This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
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)
why did you delete my edit on the 420 page? Haydenwaffles ( talk) 02:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
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).
@ 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)
... 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)
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)
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)
He’s excelled himself this time. Brunton ( talk) 08:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
See the page history of Fae's talkpage for the apparent immediate cause. Nigel Ish ( talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
References
Read what I wrote to User talk:Alexbrn
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Hello, Please can you clarify why you reverted my edit to: /info/en/?search=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)
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. -- ARose Wolf 18:09, 13 August 2021 (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 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)
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)
Part of my youth - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Radical changes were made without anyone noticing to the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page. Can you assist? ScienceFlyer ( talk) 05:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. -- ARose Wolf 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hey! I noticed that in your signature it now says that you're skeptical. Why are you skeptical? Just curious! ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Since you joined the edit war on Andrographis paniculata, I'm gonna have to rope you in as well:
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)
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)
Meeeeooowwww! Small win for freedom. Thanks for barking my way on this! -- Oldfart404 ( talk) 10:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 11:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Roxy!
I have three questions for you:
"Nonsense, my support goes to consensus. Your support has no reliable sources."[10]?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why are you deleting factual, relevant and verified information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredwsavage ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
be WP:CIVIL 14.139.114.213 ( talk) 09:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. – bradv 🍁 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
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)
why did you delete my edit on the 420 page? Haydenwaffles ( talk) 02:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
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).
@ 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)
... 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)
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)
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)
He’s excelled himself this time. Brunton ( talk) 08:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
See the page history of Fae's talkpage for the apparent immediate cause. Nigel Ish ( talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
References
Read what I wrote to User talk:Alexbrn
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
Hello, Please can you clarify why you reverted my edit to: /info/en/?search=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)
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. -- ARose Wolf 18:09, 13 August 2021 (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 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)
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)
Part of my youth - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Radical changes were made without anyone noticing to the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page. Can you assist? ScienceFlyer ( talk) 05:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. -- ARose Wolf 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hey! I noticed that in your signature it now says that you're skeptical. Why are you skeptical? Just curious! ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Since you joined the edit war on Andrographis paniculata, I'm gonna have to rope you in as well:
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)
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)
Meeeeooowwww! Small win for freedom. Thanks for barking my way on this! -- Oldfart404 ( talk) 10:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 11:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Roxy!
I have three questions for you:
"Nonsense, my support goes to consensus. Your support has no reliable sources."[10]?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why are you deleting factual, relevant and verified information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredwsavage ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
be WP:CIVIL 14.139.114.213 ( talk) 09:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. – bradv 🍁 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)