's either being wilfully stupid, or he does not understand how stupid he appears. THere is a large possibility that his WP:CIR in english has prevented him from understanding though. Have you seen how truly awful the attempted english is in his latest joke article. Sigh.

Re Dorrock it should be deleted as "unsourceable" as as you have noted the sources he is trying to use are just unreliable, based on a silly error that nobody has noticed. -Roxy . wooF 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a perennial problem with the largely 19th century sources he uses. There are likely to be variant spellings, spelling mistakes and typos in proper nouns, especially if, for example, English writers and printers are dealing with places in the far North of Scotland, or English writers are writing about the Indian subcontinent and terms originating there. Brunton (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• For a moment, I thought this section title was a misspelling of hyrdophobee as it is called in certain movies, and I couldn't help but notice the irony with Roxy's username. KoA (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• (Misspelling and misunderstanding WP:CIR) Its normal with them [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. RV (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

He’s excelled himself this time. Brunton (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

SV

It might be better if you did not deliberately seek occasions to start an interaction with Rajivvasudev. And if you unavoidable do, don't use it to bait him further. I've left them a similar comment. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting User talk:DGG. It feels like you are far, far more interested in people being nice to people than in creating a decent encyclopedia. Unbelieveable. -Roxy . wooF 06:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

We will never create a decent encycopedia if we do not behave decently to each other, for it will drive off those who want to contribute material, leaving only those who want to fight. WP:NPA is every bit as much a pillar as WP:V. And, when I act as an admin, my concern is properly with behavior, not content. You may and should oppose the creation of bad content. You may not do it by being nasty to editors or provoking them to be nasty to you, regardless of their skill or competence or the quality of their work. The only safe rule is to never refer to another editor by name, or allude to their name, even if they do so to you. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your insinuation that I want to fight is really not appreciated. I shall continue to try to improve the project, despite your chilling efforts. -Roxy . wooF 08:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon

See the page history of Fae's talkpage for the apparent immediate cause.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that Roxy's comment was meant to be a parody of Guy's comment on Fae's talkpage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• • It absolutely made me laugh, too. Sorely needed. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A dove from Felix!

Hi Roxy, it's Felix again. I hope you may forgive me for promoting pseudoscience in the past. Thank you for the work that you do on Wikipedia! 😊 Félix An (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Félix An (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Benveniste affair

I saw your comment at Talk:Benveniste affair. I think it is one of the most magnanimous edits I have seen here in over ten years editing. I appreciate it on a few levels. Aircorn (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's very nice of you, thanks. As I said, I was clearly wrong. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Performance fabrics

@Roxy the dog Do not repeat silly edits. The subject will fit best in Performance (textiles). I do not want any conflict. Thanks RV (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Avoid Edit war

Performance fabrics

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) 08:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, @DGG,@GeneralNotability, @Bilby The redirect to Technical textile was valid when the performance (textiles) the original subject was absent. Even after a deletion attempt, the later article was decided to be kept. The relating name should be redirected to Performance (textiles) only.WP:R, WP:OTHERNAMES. Secondly, Technical textile is mere a classification whereas Performance (textiles) explains the performance characteristics and attributes of the Performance fabrics. Hence, It makes more sense to redirect it on performance (textiles). Kindly see. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Once upon a time, the same user was unable to distinguish between these two articles.
• WP:CIR...... RV (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User blocked (3 days) by Bilby for personal attacks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea why I was pinged to this, but I'm good with Bilby's choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Pierre Kory

Read what I wrote to User talk:Alexbrn

A closer view at the history of the article shows that you are over and over again reverting other users! YOU should be banned for that! This article is not yours so that you can decide what is in the article and what not especially since you restore your biased, not neutral view point! What do you think gives you this authority? Shame on you! Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So YOU decide what is a personal statement and what quackery? Are you a physician that cares for patients with Civid-19? Can't you see your arrogance and presumptuousness? Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you close this discussion? Why don't you answer my questions? Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong and people like Dr. Kory right? What if ivermectin is really a potent drug against Covid-19? What would you say if it turns out that many people died and will die from Covid-19 because they are preventented from getting a helpfull drug? And this may be the the case because YOU helped to suppress a discussion between physisians about what's best for their patients?

Have you ever heard that the tabacco industry suppressed informations that made clear how bad smokings is for your health. What if the pharmaceutical industry wants to suppress a penny drug like ivermenctin because the want so sell their drug Remdesivir which is more than 3000 US$ a dose?

What if you are part of these possible evil machinations that may kill many, many old, disabled or sick people who could have been saved by a cheap und potent drug?

Have you read the newest meta analysis which took many studies from all around the world to evaluate them? What if really 62 out of a 100 poeple could be saved but weren't because the discussion among physisians was suppressed? Here it is: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

It is no question that both facebook and youtube censored almost all statements about ivermectin that were not negative!

Could you live with the faxt that is partly YOUR FAULT that many, many poeple DIE a very cruel death by suffocation?

Why don't you answer Mr. Alexbrn? Ulmendorf (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Also you, Roxy the dog, answer these questiuons! Ulmendorf (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is just reverting also all you are able to do, like Alexbrn? Ulmendorf (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As my grandson would say, "That's not very nice!" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

sockblocked. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 01:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hancock

You should check that guy's contribs. I'm going through them now, and there are some serious issues with most of them. POV pushing, misrepresenting sources, etc. We've got a good-old-fashioned True Believer™ on our hands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I will. By way of explanation, I went to a boarding school and read a couple of Von Daniken books from the boarding house library by the age of 12. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Heh. I sought them out after reading about alien abductions and ancient astronauts, and seeing them mentioned. I discovered them when I was 14 or 15, and didn't realize they were BS until I was about 20. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please review my edits for accuracy. But I'm certainly not a proponent of Hancock's ideas or pseudohistory, quite the opposite.

WP:AFG Hypnôs (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to be contradicted by your editing history. See WP:PACT, WP:SPADE and WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY.

Roxy, if you decide to delete, hat or archive this whole section (including my comments), you have my blessings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Once you actually read them, you'll find that I have consistently labeled pseudo history as such, when it wasn't before and changed the pseudohistory framing of many pages to a neural point of view.

This is my last comment on this matter, thanks for the unnecessary hostility. Hypnôs (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol Come On Mate !

Roxy, although you are correct, this sort of responses are not particularly helpful, and are a tad bit premature. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Endometriosis Article

Not sure why you got rid of the information I provided on endometriosis. I am an endometriosis patient myself, all information came from my doctor, and was checked + cited through Peer Reviewed Scientific Literature. That article is outdated and needed an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearemadeofstars (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Turmeric

Hey, I noticed that you reverted my reversion of another editor without providing a comment. Per WP:ENGVAR, English variation should be consistent within the same article. The rest of the article uses the American spelling of "flavor" and so it's against the MOS to have this one instance spelled with the British spelling. Please consider undoing your revert, and if you do revert other editors please indicate why in the edit summary. Thanks. --Chris (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. Pity. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

TBH I'm fine with either spelling personally. Just trying to follow MOS. --Chris (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

TEMPLATE

Hi

The template is incorrect, it has been put up on the assumption I have a close relationship with the subject. I DONT. How would you like me to prove this?

Who are you, and what are you talking about? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User was Mysteriousmusicman and they have been blocked 31 hrs. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ...and may be a sock in the wash. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shiatsu

Just wanted to let you know I've reported Alexbrn for edit warring on Shiatsu. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - MarshallKe (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that and couldn't stop laughing at your lack of understanding of this project. Edit warring my hairy arse. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

AA battery

Hi, I have sought consensus on the AA battery talk page about adding the pronunciation "double-A," but no one has given an opinion. Could I ask you to give your vote (either way, of course) please? Thanks BrightOrion | talk 08:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

I added some content. You deleted it. I restored it. How am I guilty of edit warring but you are not, considering neither of us have reverted anything repeatedly? MarshallKe (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see two additions. Two. That is one more than one. I see one reversion that I made. One. Only one of us has started an edit war, can you guess who? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I only made one reversion MarshallKe (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but 1+1=2, and that's how it'll be counted if it comes to counting. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So you reverted once, and I reverted once, and because that equals two times that means you and I both have participated in an edit war. Does that sound accurate? MarshallKe (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I said to myself, "Self, don't get involved here." Yet here I am, responding, albeit days later. The next step after Roxy reverted the edit should have been for Marshal to seek consensus on the talk page by presenting their case for their edit and allowing the community to decide. The stable version of the article wins the day unless consensus is met through talk page discussion, at which point the new consensus version becomes the stable version, whether it is simply confirming the version of before or including the recent edit. A second reversion to the unstable version without gathering consensus is the very definition of edit warring. 1+1+1=3 which is one too many. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello, Please can you clarify why you reverted my edit to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_laser_therapy as spam? Please note that the section ‘Names’ begins with "However LLLT has been marketed and researched under a number of other terms, including…" Erchonia are one of the largest manufacturers of low level laser technologies, and they market as 'non-thermal laser therapy', as can be witnessed on their UK website: https://www.erchonialasers.co.uk/ To my knowledge, they are the only company to do so, and as such, their website seems to be an appropriate source here? Many thanks, Drmaxbrown (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPAM -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of the criteria, just wondering which one in particular you think applies in this case? If Erchonia are the only company that is advertising as 'non-thermal laser therapy', and the section is specifically about what names LLLT has been marketed under, is their website not a viable citation for the fact that LLLT has been marketed under 'non-thermal laser therapy? Or do you suggest instead to not include a citation here? Thank you Drmaxbrown (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I make no suggestion, I just removed some SPAM. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK but can you please explain WHY you think that it is SPAM? I have asked you several times nicely? Thank you Drmaxbrown (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For your information...

Ha! Made that title look foreboding but really I just wanted to tell you that the doctor told me yesterday that I am officially in remission. I'll be discharged this week sometime, probably tomorrow. I'll have to hang out in town for a while so they can confirm I am in full remission before returning to my home in the wild but its looking very promising. My sister-in-law will be staying with me while I am here so I have company and someone to help me if I need it. My daughter will be here too so I am excited. I haven't been able to hold her in months. Anyway, you were so kind to me and I wanted to let you know the update. --ARoseWolf 18:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I was just thinking about you before returning to my desk to find this. It's early Friday evening here, and I have "normal" white counts for the first time in five years, and I had a phone call from one of my senior carer Hospital based types telling me to expect a visit in the morning (saturday mind) from a nurse to obtain urgent blood samples as they are concerned about Tumour Lysis syndrome, inhales... Things have changed though since last time and nowadays dosage increases weekly, and the blood sample sites on my arms are bruised. but I'm OK, and personally doubt that TLS will be an immediate problem, so feel quite satisfied so far.

I'm really pleased to hear your news, and am now curious to know where you are in the world. I'll look at your user page when I've finished here, but for the record, I'm in the North East of England. Oh, and thanks for your concern, it's a lovely thing for you to have taken the time to write. Best wishes, -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, now that's a userpage. haha I had no idea. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to tell a little more about myself than most but that just barely scratches the surface. --ARoseWolf 19:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have bruises too. I am so tired. I'm ready to leave this place. I want my hair back (lol). It was so long and dark brown. I used to put pink and purple streaks in it because it stood out so well against my dark hair (lol). That was years ago when I lived in Haines. Btw, It doesn't surprise me that you were just thinking about me before returning to your desk. I fully anticipated that when I wrote. Please take care of yourself the best you can. Keep living and enjoying life, my friend. --ARoseWolf 19:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Roxy the dog, starting a BRD discussion with an accusation of gatekeeping is not helpful. [9] Springee (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your reputation preceeds you. Thanks for the notices. (It may interest you to know that I have edited in these areas for at least 13 years, and have never received these particular notices before!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

<snip>Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control</snip> And the COD gunners rejoiced. El_C 15:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Case closed at ANI with no admin action and a reminder to be kind to each other. I did not take any part in the discussion. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Charlie's good tonight, ineee...."

Part of my youth -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Radical changes were made without anyone noticing to the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page. Can you assist? ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gingko biloba and MEDRS

Could you please have a look at the medical research section and talk page dispute regarding the claim in this article that gingko "has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism"? Thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Woof Woof

When we going horse riding? Don't forget the milk!!! (lol) Hope you are having a great week so far and everything is going your way. We just have to laugh a little on the occasion. Life it too short and I think it takes coming very close to it ending to see it sometimes. --ARoseWolf 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

My drugs have been doubling weekly, and today, they told me that neutrophils are far too low, so I'm on hold for a week. No problem though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh damnnit. Sorry to hear that. You'll be fine. Sending you virtual hugs and lots-o-love. My neutrophils have been holding steady. I've been back once now for testing and my red and white blood cells seem to be maturing but they cautioned me that relapses happen often and they rarely get all of the cancer with chemo so who knows. I'm just living life on the edge, haha!! I like it dangerous apparently. --ARoseWolf 19:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I hoped you don't mind me adding you 2 to WP:Editors who may be confused as I feel like I may confuse you 2 since your names both start with Ro and you're both some sort of canine (of course, I am as well but my name is different enough that I don't think I would be confused with anyone but my inactive alt). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, being mistaken for Roxy? I am so flattered! Roxy is an amazing editor and a wonderful person. Strong and courageous. Not to mention Roxy is such a badass name. lol --ARoseWolf 15:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I agree. My brain sometimes thinks you are Roxy just because of your similarity of your names. ALthough it might be because my brain has been very tired lately. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, my brain goes on a complete vacation at times so don't feel bad. Hopefully I have good enough friends here to know when that happens it is just my insanity coming full circle and can talk me down. lol --ARoseWolf 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Well since Roxy's name is in a separate section I doubt they'll object to being on there twice. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Bias on MCS page

Roxy the dog, I am concerned with the partisan depiction of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Wikipedia. MCS is a highly controversial illness, with researchers hotly divided. However, the views of only one side of the debate appear to control the narrative on Wikipedia's page. For example, when one searches Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT) in Wikipedia, you are automatically redirected to the MCS page. However, there is no mention of TILT anywhere on the MCS page. I discussed this on the talk page and everyone who participated in the discussion agreed that TILT should be added beside IEI. This was immediately undone by another user who had not participated in the discussion. This is just one example, overall the entire MCS page is full of unreferenced and improperly referenced opinion statements, some of which are completely false (eg, "unrecognized").

So I was hoping to initiate a dialogue with you. What is going on here? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to present a neutral point of view.Silliestchris (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle

Thanks for reverting the POV pushing on the Newcastle article. The same editor came back twice again to reinstate the same/similar content and I reverted twice but won't again due to 3RR. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Skeptical?

Hey! I noticed that in your signature it now says that you're skeptical. Why are you skeptical? Just curious! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Because I use the correct english spelling. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't actually know there were 2 different ways to spell it (I've always spelled it with a k (skeptical) but I never knew it was still correct to spell it with a c (sceptical) which google says is wrong). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bend It Like Beckham

Please stop removing U.S.-related categories. The United States is sourced in the infobox. The source is Filmportal.de, and it's placed right beside the words "United States" in the infobox. AllMovie lists the United States as well. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have responded at the article Talk page, in the section on this very subject. Consensus seems to be against you. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Soil Association - Page updates

Hi Roxy the dog. Thanks for your notes on my edits for this page Soil Association. I am new to Wikipedia editing but keen to learn so that I can make acceptable edits to this page. As I mentioned, I am an employee of the organisation which would naturally raise suspicions about my impartiality. Understanding the purpose of Wikipedia articles I want to make sure that we can update the page, in an unbiased and factually correct way (with sources). Are you able to help? Thanks in advance. DanMor0806 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have posted a welcome message and further comments at your Talk page. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 20:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

changes in article david gorski

Hello, This is regarding the changes i made to the article David Gorski. I did not vandalise the page as you accused me of doing and i did not do any disruptive editing. I only removed a redundant source that didn't exactly support the topic. So please consider restoring my version.

Thank you! 2409:4042:E13:9913:E8DD:CF66:74A7:6157 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Quentin Crisp

I would like to know how Quentin Crisp's final memoir is an unreliable source? Since the piece cited (chapter one) is very clear about Crisp being a woman I can only assume that this is your issue with it, and therefore my edits. - Lacybi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacybi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have responded at the article Talk page. Please learn to sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes, like this ~~~~ thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Dear Roxy, I find the page on MCS to be inadequately referenced and several of the facts innaccurate and poorly cited. I am trying to constructively update this article with proper citation to show a more complete and up to date picture on the current understanding of MCS. I will not remove any citations, I only plan to add more knowledge to this article and properly cite where necessary.

Thank you,

Silliestchris, PhD candidate, Canada.

Welcome to the edit war

Since you joined the edit war on Andrographis paniculata, I'm gonna have to rope you in as well:

David Gorski and Desisters

Why did you remove my section on David Gorski's talk page talking about desisters, and his unwillingness to even acknowledge their existence? And then you label me a troll. Look, this is a serious issue. We're not even allowed to call pregnant women WOMEN any longer. You need to stop silencing the voices of those who don't share your worldview. This kind of nonsense (read a far more mean word than nonsense) is the reason I not longer donate to wikipedia. I won't donate to an organization that silences anyone to the right of Bernie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.187.158 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Are desisters related to debrothers? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Burrying the hatchet?

Hey, in the last Ani thread things got quite heated and names and accusations were exchanged between us. I was quite hurt by them and imagine you may have been too. I'm sorry for my part in that. Would you agree to apologize, bury the hatchet, leave that behind us, and continue our own paths on the wiki? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What!! You are joking, yes? I just fell off my chair laughing!! You've actually come here asking me to apologise? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:CIR being a thing, I imagine one of those "paths on the wiki" is going to be a bit longer than the other  ;) ——Serial 09:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Back at you

Meeeeooowwww! Small win for freedom. Thanks for barking my way on this! -- Oldfart404 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Laundry mark" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Laundry mark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#Laundry mark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — SpikeToronto 11:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Roxy!

I have three questions for you:

1. Did you even read the substantive comments on Talk:Astrology#Pseudoscientific_and_disproven? More specifically, did you read the quote by Sven Ove Hansson I gave there?
2. If so, why do you ignore this and instead make comments like "Nonsense, my support goes to consensus. Your support has no reliable sources." [10]?
3. Can you explain to me what you mean with Why dont you take a long walk off a short pier?[11], and why this is not a personal attack?

Maybe I've missed something somewhere, maybe you've missed something, or maybe you're just having a bad day. In any case, I do feel very comfortable about this, so that's why I've come here to ask about it. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I could answer your questions, but I cannot be bothered. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just know then that you have taken for yourself the right to bother me with your stonewalling and personal attack. Know that it's just not cool . ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy first edit day. A full year. Well done. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I also have concerns about this edit. The topic area is already tense enough, and comments like that do nothing to move the discussion in a positive direction. I'll admit there are times I've also wanted to tell an editor to jump in a lake; it's a normal response. But if your making an edit just to tell someone to get lost, is that really useful for anyone? It just makes the thread longer and more hostile. Next time could you try taking more than 4 minutes to respond and give yourself some time to cool off before saying something you might regret? I think it will prevent problems in the long run. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle to revert changes to Alexander Technique

Hello, I am new to the world of Wikipedia editing and thought to improve the content of the Wikipedia entry on the Alexander Technique as it has numerous deficiencies -- lack of clarity and lack of context among them. I noticed that not one half hour after making my initial edit, you reverted all of my changes. This wholesale and extremely rapid action seems to violate policies on Wikipedia. For instance under Twinkle it says "If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve." This was clearly not done.

The justification for the wholesale elimination of my edits was given by you as "Changes to lead unsupported by body text." That is false, and not only based on the fact that you could not have discerned that in so short a time. In any event, the remainder of the article is also in need of clarification and refinement, and it is my intention to edit the body text as well. This is a multi-step process and it is too big to do in one go, so I began at the beginning with the intention of continuing shortly to the remainder of the article.

Before I revert your reversion, I would appreciate some explanation of your conduct as an editor in this instance. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Chih Lo Lou (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of this issue should take place at the Talk page of Alexander technique where other interested editors will see the discussion, not here. Please open a discussion there, per WP:BRD, and I will be happy to respond. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Double-cloth reversibility: accuracy thereof

I left a brief message on the double cloth talk page. I am not sure why you reverted my edit. It was simply dismissed as "inaccurate," and I would greatly appreciate it if you would care to address that. SpiralSource (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Replied at article Talk. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A shortage of admins

Hi Roxy! Have you ever considered running for adminship? We need more admins; I can't count the number of times I've seen the same five admins at ANI. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 19:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On what basis did you select me for suitability for adminship. I'm so very curious. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your frequent participation in noticeboards. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 23:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I should get a raise. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You already get one-fifth of the tip jar at ANI, don't go crazy. Kuru (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk page comment

I think you might have accidentally deleted your own Alternative medicine talk page comment when you restored the accidentally deleted comment of Hob Gadling? Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope

"It's just like the night of the long knives here" implies I'm a Nazi killing other Nazis. I don't think you thought that comment through. I'd appreciate your removing that comment and not making another one like it. Thanks, Levivich 14:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, it is a Harold Macmillan reference. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The 1962 British "night of the long knives" is a reference to the Nazi one. I'll RPA it for you. Have a nice day. Levivich 14:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I remember it. I was having a nice day until I saw the usual suspects in the lynch mob. Sad that you guys can pick on some of the best we have. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're old enough to remember 1962, you should have enough sense and experience to recognize a group of people using Wikipedia to self-promote; they are far from the best we have. Levivich 14:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comments reflect on you rather than them. You have a nice day too. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be ashamed of yourself. COI, promotion and canvassing don't apply if you agree with an editor. And if you disagree you're a Nazi that murders other Nazis, or part of a mob performing extrajudicial executions. It's plain to see. Also, if you disagree with someone, civility need not apply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dont be a plonker all your life SFR, and dont come back here, thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Angle?

I had a discussion about categories with Johnpacklambert today. I hope that discussion continues after I am gone. That's not a "dispute" and I'm not looking for "an angle". His topic ban is what it is and his topic ban violations are indisputable. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I am out to "get" Johnpacklambert. He's doing this to himself. Frangible Round (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

How many other accounts do you have here? -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This user was indeffed. -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Roxy! I'm glad to see you still popping up on my watchlist from time to time. You may not remember, but we first met many years ago when you were breaking up edit wars on Sarah Palin. You were actually a big help to me back then, when I was still learning the ropes, although you likely never knew it. I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all you do for Wikipedia, and for your help in keeping articles BLP compliant. I hope you have a very happy holiday season, and may the coming year bring you happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this greeting. Sarah Palin??? I dont remember that at all, though I do remember how annoyingly strange she appeared to me, and disconnected from the real world. Frankly I hope you are better at dealing with BLP's than I am. Seriously, I'm not the greatest example of an editor to follow when learning the ropes. Seems like you didn't learn any habits from me though, and I'm very glad I was a help. Seasons greetings, -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia a great source of ignorance.

What Roxy the Dog is an exemplary example of the blindness and determined ignorance of the majority of people in the US. Why would someone prefer a Doctor of Medicine, taught to use drugs, over a doctor who want to use your body to heal itself!? Wake up folks! 24.254.130.77 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is what Wikipedia is all about. It is not the place to argue with what the authorities say. Further, Wikipedia accepts academic and scholarly authorities, not religious and dogmatic authorities. Anything else is original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it is "sheeple", not "folks". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The thing is ... the actual thing ... I have no idea what prompted this. Oh well. -Roxy the dog. wooF 03:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough

Why are you deleting factual, relevant and verified information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredwsavage (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about editing an article should take place at the article talk page. Open a discussion there and I will respond.

You should also sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~. thanks -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dont give threat dog

be WP:CIVIL 14.139.114.213 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to an only warning that editor removed from their Talk page. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

... aaand blocked six months for block evasion. Good grief. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Where is the consensus in discussion? Citing status quo is stonewalling when good faith BLP concerns have been raised. I implore you to self-revert under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and contribute to the discussion at [[12]] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, there is absolutely no way that I would have self reverted this. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You are fortunate that article was locked because you were at WP:3RR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ping pong

I think you should probably self-revert on this - immediately restarting the game of ping pong a minute after the protection lapses when WP:BLPN shows there is ongoing discussion is not, I think, well judged. Best, Darren-M talk 16:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would you think I was kidding? No, I'm not. Best, Darren-M talk 16:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were kidding because your suggestion is so silly! -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously Roxy? You know better than this. – bradv^🍁 17:15, 8 January 2022 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxy_the_dog reported by User:Darren-M (Result: ). Thank you. Darren-M talk 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing Ariel Fernandez for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

– bradv^🍁 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Chemotherapy

Roxy, Tryptofish has brought you some yummy and restorative chicken soup. I hope you enjoy it. But if you prefer, you can exchange it for the alcoholic beverage or dog food of your choice. --Tfish

Just to clarify, I have had Chronic lymphocytic leukemia for longer than I have been a wikipedian. I have in fact survived longer than the median survival stats at the time I was diagnosed. The diff-trolls currently hanging around here could confirm that, but I doubt they have any interest. I've had two previous courses of chemotherapy, and am currently four months into my third. I shall be in the chemo chair on Thursday. I wont be shuffling any time soon, and I'm happy with results this time round so far. It's "chronic" see!

I post this just in case my comment in the section above misleads. Goes to priorities you see. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are so strong, Roxy. I appreciate you so much and you just keep beating those odds, okay? My cancer was nothing like yours but I do remember days where all I could do was survive. I would write out notes to myself on my good days and would read them back to myself on the bad days. We each do what helps us get through it. In order to thrive we have to first survive. Keep fighting. --ARoseWolf 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse everything ARoseWolf just said. Roxy my friend, you have my warmest wishes to get well soon! (And there have been a lot of developments all of a sudden in the ArbCom case, very much in your favor, so you can probably disregard a lot of my doomsaying above. That Tryptofish person is such a Nervous Nellie!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been in that chair many times Roxy. I'm sending you rays of sunshine from across the pond. Science kicks ass and we are stronger because of people like you and others that stand up to the crap that woo merchants keep trying to sell to venerable desperate people. You and I both know we aren't only talking about cancer cure crap. Stay strong and destress with a nice walk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs)

Best wishes and woof, Roxy. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

Thanks to you all. -Roxy the dog. wooF 04:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to see you back and barking. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Helpful tips

First off, I’m sorry this is happening to you, I appreciate your predicament as I’m no stranger to these sort of things. Whilst this is hypocritical of me to say, as I always champion and advice editors not to involve themselves too much when they are in your sort of predicament, but in this case I urge you to participate, Infact I urge you to take the advice of Tryptofish, what you want to do is take this as a learning curve, involve yourself in the case, take this moment to do a thorough self analysis, please do go there, analyze each diff presented against you and explain your thinking politely at the time you made the edit and do not try and defend any poor actions you may have taken the last thing you need to do is go there and double down. I also echo Bradv when they say you know better than this, you indeed do know better than to do some of the things you have done prior the Arbcom case. Having said, I refuse to believe that any case accepted at Arbcom has a predetermined outcome, no I refuse to believe this. Once again, remember to go there, be polite, sincerely take responsibility for your actions, sincerely promise to do better next time(you must mean it) and go about your normal editing. Once again I’m indeed sorry this is happening to you. Celestina007 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note by way of clarification, that most of those diffs have been withdrawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do not want Roxy facing any sanctions, they have their bad days as with all editors, but in all their heart and head is in the right place. Celestina007 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Before I went to bed last night there was a case request in which I was not a named party. I get up, at stupid o-clock, and I am a named party in an open case. Why is this, KevinL? -Roxy the dog. wooF 05:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, the drafting arbitrators included you as a party because they thought you are germane to the case, with its current (expanded) scope. Rest assured that being listed as a party is not a determination of misconduct; it is mostly an administrative measure, and gives you additional words at evidence. The drafting arbitrators are who you should ask if you would like users to be added to or removed from the party list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I need some advice User:Tryptofish, would you consider giving some? -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, User:Barkeep49 and User:Izno, could you comment on my question above to Kevin? Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

While I definitely have some thoughts based on the evidence presented at the case request, I will tell you that I don't really have a first impression of your conduct in this topic at the moment. Given the slightly expanded there was a sense that your involvement in the area would be germane to the case. That was enough for me to agree listing you as a party made sense. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, here is what I think, and I'm not going to whitewash anything. Oh, shit. I was concerned about this when I notified you (and Alexbrn) after nobody else did. I see that they added you, and ScottishFinnishRadish, as named parties. At its most simple, this is because ScottishFinnishRadish presented diffs of things that you posted, that were, in their opinion, not civil. Reading between the lines, this means that ArbCom, or at least the drafting Arbs whom you have pinged, have decided that they do, indeed, believe that you were incivil, and they are going to take a very serious look at whether or not they should throw the book at you. Now, the way the system works, they are soon going to say here that, no, no, Tryptofish got that wrong and ArbCom does not pre-judge cases and they routinely have named parties who are named without any likelihood of any fault being found. And, to be fair, some of the Arbs did say in accepting the case that they see this case as potentially being one where nobody will be sanctioned. But I've been around this rodeo enough times to know how this thing works, and you are potentially going to get slapped. As I said, I'm not sugar-coating anything.

So here is my advice. Do not take the approach that you are not going to participate. You have the right not to, but that always ends badly. The first thing that you need to do (and I really do not want to do it for you) is to look back at each of the diffs posted about you, and see if you feel like there was anything that had been directed at you prior to your post, that would help put what you said in context. (That's not the same as blaming someone else. It's just finding context.) Second, you have to make a choice between two options. Option 1 is to take the position that you feel sorry about what you said, and intend to be better about it in the future. In that option, you can post your own evidence, showing that context, and describe how that gave rise to a difficult discussion environment. Then note your own comments, and say that in hindsight you regret them and will try to do better. But only do that if you sincerely believe it; don't put on an act. Option 2 is to present that context as in the first option, but then go on to say that your own contributions should be understood in that context. You will have to walk a fine line between pointing out the wrongs of other editors but not doing WP:2WRONGS. That's your choice. I'll watch the case pages, and if you want more advice from me, I'll be happy to try. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this, I'm going to think about it for a while, and wait for any possible response from the two drafting arbs before commenting further. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just ask User:Izno again, just in case they missed my ping. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If Izno wants to reply, of course he can, but you've already had two sitting arbs answer your question. To set expectations most questions like this get only a single arb response, or even just a response from clerks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Grasping at straws here, against how unfair this feels. Procedurally, My notification above is incorrect. How does this balance with potential action following this improperly followed procedure? -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What procedure are you suggesting was improperly followed? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence in the notification at the top of this section is not accurate. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something else. You are, of course, correct that it was not accurate. It should have been. I will bring this to the attention of the clerks for the future. However, longstanding Arbitration Committee procedure has been to allow the committee to add parties to a case. This has, at times, even been done, with a fair amount of controversy, after the evidence phase has closed. The most recent example of where we added parties after the case request is our very last case, where based on evidence submitted we added 2 parties (and then extended the evidence phase to allow them a full amount of time to participate). Obviously by adding you at the opening of a case you are afforded the full scope of time to participate. Beyond that I will just reiterate my comment from above ...that I don't really have a first impression of your conduct in this topic at the moment. and will be looking at all evidence carefully as I work with Izno to draft the case and then work with the committee as a whole to vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do a fine job drafting and voting. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a clerk and I've updated the standard message so that in future the message can reflect this situation. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just an fyi that (unless something new sets me off) I'm probably done posting evidence of my own, and am unlikely to add any new evidence sections. So what happens from here on is up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

At the moment I'm paying attention, but as happens when I pay attention at ARBCOM, my eyes are starting to glaze over. You have been very generous in your attitude towards me, and I thank you for that. Like Susan, I am overwhelmed by the pettyness. In real life, I wouldn't associate with such people, and I wont be stooping to their level here. I prefer to concentrate on important things, chemotherapy for instance. I wont be throwing my toys out of the pram yet though. -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome with respect to whatever small efforts I have been able to make. I'm very sincerely concerned about what you said about chemotherapy. If that means you or a loved one, you have my best wishes. To the extent that you might care about editing here in that context, please do remember that I said with a lot of experience that not participating in an ArbCom case always ends badly. Beyond what I already said, it might help if you list positive content creation that you have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a pertinant point in the section below. You also asked about my positive content creation. I haven't done any. That ship sailed more than fifty years ago when I realised that I have little or no writing ability. However, Doc James has thanked me on more than one occasion for being in the top 300 medical content editors. It would probably be fair to say that my biggest contribution to the project is plain and simple vandal fighting, nothing special, easier than mopping. I note that in my approx 30k edits, about half are to main article space, a quarter to Talkspace, and 16% to dramah boards. Some of my newbie protagonists could learn from this. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Your secret is safe with me, lol. I've done a lot of content creation, but I'm sure some people would question whether it was positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am considering posting the following to the evidence bit ....

I am not, and have never been, a member of "GSoW" or "Guerilla Skeptics". 
Much of my editing could be said to be co-ordinated by Talk pages, Noticeboards and Projects. I often vote at AfD's where I was canvassed by notifications on Project pages, as do many others. I do not co-ordinate off-wiki. 
Note that in my "messing ... " comment, recently highlighted, I responded to an accusation of being in the pay of Google or Government. Context is always important. In full, it read "Neither Google nor Government, I'm just messing with your head."

Is this a good idea? -Roxy the dog. wooF 04:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, on the basis that outcomes for non-participants are normally poor ... -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is better than not posting anything. I don't, however, think that anyone believed that you were a member of GSoW, and I don't think that the "messing" part does anything to dispel the fact that you did say that you were messing with their heads. But I don't want to coach you on what to say or not say, and I'm glad that you did say something. I'll do what I can to keep the process from going off the rails, and I wish you good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Letting you know

Your name has come up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, where I've mentioned in my statement that you should be notified. You are not a named party or anything like that, but I felt that someone should let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this User:Tryptofish. Believe it or not, I'm not actually paying any attention there yet though I was of course aware of the discussion. In all my years here I have been very dissatisfied by the results of ARBCOM decisions, and Arbs themselves likewise have proved to be lacking in smarts. The chilling effects that individual Arbs have tried on me have made me very wary of taking part in their ramifications. I have therefore stayed away from involvement at that level. I dont know what to do with this Gerbic / GSoW case, (they've done nothing wrong), as I have been already been accused of being a Nazi in discussion surrounding this though I didn't invoke Godwin. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I've got no problem with the idea of staying far away from that. But I didn't like seeing someone post diffs of yours, and say that they didn't like them, without you being notified of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That somebody has "nopinged" me all over dramah boards and admin Talk pages across the project. If they put some time, say at least as much time as they spend doing Dramah, into actually editing, they could perhaps improve the project !! -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Related to ArbCom

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, don't worry about my doing this. I'm doing it as a sort of preemptive protection for the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been here long enough. This is of course one of my primary areas of interest. -Roxy the dog. wooF 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

I was just wondering why you reverted my edit. I thought my point made sense. I stated “Propagandist is a divisive term that should not be in the head section of this article. If you wish to put it in a better context in the criticism section then that should be fine, otherwise I would not recommend you add it to any article about any news broadcaster or political commentator. If you would like to start a section on the talk page of this article your more than welcome.” Shouldn’t we avoid words and phrases that can potentially be divisive, regardless if it is backed by sources or not? BigRed606 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi BigRed, I have seen this but I'm kinda busy right now (see below) but I'll respond later today. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm tired, but as promised - Hanity is a propagandist imho, and I dont see it as a problem if correctly sourced. If wikipedia had called him a "Raging left-wing commy propagandist" then I might be troubled by the "raging left-wing commy" bit, but we dont, so I think it is OK.

In fact, following what you said in your edsum, I said - "Reccomendation taken into consideration. Replaced, well sourced." -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Roxy, it looks to me like you got a very fair result. (You're welcome. ) If it holds up while the Arbs discuss it, I think that you will have dodged a bullet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it is Chemo day again, it has been four weeks. I'll take my ipad - I dont know if I should look straight away, or wait till I'm strapped in!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I briefly looked regarding selfish issues, and I'll study again later today, but you are correct. Back later. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Be well: that's what matters most. And don't worry over whether it's a "reminder" or a "warning", because they are two different names for what will have the same effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired, and I've sat here for thirty minutes thinking about how to respond having slowly read through the thing. I dont think the outcome for myself will be unreasonable, but beyond that I think it would be out of place to comment, so I wont.

I would like to thank you for keeping me calm, and on the straight and narrow the last few weeks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 01:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed