![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
--Incorrectly placed sanctions notice removed. . Please try to learn some of the policies and guidelines associated with editing wikipedia - You should include WP:CIR in your reading list.--
Just a formality, see [1]. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you continue to revert the corrections of the BLP violation, you risk being blocked. Atsme☯ Consult 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I hope you haven't forgetten the following:
[4]. Since Griffin involves pseudoscience, it appears you may be violating your sanction. <--my apologies for misunderstanding the notices as being an actual sanction. I have consulted with
Callanecc to confirm or advise otherwise. Thank you.
Atsme☯
Consult
12:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Consequently, I cannot understand why you reverted Roxy's edit - which more closely followed the higher-quality, independent sources - whilst claiming that you were enforcing BLP. bobrayner ( talk)
Bobrayner, I am very familiar with BLP policy, but it doesn't appear the editors who are reverting my corrections of BLP violations are even the least bit familiar. Please read WP:NPOV, and you will find the correct answers to your question. For convenience sake, I will provide some of the relevant information defining one of the three core contents of WP:BLP; i.e., NPOV:
Roxy's reverts resulted in a BLP violation. Atsme☯ Consult 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Roxy the dog,
Forgive me as I am for the first time doing my best to work with Wikipedia. You posted a comment to the National Report talk page which I have copied for your reference. "If I could figure out what you wanted, perhaps I could help. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)" -- With the holidays over I need to continue work on the National Report Wiki page. The company National Report objected to the merger of Paul Horner's page with the NR page on November 22, 2014. Horner appears to have posted changes or added data to the page that made it appear as a promotion of Mr. Horner, and some of that information was not true. Some changes have been made to correct this which we are satisfied with. We only became aware of the merger and content posted previously by Mr. Horner, last month.
What the company would like to see included on the page is a history and background of the company as well as including additional information on our writers. To accomplish this I would like your help. I have no experience on Wikipedia and need to know how to move forward. To help clarify for me what needs to be done my question is how to submit changes. Do I need to submit the data with references to be verified in the Wikipedia format? In other words does it need to look like the finished Wikipedia page currently up, or do I submit just data & links for verification?
Once I know how to submit data properly I can continue. The information the company would like to see is greatly historical in nature. Things like... how the company was formed, who is responsible for its founding, when it went online, what the company's mission was and how that changed with time to present day. I would greatly appreciate any assistance here since much of what I read and see here is beyond anything I've done before.
One other thing I was reading about a few minutes ago was concerning a block that was placed on me because my company work uses a VPN for security reasons. The most recent massacre at Charlie Hebdo is why all business related traffic goes through a VPN service. At present the IP address I'm on to post this message is linked to my home computer since the block occurred. Clearly I have good cause for concern since my actual IP address can be traced back to my home.
Thank you, Nigel Covington NigelCovington85 ( talk) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Just as an FYI - it's probably best not to use the rollback tool at all in situations where you would want to leave an edit summary. I know it can be a bit of a nuisance when an editor has made consecutive dubious edits, but it's worth the extra clicks to leave a descriptive edit summary. (That said, I've gone ahead and blocked the IP editor, undone his edits, and semiprotected alternative cancer treatments, based on his declared intent to continue to edit war, the personal attacks he was using in his edit summaries, and the fact that in his most recent incarnation he was evading an existing block on the IP he was using earlier in the day.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy. Could you please be more specific than "No"? Thanks. :-) CAM redirects to Alternative medicine (as it should, in my opinion). My understanding is that the term "complementary and alternative," like "integrative," usually acts as a euphemism describing alternative medicine, and it's typically better to be more straightforward. Sunrise ( talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
-- Sunrise ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In the future, please read what editors write before disruptively placing templates on their talk page. This statement is false: "Hi. I was looking at Intelligent Design I saw your comments on Cla68's talk page regarding the Pseudoscience Arbcom warning, and as you have edited the ID page yourself, I thought I'd square the circle so to speak, and issue you with a warning." I have never left an edit on Cla68's talk page. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the new system correctly, Roxy, we're supposed to just type
where "__" is replaced with the designated abbreviation for the subject area (ie, "cc" was assigned to "climage change"). That will trigger a filter so the server records the alert, which is only good for 12 months. The person who GETS the alert deserves protection from harassment via frequent alerts, and that's where the server is a big help.... no one should suffer being alerted more than 1x per year. If you use the template correctly on a user who has not previously been alerted a pink box should appear so you can double check for past alerts. You can get in trouble if you double-alert in under 12 months without checking first. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Atsme has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I would have preferred a half-full packet, but to reciprocate, I heard that chocolate reduces the risk of strokes.
Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{ subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I'm actually excited about knowing the result of a close that is ongoing. omg. what has happened to me. - Roxy the Viking dog™ ( resonate) 15:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Roxy, you and I are two of the three eds who contributed to a tangle that I am trying to un-do. The other is Andrew. Please join us at Andrew's talk page, where I have asked permission to tweak the thread in a way that would erase your contrib. Whether you consent or oppose, please add your reply to the thread at Andrew's page, so its all in one place per WP:MULTI. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rtd. I just wanted to let you know that this just occurred so you have a full six months protection for the article. I have seen requests take days before a response so this is a great deal. Now that doesn't mean that the nonsense will come to a complete stop. You may get users who have made enough edits to be confirmed who make the same kind of edits. If that happens make sure to start a thread on the talk page (as you have done in the past regarding other things to do with this person) and proceed from there. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
fwiw, having been subjected to hounding, i find this to be "bad dog" behavior. Please don't hound anybody, for anything. If you really believe there is a COI issue, bring a case to COIN, and guide it to resolution. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) adds:
There is no question in my mind that creeds can represent an even more powerful conflict of interest than financial matters.
Moreover, this belief is indivisibly intertwined with existential issues. In alternative medicine, there may not be huge amounts of money at stake but practitioners’ livelihoods are perceived to be at risk. If an acupuncturist, for instance, argues in favour of his therapy, he also consciously or sub-consciously is trying to protect his income.
Some might say that this not different from conventional medicine, but I disagree: if we take away one specific therapy from a doctor because it turns out to be useless or unsafe, he will be able to use another one; if we take the acupuncture needle away from an acupuncturist, we have deprived him of his livelihood.
Alexbrn ( talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
“yep there is a COI side”← seems a reasonable statement. What we sometimes hear – a definite assertion that there is no COI aspect in such cases – is, I think, not reasonable. I find the skeptical commentary on this quite persuasive and it gives a toehold in sources; I don't know if there's any really strong RS on this topic however. Previously, arbcom has held certain types of creed-driven editing to be problematic - e.g. from anthroposophists and scientologists, though there was more to it than just COI for the scientology case, for sure.
You know the subject of the OP in this thread? I think I'll have to change my plea to guilty as charged M'Lud. and not just with M8, but other examples could be found by the stupidly diligent, against other trigger eds. Oh dear me. I'm not very comfortable with this, because i hadn't seen it that way previously. This is partly an after beer revelation - not sure what to do next. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 23:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thought you might find this essay (PDF) of interest, if you haven't come across it already. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about your comment that you removed from Talk:Phoenix Global, did you mean Tabs and Wfmu could be socks? Wfmu appeared out of nowhere right after Tabs disappeared for no evident reason (he seemed really interested in the topic, so... and all of his edits were about that article). And then a bit later Wfmu says, "Not intereted in "duking it out", certainly not with Jeraphine G who seems a little prickly further up this page," referring to the section where I took apart Tabs' comments. Hmmmmmm. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
One really can't get this wrong and have both scientific literacy and editorial integrity.
[5] Which is it for you?
--
Middle 8 (
t •
c |
privacy •
COI)
20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The next generation |
Congratulations on your grandbaby! Liz Read! Talk! 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
hopefully a good, healthy litter. Jytdog ( talk) 15:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Congratamalations, Roxy. :D — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Can I ask you to clarify what you meant here? Thanks in advance. -- John ( talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I was reviewing some of your latest contributions to the Acupuncture article and talk page and thought I'd have a word with you. Many of your edits to the article seem to be simple reverts or minor edits, which is fine, though the participation in revert wars isn't great. Your talk page posts are mainly what have me concerned. They seem to be mostly either pointed comments to other users (for example [10] [11] [12] [13]) or equally pointed repetitions of your point of view ( [14] [15]). Neither of these further our goal of improving articles, and both contribute to the "toxic" atmosphere people are complaining about. I also seem to remember you getting into trouble on the Ayurveda article talk page for similar reasons, thereby getting on the wrong side of User:John, and I definitely remember seeing some very pointed remarks from you on his talk page.
I'm sure you're not a mean person in real life, but as I'm sure you already know text is a bad medium for conveying emotions and such. I's very easy to misinterpret humor for sarcasm, or sarcasm for scorn, especially in the context of a larger conflict. Anyway, whatever your intentions are, I'm asking you to please stop with the pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations of alt-med/fringe. Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's not helping things. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Responding to your query about what you call other "advocates" on the page, I am trying to work with multiple users. I'm trying to get Jayaguru-Shishya out of the habit of responding to every single post on talk pages; I'm trying to get QuackGuru out of the battleground mentality; I'm trying to get A1Candidate to edit less aggressively, and I'd like to stop some of the complaining coming from Les Vegas. But I tend to tolerate A1Candidate when they aggressively add new and potentially controversial information to the article during an edit war because they are supporting their edits with sources. And I tend to tolerate QuackGuru's annoying style of communicating and OWNing articles because of his/her knowledge of the sources. But when somebody sits on the sidelines throwing barbs without contributing to "building the encyclopedia", that annoys me.
Anyway I didn't mean to make this post so long, and I am certainly not trying to attack you, but I hope at least the pyramid bit will be helpful for you in your reflection. Don't let it stress you out though...and congratulations on becoming a grandparent. Those are the kinds of things that are most important. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me how this was in any way helpful to the discussion? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Roxy, sorry about the accidental revert on the ID page. I've re-reverted. I was trying to hit the thank you option for your reversion of the deletion from tha page - wretched phone decided to redraw the page just as I attempted to hit the "thank" option and I got "undo" instead. Mumble, grumble, "smart"phone... - Nick Thorne talk 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How does it work?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
...how serious (if at all) your question was meant but depending on context (which is unknown to me) it's either Historical revisionism or Historical revisionism (negationism). --TMCk ( talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Why?
teeth are my exhibit one against intelligent design. you gotta use them, they decay like crazy when you do, and they hurt like hell when they decay. what was that designer thinking?? Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Assuming WP:AGF is difficult sometimes, don't you think? if anybody is reading this, I do not mean you. - Roxy the black and white dog™ ( resonate) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to avoid any hint of racism in its editing practices. I notice that most of the sources on academic research into the alleged beneficial aspects of homeopathy were done by Indian researchers. To completely exclude all of this research from the article looks like, at worst, outright racism, and, at best, complete ethnocentrism. Either way, it's ugly, and it's unacceptable. We need to reduce the West/white-centric nature of that article before we expose Wikipedia to some severe, legitimate criticism. Cla68 ( talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in an RfC based on your involvement in a related AN/I incident: Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. You are invited to help us to determine consensus on this issue. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
...that you would commend questionable behavior and violative probes into a person's RL id by another volunteer editor. How would you feel if someone started probing into your RL and your work connections, especially someone who has shown ill-will toward you? Would that make you happy? I certainly don't feel good about what just happened to me. You are free to give barn stars to whoever you like, but they work much better when they are truly deserved. Atsme 📞 📧 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Shall I pop the popcorn this time? Atsme 📞 📧 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Roxy! Since you're supporting the edit QG made, would you mind using the talk page to defend it? Specifically, why is it not a synthesis violation, and is there a better way to fully encompass the statement in the source? A section has already been created for discussion here, and you should join in since you're supporting the inclusion of the edit. LesVegas ( talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This user's username is uncomfortably reminiscent of yours, at least to me. What do you think? Everymorning talk 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Roxy the Dog, for the time being you will not see me anymore on Naturopathy page, because I have been banned from there. You are pressing me to answer yes or no to your question. In order to answer precisely, I need to know your definition and your understanding of the word "naturopath". Paulmartin357 ( talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes you, even you at the back who is only watching to see what trouble I might get into.
I'm currently following a little Arbcom request at the moment, trivial thing, hardly worth mentioning, and I suddenly thought what is the point, it must be something more, and all the acres of text cannot simply be part of a request, um, or something. If it eventuates that a full case is taken, does all this accusatory guff, and defensive guff come to that, become part of what Arbcom look at?
How important is this phase in the full process? If a case is taken, how important is the current phase? um. Anybody?
- Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh, it works. That's only the second time ever I can recall doing that, the first was earlier today, somewhere. Anyway, I need to dial down the enthusiasm a little. Now, as this page is UK based, popcorn is forbidden, and correct use of a spell checker will prevent me editing your mispelled ritin'. I have a couple of crates of shandy cooling, and plenty of cheese and onion crisps. Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 22:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've used my time machine to get an exclusive look at the result. Arbcom will rule that all the haters will only be allowed to remain unbanned if they accept JD as mentor and guide for the next two years. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 17:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping at ARBCOM @ DrChrissy:, that was decent of you. Unfortunately it didn't work, I don't know why not, and I wanted you to know. - Roxy the dog™ woof 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I got your thanks for nominating this article for deletion. Normally all this gets me is other editors' ire, so I was surprised (and a little confused) to get your message. Could you explain for me? I was glad to get it! I just want to understand it better! KDS4444 Talk 18:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking one. From everywhere but here. From now. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I'm hoping you can give some advice on how I can get the casema (black salve) page to be more two sided. I personally have used it and removed 2 cancers so to see such a bias description of it is very frustrating. Nissassary ( talk) 20:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I only needed to read the EdSum, to whit ... Inositol is neither a carbohydrate, nor is a chinese pharmaceuticals supplier website an appropriate form of reference. - Roxy the dog™ woof 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't really know how to use this. I came across the Functional Medicine page and I edited it to make it more accurate with more recent sources. Is it not allowed to edit a page in that way? The edit I did was neutral with both good and bad aspects and backed up by scientific sources. Wikipedia is open source. Everyone is entitled to make edits if they are backed up by evidence? The entire page is written in a biased way and is backed up by blog sources written mainly by two individuals who are clearly anti-functional medicine. Cawjac ( talk) 12:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Flouncing only works if you are leaving behind an impressive track record of substantial improvements to the encyclopaedia.
If your flounce is actually the biggest improvement you have ever made, then it is useless as a flounce.
Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You just reverted my change to Talk:Homeopathy to re-add the {{ ArbComPseudoscience}} template with an edit summary of "Nope". Could you expand on that please? I linked to the ArbCom motion to rescind discretionary sanctions for Homeopathy in my edit summary, and homeopathy is explicitly at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict as having previously had discretionary sanctions, but not currently, so I don't understand why you undid my edit.
— me_ and 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have undone your revert of my edit to a2 milk as I have expanded on the article and justified why I changed it with a comment in talk page and citation in the article. If you are going to revert an edit from an established author and reviewer with several thousand edits, you should state your argument in the talk page first or comment on my talk page. Aeonx ( talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you actually know the place? I've been waiting for a couple of years to tell somebody something about the Island? It wont improve the encyclopaedia though. - Roxy the dog™ woof 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you expand on that? Is the phrase 'Do you actually know the place' derogatory? Also; if you've been waiting to tell someone - tell them what? And at the end, 'it won't improve the encyclopaedia though' all seem like very negative statements. It they are not, then I'm sorry. But I'm not finished as of yet and if you have something to share then please do. Have a good day (evening). And yes; I do know the place. The joy of all things ( talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added information and citations to the article.Happy? The joy of all things ( talk) 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reverts on this article. It seems a couple of new editors are making unqualified changes. I think the article should be semi-protected as it has a long history of agenda pushing. Where's the best place to apply for this? 79616gr ( talk) 06:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a "reality-based editor " ... yea, right. - Roxy the dog™ woof 17:25, 14 January 2016 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
--Incorrectly placed sanctions notice removed. . Please try to learn some of the policies and guidelines associated with editing wikipedia - You should include WP:CIR in your reading list.--
Just a formality, see [1]. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you continue to revert the corrections of the BLP violation, you risk being blocked. Atsme☯ Consult 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I hope you haven't forgetten the following:
[4]. Since Griffin involves pseudoscience, it appears you may be violating your sanction. <--my apologies for misunderstanding the notices as being an actual sanction. I have consulted with
Callanecc to confirm or advise otherwise. Thank you.
Atsme☯
Consult
12:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Consequently, I cannot understand why you reverted Roxy's edit - which more closely followed the higher-quality, independent sources - whilst claiming that you were enforcing BLP. bobrayner ( talk)
Bobrayner, I am very familiar with BLP policy, but it doesn't appear the editors who are reverting my corrections of BLP violations are even the least bit familiar. Please read WP:NPOV, and you will find the correct answers to your question. For convenience sake, I will provide some of the relevant information defining one of the three core contents of WP:BLP; i.e., NPOV:
Roxy's reverts resulted in a BLP violation. Atsme☯ Consult 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Roxy the dog,
Forgive me as I am for the first time doing my best to work with Wikipedia. You posted a comment to the National Report talk page which I have copied for your reference. "If I could figure out what you wanted, perhaps I could help. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)" -- With the holidays over I need to continue work on the National Report Wiki page. The company National Report objected to the merger of Paul Horner's page with the NR page on November 22, 2014. Horner appears to have posted changes or added data to the page that made it appear as a promotion of Mr. Horner, and some of that information was not true. Some changes have been made to correct this which we are satisfied with. We only became aware of the merger and content posted previously by Mr. Horner, last month.
What the company would like to see included on the page is a history and background of the company as well as including additional information on our writers. To accomplish this I would like your help. I have no experience on Wikipedia and need to know how to move forward. To help clarify for me what needs to be done my question is how to submit changes. Do I need to submit the data with references to be verified in the Wikipedia format? In other words does it need to look like the finished Wikipedia page currently up, or do I submit just data & links for verification?
Once I know how to submit data properly I can continue. The information the company would like to see is greatly historical in nature. Things like... how the company was formed, who is responsible for its founding, when it went online, what the company's mission was and how that changed with time to present day. I would greatly appreciate any assistance here since much of what I read and see here is beyond anything I've done before.
One other thing I was reading about a few minutes ago was concerning a block that was placed on me because my company work uses a VPN for security reasons. The most recent massacre at Charlie Hebdo is why all business related traffic goes through a VPN service. At present the IP address I'm on to post this message is linked to my home computer since the block occurred. Clearly I have good cause for concern since my actual IP address can be traced back to my home.
Thank you, Nigel Covington NigelCovington85 ( talk) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Just as an FYI - it's probably best not to use the rollback tool at all in situations where you would want to leave an edit summary. I know it can be a bit of a nuisance when an editor has made consecutive dubious edits, but it's worth the extra clicks to leave a descriptive edit summary. (That said, I've gone ahead and blocked the IP editor, undone his edits, and semiprotected alternative cancer treatments, based on his declared intent to continue to edit war, the personal attacks he was using in his edit summaries, and the fact that in his most recent incarnation he was evading an existing block on the IP he was using earlier in the day.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy. Could you please be more specific than "No"? Thanks. :-) CAM redirects to Alternative medicine (as it should, in my opinion). My understanding is that the term "complementary and alternative," like "integrative," usually acts as a euphemism describing alternative medicine, and it's typically better to be more straightforward. Sunrise ( talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
-- Sunrise ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In the future, please read what editors write before disruptively placing templates on their talk page. This statement is false: "Hi. I was looking at Intelligent Design I saw your comments on Cla68's talk page regarding the Pseudoscience Arbcom warning, and as you have edited the ID page yourself, I thought I'd square the circle so to speak, and issue you with a warning." I have never left an edit on Cla68's talk page. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the new system correctly, Roxy, we're supposed to just type
where "__" is replaced with the designated abbreviation for the subject area (ie, "cc" was assigned to "climage change"). That will trigger a filter so the server records the alert, which is only good for 12 months. The person who GETS the alert deserves protection from harassment via frequent alerts, and that's where the server is a big help.... no one should suffer being alerted more than 1x per year. If you use the template correctly on a user who has not previously been alerted a pink box should appear so you can double check for past alerts. You can get in trouble if you double-alert in under 12 months without checking first. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Atsme has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I would have preferred a half-full packet, but to reciprocate, I heard that chocolate reduces the risk of strokes.
Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{ subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I'm actually excited about knowing the result of a close that is ongoing. omg. what has happened to me. - Roxy the Viking dog™ ( resonate) 15:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Roxy, you and I are two of the three eds who contributed to a tangle that I am trying to un-do. The other is Andrew. Please join us at Andrew's talk page, where I have asked permission to tweak the thread in a way that would erase your contrib. Whether you consent or oppose, please add your reply to the thread at Andrew's page, so its all in one place per WP:MULTI. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rtd. I just wanted to let you know that this just occurred so you have a full six months protection for the article. I have seen requests take days before a response so this is a great deal. Now that doesn't mean that the nonsense will come to a complete stop. You may get users who have made enough edits to be confirmed who make the same kind of edits. If that happens make sure to start a thread on the talk page (as you have done in the past regarding other things to do with this person) and proceed from there. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
fwiw, having been subjected to hounding, i find this to be "bad dog" behavior. Please don't hound anybody, for anything. If you really believe there is a COI issue, bring a case to COIN, and guide it to resolution. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) adds:
There is no question in my mind that creeds can represent an even more powerful conflict of interest than financial matters.
Moreover, this belief is indivisibly intertwined with existential issues. In alternative medicine, there may not be huge amounts of money at stake but practitioners’ livelihoods are perceived to be at risk. If an acupuncturist, for instance, argues in favour of his therapy, he also consciously or sub-consciously is trying to protect his income.
Some might say that this not different from conventional medicine, but I disagree: if we take away one specific therapy from a doctor because it turns out to be useless or unsafe, he will be able to use another one; if we take the acupuncture needle away from an acupuncturist, we have deprived him of his livelihood.
Alexbrn ( talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
“yep there is a COI side”← seems a reasonable statement. What we sometimes hear – a definite assertion that there is no COI aspect in such cases – is, I think, not reasonable. I find the skeptical commentary on this quite persuasive and it gives a toehold in sources; I don't know if there's any really strong RS on this topic however. Previously, arbcom has held certain types of creed-driven editing to be problematic - e.g. from anthroposophists and scientologists, though there was more to it than just COI for the scientology case, for sure.
You know the subject of the OP in this thread? I think I'll have to change my plea to guilty as charged M'Lud. and not just with M8, but other examples could be found by the stupidly diligent, against other trigger eds. Oh dear me. I'm not very comfortable with this, because i hadn't seen it that way previously. This is partly an after beer revelation - not sure what to do next. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 23:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thought you might find this essay (PDF) of interest, if you haven't come across it already. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about your comment that you removed from Talk:Phoenix Global, did you mean Tabs and Wfmu could be socks? Wfmu appeared out of nowhere right after Tabs disappeared for no evident reason (he seemed really interested in the topic, so... and all of his edits were about that article). And then a bit later Wfmu says, "Not intereted in "duking it out", certainly not with Jeraphine G who seems a little prickly further up this page," referring to the section where I took apart Tabs' comments. Hmmmmmm. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
One really can't get this wrong and have both scientific literacy and editorial integrity.
[5] Which is it for you?
--
Middle 8 (
t •
c |
privacy •
COI)
20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The next generation |
Congratulations on your grandbaby! Liz Read! Talk! 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
hopefully a good, healthy litter. Jytdog ( talk) 15:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Congratamalations, Roxy. :D — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Can I ask you to clarify what you meant here? Thanks in advance. -- John ( talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I was reviewing some of your latest contributions to the Acupuncture article and talk page and thought I'd have a word with you. Many of your edits to the article seem to be simple reverts or minor edits, which is fine, though the participation in revert wars isn't great. Your talk page posts are mainly what have me concerned. They seem to be mostly either pointed comments to other users (for example [10] [11] [12] [13]) or equally pointed repetitions of your point of view ( [14] [15]). Neither of these further our goal of improving articles, and both contribute to the "toxic" atmosphere people are complaining about. I also seem to remember you getting into trouble on the Ayurveda article talk page for similar reasons, thereby getting on the wrong side of User:John, and I definitely remember seeing some very pointed remarks from you on his talk page.
I'm sure you're not a mean person in real life, but as I'm sure you already know text is a bad medium for conveying emotions and such. I's very easy to misinterpret humor for sarcasm, or sarcasm for scorn, especially in the context of a larger conflict. Anyway, whatever your intentions are, I'm asking you to please stop with the pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations of alt-med/fringe. Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's not helping things. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Responding to your query about what you call other "advocates" on the page, I am trying to work with multiple users. I'm trying to get Jayaguru-Shishya out of the habit of responding to every single post on talk pages; I'm trying to get QuackGuru out of the battleground mentality; I'm trying to get A1Candidate to edit less aggressively, and I'd like to stop some of the complaining coming from Les Vegas. But I tend to tolerate A1Candidate when they aggressively add new and potentially controversial information to the article during an edit war because they are supporting their edits with sources. And I tend to tolerate QuackGuru's annoying style of communicating and OWNing articles because of his/her knowledge of the sources. But when somebody sits on the sidelines throwing barbs without contributing to "building the encyclopedia", that annoys me.
Anyway I didn't mean to make this post so long, and I am certainly not trying to attack you, but I hope at least the pyramid bit will be helpful for you in your reflection. Don't let it stress you out though...and congratulations on becoming a grandparent. Those are the kinds of things that are most important. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me how this was in any way helpful to the discussion? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Roxy, sorry about the accidental revert on the ID page. I've re-reverted. I was trying to hit the thank you option for your reversion of the deletion from tha page - wretched phone decided to redraw the page just as I attempted to hit the "thank" option and I got "undo" instead. Mumble, grumble, "smart"phone... - Nick Thorne talk 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How does it work?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
...how serious (if at all) your question was meant but depending on context (which is unknown to me) it's either Historical revisionism or Historical revisionism (negationism). --TMCk ( talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Why?
teeth are my exhibit one against intelligent design. you gotta use them, they decay like crazy when you do, and they hurt like hell when they decay. what was that designer thinking?? Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Assuming WP:AGF is difficult sometimes, don't you think? if anybody is reading this, I do not mean you. - Roxy the black and white dog™ ( resonate) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to avoid any hint of racism in its editing practices. I notice that most of the sources on academic research into the alleged beneficial aspects of homeopathy were done by Indian researchers. To completely exclude all of this research from the article looks like, at worst, outright racism, and, at best, complete ethnocentrism. Either way, it's ugly, and it's unacceptable. We need to reduce the West/white-centric nature of that article before we expose Wikipedia to some severe, legitimate criticism. Cla68 ( talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in an RfC based on your involvement in a related AN/I incident: Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. You are invited to help us to determine consensus on this issue. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
...that you would commend questionable behavior and violative probes into a person's RL id by another volunteer editor. How would you feel if someone started probing into your RL and your work connections, especially someone who has shown ill-will toward you? Would that make you happy? I certainly don't feel good about what just happened to me. You are free to give barn stars to whoever you like, but they work much better when they are truly deserved. Atsme 📞 📧 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Shall I pop the popcorn this time? Atsme 📞 📧 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Roxy! Since you're supporting the edit QG made, would you mind using the talk page to defend it? Specifically, why is it not a synthesis violation, and is there a better way to fully encompass the statement in the source? A section has already been created for discussion here, and you should join in since you're supporting the inclusion of the edit. LesVegas ( talk) 14:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This user's username is uncomfortably reminiscent of yours, at least to me. What do you think? Everymorning talk 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Roxy the Dog, for the time being you will not see me anymore on Naturopathy page, because I have been banned from there. You are pressing me to answer yes or no to your question. In order to answer precisely, I need to know your definition and your understanding of the word "naturopath". Paulmartin357 ( talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes you, even you at the back who is only watching to see what trouble I might get into.
I'm currently following a little Arbcom request at the moment, trivial thing, hardly worth mentioning, and I suddenly thought what is the point, it must be something more, and all the acres of text cannot simply be part of a request, um, or something. If it eventuates that a full case is taken, does all this accusatory guff, and defensive guff come to that, become part of what Arbcom look at?
How important is this phase in the full process? If a case is taken, how important is the current phase? um. Anybody?
- Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh, it works. That's only the second time ever I can recall doing that, the first was earlier today, somewhere. Anyway, I need to dial down the enthusiasm a little. Now, as this page is UK based, popcorn is forbidden, and correct use of a spell checker will prevent me editing your mispelled ritin'. I have a couple of crates of shandy cooling, and plenty of cheese and onion crisps. Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 22:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've used my time machine to get an exclusive look at the result. Arbcom will rule that all the haters will only be allowed to remain unbanned if they accept JD as mentor and guide for the next two years. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 17:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping at ARBCOM @ DrChrissy:, that was decent of you. Unfortunately it didn't work, I don't know why not, and I wanted you to know. - Roxy the dog™ woof 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I got your thanks for nominating this article for deletion. Normally all this gets me is other editors' ire, so I was surprised (and a little confused) to get your message. Could you explain for me? I was glad to get it! I just want to understand it better! KDS4444 Talk 18:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking one. From everywhere but here. From now. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, I'm hoping you can give some advice on how I can get the casema (black salve) page to be more two sided. I personally have used it and removed 2 cancers so to see such a bias description of it is very frustrating. Nissassary ( talk) 20:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I only needed to read the EdSum, to whit ... Inositol is neither a carbohydrate, nor is a chinese pharmaceuticals supplier website an appropriate form of reference. - Roxy the dog™ woof 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't really know how to use this. I came across the Functional Medicine page and I edited it to make it more accurate with more recent sources. Is it not allowed to edit a page in that way? The edit I did was neutral with both good and bad aspects and backed up by scientific sources. Wikipedia is open source. Everyone is entitled to make edits if they are backed up by evidence? The entire page is written in a biased way and is backed up by blog sources written mainly by two individuals who are clearly anti-functional medicine. Cawjac ( talk) 12:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Flouncing only works if you are leaving behind an impressive track record of substantial improvements to the encyclopaedia.
If your flounce is actually the biggest improvement you have ever made, then it is useless as a flounce.
Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You just reverted my change to Talk:Homeopathy to re-add the {{ ArbComPseudoscience}} template with an edit summary of "Nope". Could you expand on that please? I linked to the ArbCom motion to rescind discretionary sanctions for Homeopathy in my edit summary, and homeopathy is explicitly at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict as having previously had discretionary sanctions, but not currently, so I don't understand why you undid my edit.
— me_ and 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have undone your revert of my edit to a2 milk as I have expanded on the article and justified why I changed it with a comment in talk page and citation in the article. If you are going to revert an edit from an established author and reviewer with several thousand edits, you should state your argument in the talk page first or comment on my talk page. Aeonx ( talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you actually know the place? I've been waiting for a couple of years to tell somebody something about the Island? It wont improve the encyclopaedia though. - Roxy the dog™ woof 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you expand on that? Is the phrase 'Do you actually know the place' derogatory? Also; if you've been waiting to tell someone - tell them what? And at the end, 'it won't improve the encyclopaedia though' all seem like very negative statements. It they are not, then I'm sorry. But I'm not finished as of yet and if you have something to share then please do. Have a good day (evening). And yes; I do know the place. The joy of all things ( talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added information and citations to the article.Happy? The joy of all things ( talk) 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reverts on this article. It seems a couple of new editors are making unqualified changes. I think the article should be semi-protected as it has a long history of agenda pushing. Where's the best place to apply for this? 79616gr ( talk) 06:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a "reality-based editor " ... yea, right. - Roxy the dog™ woof 17:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)