![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Hey User - I know you are a part of discussions and Before reverting any edits. Try to participate and contribute something to prove yourself.Please refrain from adding, removing or changing
genres, as you did to
Siddha medicine, without providing a
source or establishing a
consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive. Please stop your disruptive editing and see
WP:BRD and
WP:CON.
90.185.50.46 (
talk)
22:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to vote Scottish Nationalist, but they dont stand here!! - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roxy the dog: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious why you restored content at Eric R. Braverman. I removed it as (mostly) BLP violations, and it's currently being discussed at Talk:Eric R. Braverman#Negative information and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Eric R. Braverman. I'm also surprised that you used Twinkle to revert a good-faith, policy complaint edit. Woodroar ( talk) 18:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Somewhere else where you can feel empowered by ignorance and idiocy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salviati64 ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Please see MOS:TENSE for the guideline here. Past tense is specifically for subjects which have literally ceased to be, or events that have passed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You've hit WP:3RR on Fulling here. Please stop. -- Jayron 32 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Generally pointless TE. My strong suggestion would be to ignore that and to stop editing or commenting regarding Fulling. Your work in various places I have seen is too valuable to be stopped by a silly dispute over is/was. It's best to keep some snark in reserve for FRINGE editors—spraying it around good editors is most undesirable. It is not possible that everyone agree with everything all the time and knowing when to step back is essential. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you please explain what's wrong with quoting a paper about the results of some basic research concerning the Feldenkrais Method? The publication doesn't even state claims of medical efficacy - it is simply a report about some interesting effects on the brain. The results where other than expected by the Feldenkrais people. I understand your scepticism, given the poor scientific evidence so far, but concerning this paper, we are not talking about some esoteric bullshit. The first author of the paper is a PhD with 27 RG points working in one of Germanys largest research institutes. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julius_Verrel
BTW Feldenkrais Method is a method of motoric learning, not a therapy. The goal of the method is to reduce the physical effort in motion. This may be helpful under certain medical conditions - serious research is necessary to find out which ones. The fact that some hippie-quacks employ the method and make evidence-free medical claims does not allow the conclusion, the whole method was quackery. Best regards, Erik ErikSchaf ( talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Gogolwold. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Macrobiotic diet seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Gogolwold (
talk)
10:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Roxy. I wanted to let you know that I placed that tag there as a way of de-escalating the thread. The resolved template I felt was more appropriate since it explicitly acknowledges that it doesn't close a discussion. Bilby's last reply to my request to drop the stick to me signaled that his initial concern, i.e., the reason for the thread, had been resolved. Not "resolved" as in "solved to everyone's satisfaction" but at least "resolved" as in "everyone agrees that this thread isn't going anywhere useful and it's time to let it die". I defer to your experience on this, but saying that it is unresolved because we haven't resolved what to do about Bilby does not seem like an issue for COIN. I have a healthy distrust of AN and AN/I so I won't be taking that aspect any further. So, just to explain why I added a template, even though I suspected placing it might be challenged. I hope this helps. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Just what it says in the title about "Polyester is NOT a fabric". I'm done arguing with you. It isn't funny, it's both RUDE and CONDESCENDING.
Dear Roxy the dog. I added the word "Nevertheless" in the Paleolithic diet article at the starting of the sentence "Following the paleo diet can lead to..." since the sentence conveys an idea anti-thetical to the previous one which talks about some improvements in health. I noticed you reverted saying "Weasel word removed". Just wondering how that word would qualify as weasel. This is not to contradict with what you did (for I'm okay with the removal), but only to know about the other view point so as to correct any mistake from my side. Thank you. Rasnaboy ( talk) 06:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
A "brand new account" adding biologist to the things Sheldrake apparently is. Guy ( help!) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
hi roxy, i have seen you check mostly the articles of wool. please can you help? i have very good information about german-english wool history but my english is not so good. i wroted it in Talk of Wool under /info/en/?search=Talk:Wool#English_%2F_German_Sheep_Market can you insert this information in the article of wool? many thanks and greets from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.56.161 ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamxz ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) forgot to sign Pamxz ( talk) 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz ( talk) 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
FYI I edited your comment on Reiki talk page to insert bullet before it to format RFC. Best. MrBill3 ( talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Why I take no part in RfAs. It is really really nasty, and petty and everything in between. Unwatched I'm afraid. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Roxy, I agree it is not really medicine. But I figure that the Transfusion medicine category is a bit more specific than the Blood category, in the same way the alternative medicine is subcatted under the medicine category. I don't feel strongly enough to revert but just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Greyjoy talk 07:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2019 Cure Award |
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your question on Macon's talk page.
WP:TRANS has more information, but basically, templates are
macros, meaning that code can be executed as part of page generation before it is sent to the browser. Any page can be used as a template, even if there's a special Template: namespace for them (that allow them to be used without needing to specify the full path to a page, for instance {{
uw-vandal2}} (equivalent to {{
Template:uw-vandal2}}) vs {{
User:Example/ExampleTemplate}}). Pages used as templates may contain macro code or not (in the case of page transclusion for deletion discussions and RFA, the feature is used to embed the page in other pages, rather than to process custom code). Templates (or pages to be used as one for embedding) can be utilized, or applied, by using brackets like {{<page>}}
.
Templates can be substituted ({{subst:<page>}}
,
Help:Substitution for details) meaning that macros in them like special variables or other code will be executed first then the result "pasted as text", rather than embedding/transcluding the template ({{
subst:uw-vandal2|page}}, the normal way to use that warning template, will generate a final (text) message including the name of the specified |page=
parameter). Infoboxes and citation templates are templates used without substitution. If the uw-vandal2 template was altered, all previous messages generated using it with substitution (subst:) remain unaltered, for the Wiki software those messages are "text"; for transcluded templates, alterations will become visible everywhere they are used (like the editor-specific RFA page that is transcluded/embedded in the main requests for adminship/bureaucrats page, the deletion discussion pages that are embedded in all sorting lists (
WP:DELSORT) as well as in the deletions page for that day.) So in this RFA case it allows a main central page to embed and provide edit access to all currently active request pages.
If the code {{
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon}} was inserted (this is transclusion) on your talk page, the whole page would become visible here (and would not be a separate copy). If {{#section-h:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon|Questions for the candidate}}
was used instead, only the "Questions for the candidate" section would be embedded instead. The WP:SKEPTIC alerts page is transcluded at the top of
WP:FTN and on my user page (via another page that transcludes it,
recursion is allowed), etc.
I hope this helps a bit, I'll be glad to try to clarify if you have more questions, the WP:HELPDESK is also a good place. — Paleo Neonate – 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
<4.5 EllenCT ( talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Roxy the dog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bright line not crossed, no benefit to project blocking me. I am aware of the rules regarding edit warring. The actual edit warrior, who had a grand total of 51 edits when I looked was editing through Extended Confirmed Protection. If ECP worked, we wouldn't be here. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests must exclusively address your own conduct, not that of others, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Gosh. I didn't know that you couldn't thank people when you are blocked. That's not nice. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
medicine
Thank you for quality article work, beginning in 2012 with edis to Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, for reverting vandalism with notices of unconstuctive editing, for excellent edit summmaries, for "recovery is more important than Wikipedia", - Roxy, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2361 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We really need better guidelines around all of these "people with disease X". In my opinion they should go in the article about the person. And maybe those who care can put them in categories. But unless one can write a paragraph about the disease in that person with multiple high quality sources (not just in passing mention or a tweet) it should not occur in the disease article. And should not occur as a list.
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
WLHESTER ( talk) 01:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I am confused as to how to get this corrected. The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally is lacking in the full scope of truth and is very slanted implying unjustly that all people attending the rally were quote... "Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[11] neo-Confederates,[12] neo-fascists,[13] white nationalists,[14] neo-Nazis,[15] Klansmen,[16] and various right-wing militias.[17] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups."
Well a rally is defined as: "a mass meeting of people making a political protest or showing support for a cause." Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=rally%20definition&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=rally%20definition&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=59D10D67E53C4E24A53E720538A745E7
To read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Unite the Right Rally" one is given the impression that the character of the marchers represented the character of all in attendance at the rally. The rally was not just the marchers, the rally by definition is everybody in attendance or all who were attracted to the rally. There were thousands of people and I would even say most of the people in attendance were there solely for protecting history, their heritage and the historical monuments. These were not there for racism, antisemitism or any other non-humanitarian or un-American purpose and they were the majority. Trump was correct when he said there were a lot of good people on both sides. We need to be careful to be accurate on this issue. These remarks by Trump have been used by the left to call him racist and this false narrative has been pushed by the liberal media and the opponent political party ever since. False information which is being fed to the citizens of the US for political purposes. This article needs to be cleaned up. It is full of false narratives, and contributes to the misinformation propaganda of the left. I hope someone can please help me correct this unjust portrayal of ordinary southern American citizens as racist, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and all the other negative character which Wikipedia has assigned to us. Wayne L. Hester
Hi Roxy Just a FYI that the Wayman Mitchell page is up for AfD in case you're interested in having a say. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayman Mitchell JohnnyBflat ( talk) 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir, In this edit, I have added few references to support the information in the page ' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Loyola_High_School&redirect=no', but it was again deleted. I just want to ask whether it is still below the Wikipedia standards and could you please elaborate on it. ImPritamShaw ( talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Then, if I use the same information in an page named as 'Loyola High School (Kolkata)'. Will it be OK with Wikipedia? ImPritamShaw ( talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently been blocked for three months. Among other pettiness and trivia the incredibly long and boring ANI complaint included the highlighting of the following wonderfully crafted edsums, which will vanish from ANI shortly, and I want them to hang around a little longer ...
your weasely bitching
you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
why are you being such a jerk?
yes, you are a jerk
you are so obtusely disputatious
Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
Get a better grip
(hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
do you have a hearing problem?
I think they deserve a barnstar, but I don't do barnstars. Thanks JJ. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
[3] The Sandra Melgar case has been featured on both 20/20 and Dateline. I was a bit surprised it apparently doesn't yet have its own Wikipedia article. Belteshazzar ( talk) 07:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, please don't delete Talk page material, as you did here [4], unless it really is beyond the pale, which this contribution wasn't. Within the deleted text I was pinged, but I couldn't find from where, and had to search the Talk page history. No big deal in the overall scheme of things, but deleting Talk page material should really be avoided if at all possible. Thanks. Arcturus ( talk) 11:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---
Rich
T|
C|
E-Mail
23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your attention is called to a mention of you at User_talk:Acroterion#User:Roxy_the_dog. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 04:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation; i'm glad it wasn't me that annoyed you ~ and i fully agree with you about much that did. In addition, i have just noticed the first section on this page, and i'd like to offer my condolences; others' sympathy surely doesn't make it easier, but i hope you know you are part of this community and therefore valued. Lindsay Hello 19:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you my edits on the Turmeric page, simply stating "not an improvement". I am rather surprised, as the goal was to improve the page by sticking more closely to the studies referenced in the paragraph. Looking at your profile, i understand you likely have (legitimate) concerns about trying to push pseudo-science, or cherry-picking studies. However, in this case, the edits simply offer further detail, directly quoting from the studies' abstracts, and present a subtler state than is currently the case on the page. For what it's worth, i also the French version of the page, removing some woo and adding some caveats to a page that is (far too) enthusiastic about Turmerics's supposed benefits.
Edit: I just saw about your dad in the opening paragraph on this page. I'm very sorry to hear, the whole situation is rubbish and not being able to attend his funeral even more so. My sympathies. I am axx ( talk) 23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
[ [5]], I assume ti was an accident. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Happened a few minutes ago, and I didn't attend because of Quarantine due to health issues. The law isn't clear, but I couldn't look an NHS worker in the face ever again, if I attended. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi, was the edit reverted due to the studies linked being meta or aggregate studies? Applejr35 ( talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I'm taking the lunatic charlatans user box - hope you don't mind! I think it's fantastic. V/R BasicsOnly ( talk) 17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm really trying to update this page, as it's an area I specialize in but I have no conflict of interest as this is all voluntary work and I'm not employed by the McKenzie Institute, but I've been working on this project under the approval of them. I saw a previous talk page about updating this posted by someone else and I have numerous actual scholarly articles to add to this page to help try and update the information and improve much of the provided literature, several of which is incorrect.
First the statement on the initial part of the article: “Research has found that the McKenzie method has, at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain. It is of no benefit for chronic back pain.” is number one, not referenced, and two, inaccurate. That statement, which was not referenced, appears to be referring to the first sentence under “Effectiveness” section which states: “According to a meta-analysis of clinical trials in 2006, treatment using the McKenzie method is somewhat effective for acute low back pain, but the evidence suggests that it is not effective for chronic low-back pain”. There have been numerous issues brought up about this research article already, reference number 8 by Machado et al 2006, which was also discussed by another wiki username Blueeye1967 (see /info/en/?search=Talk:McKenzie_method - Section “Efficacy seems overstated in a subtle way).
The article’s actual conclusion however was much different then what was stated on the Wikipedia article (see below):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16641766 Machado et al 2006 - “Conclusion: There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.”
Again, this report being inaccurate is one of the many reasons for the initiative to update this information. If you read on to our updated Effectiveness” section, there have been several recent studies done which have found much different conclusions (see below):
From our attempted update/edit: A 2012 systematic review looking at directional preference showed mixed results, with some evidence found supporting the effectiveness of directional preference when applied to participants with a directional preference upon a repeated end range movement assessment, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups.[43]
More recently, another systematic review[44] found that there was moderate to high quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for acute low back pain but is superior for chronic low back in reducing pain and disability. These findings conflict with another review.[45] However, the authors[44] reported limitations with intention to treat analyses not met in all the studies, some studies only looking at specific MDT subgroups, and no studies were included which compared MDT to other classification approaches.[44] Also, several of the studies[46][47][48[[49] included clinicians with minimal levels of training (not certified) even though they reported, “trained therapists are more reliable in classifying patients than are therapists who are not certified”.[44]
Finally, one additional systematic review[50] looked at the difference between pain and disability in patients with low back pain managed with the “core principles” of MDT versus treatment using “some or none” of the MDT principles. They found that trials following the “core principles” of MDT had greater treatment effects versus the other trials which did not follow the principles as closely.[50] They concluded that better outcomes utilizing the MDT system could be accomplished by following the core principles of MDT[50] such as matching the treatment to the specific classification. This appears to re-enforce some of the shortcomings of some the previously mentioned reviews.[44][45]
Again the attempt at all the updates/edits is to provide consumers/patients, health-care providers (doctors, therapists, chiropractors, etc.), researchers, and any others the most updated and accurate information about the McKenzie Method. We also attempted to present the information in an un-biased way to discuss the literature that was out there, specifically focusing on the systematic reviews, which did include reviews which discussed findings that were both positive and negative to the Method. No physical therapy system is perfect, and being honest about findings is important so that we can learn from them as well, but also be honest and discuss why there may be limitations to certain studies. To do an exhaustive review of the literature would be too much for the readers. We would appreciate allowing our edit back up the way it was and of course we can make some further changes to as needed. Hopefully this information was helpful and I apologize for the length of it. If there were specific suggestions that you have, or if there is a more specific way we are supposed to go about doing this then let me know. Thank you.
References (from the edit we hope to put):
8. MacHado, Luciana Andrade Carneiro; De Souza, Marcelo von Sperling; Ferreira, Paulo Henrique; Ferreira, Manuela Loureiro (2006). "The McKenzie Method for Low Back Pain". Spine. 31 (9): E254–62. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.
43. Surkitt LD., Ford JJ., Hahne AJ., Pizzari T., McMeeken JM. (2012).Efficacy of directional preference management for low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2012 May; 92(5):652-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100251..
44. Lam OT., Strenger DM., Chan-Fee M., Pham PT., Preuss RA., Robbins SM. (2018). “Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Jun;48(6):476-490. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.
45. ^ Machado, LA., De Souza M., Ferreira PH., Ferreira ML. (2006). The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine 2006; 31(9): E254-E262. [PubMed]. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.
46. Garcia AN., Costa LC., da Silva TM., Gondo FL., Cyrillo FN., Costa RA., Costa LO. (2013) Ef¬fectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93:729-747. https://doi.org/10.2522/ ptj.20120414
47. Garcia AN., Costa LC., Hancock MJ., Souza FS., Gomes GVFO., Almeida MO., Costa LOP. (2018) McKen¬zie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised pla¬cebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:594-600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097327
48. Moncelon S., Otero J. (2015) The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in chronic low back pain with directional preference. Kinésithér Rev. 2015;15:31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kine.2014.11.086
49. Murtezani A., Govori V., Meka VS., Ibraimi Z., Rrecaj S., Gashi S. (2015) A comparison of McKenzie therapy with electrophysical agents for the treatment of work re¬lated low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015; 28:247-253. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140511
50. Halliday MH., Garcia AN., Amorim AB., Machado GC., Hayden JA., Pappas E., Ferreira PH., Hancock MJ. (2019). Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Apr;49(4):219-229. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.
Why did you delete my post on talkpage Baratiiman ( talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy. I've been trying to improve the article on the Simulation Hypothesis exactly as prescribed by Wikipedia, namely, on the Talk Page with enumeration of proposed improvements. There is no question that I'm in compliance with WP:COI and other policies.
Yet you left a warning on my talk page and have ignored my responses to you there. Your warning was as follows:
"This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Simulation hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)"
I don't quite know what "personal attacks" you mean. (If you choose to be more specific, please include the exact persons toward whom the "attacks" were directed.) I also note that nothing has been done about venomous personal insults against me by "Nigerian chess player" and others by "Gary", who was recently blocked for trolling but then inexplicably unblocked.
In any case, now that I know of your concern with "personal attacks" and violations of WP:TPO and other talk page guidelines, I assume you've warned "Nigerian chess player" and "Gary" to stop their abuse on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia article on the Simulation Hypothesis. (As you made a non-administrative comment there before your warning, I assume you're aware of this abuse. Yet the abuse continued after your warning to me.)
If you are not a legitimate channel for reporting such violations, kindly direct me to the proper page. Thank you. Chris Langan ( talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Vaccine hesitancy, is that correct? If so, why? You wrote "Better before, hand waving unnecessary" but that is not a specific argument. Why do you say the article was "better before" and call my explanation "hand waving"? How about some facts and logic before you revert someone's good faith edit? Incidentally I am very pro vaccination but I think that one sentence does a bad job of setting out the pro-vaccine argument. Dratman ( talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:53, 27 June 2020 (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.
GirthSummit (blether) 12:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(
Buttinsky) Returning to the
Ayurveda article after a while, I do think it would be good to remove the odd custom rules that were devised as part of the rather erratic admin intervention used on that page. The admin who placed them is retired (lapsed bit
[6]), so I suppose any other admin could do this - I am sure normal DS is enough to cope with any disruption in this area.
Alexbrn (
talk)
07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Good catch, the discussion I was remembering was about the bio, not the lede. Thanks. Squatch347 ( talk) 12:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I just caught myself breaking it. What has become of me? - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk
14:29, 13 July 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
Rab V ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Recently, you incorrectly undid an entire series of well-cited and sourced updates to the BLP Ebi. Pursuant to Wikipedia policy, please edit only those pieces of information or line items that you see troubling rather than wholesale undoing edits to appease BLP self-promoters, which is evidenced in the activity of the article. This is not the first time that your user name has removed several well-cited links from this particular BLP and the issue will be subject to escalation and penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeweyDecimalLansky ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from any rude comments as per the talk page guidelines. I will clarify: you vandalized a BLP by undoing proper revisions to it and this is not the first time on this article for Ebi that your name can be found doing it. If you have specific lines to edit, then do so and please state your reasons. If you have additions to make, then do so, and please state the reasons. Please do not undo a series of edits by manually inserting an old source code or reverting all the way to an old version to undo all the edits in between that are authentic. This is just a warning as WikiPedia policy asks that we settle this together before I need to escalate and lock the article appropriately. DeweyDecimalLansky ( talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I was not violating any policy, you called your "admin" friend to abuse the power.
Give me a solid explanation on the articles i posted/linked were against community guidelines such as web MD?
And the edits I made were presented fair. I am willing to work with whoever to make this fair, but it seems one sided?
WP:TOOLMISUSE WP:RAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support in opposition to Lugnuts truly unjustified attempt to create another ban on my actions. It is bad enough that I have to sit back and watch tryly non-notable articles languish for over a decade because of the annoying one a day AfD rule implemented against me. It is even more egregious to watch as Lugnuts tries to prevent people from trying to enforce GNG. What Lugnuts either fails to realize or refuses to admit is what he is really pushing for is a grandfather clause that gives huge power to people who create articles despte the fact that in the past we did not even require a person to have an account to create an article. Thankyou again for your support. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Care to explain your reverts RailwayJG ( talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"stop your poor series of edits to these NE england towns" - Personal attack? Keep your issues with me to yourself. RailwayJG ( talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Right okay thank you Ivanvector for your input. I'll take on board your advice and criticism. Appreciate it RailwayJG ( talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, I want to just say I apologise for any insults made. I'm not on wikipedia to make enemies. I obviously have a way of editing you disagree with and I do with you. I'd rather we didnt have any grudge. I just like editors who revert to specify why they reverted. You made some I my opinion some edits I disagreed with but I won't hold that against you as this isn't playground politics. I'd rather end with us agreeing to start over and maybe contribute as I live in Batley West Yorkshire. You obviously know the north east very well. Anyway sorry for any hard feelings. RailwayJG ( talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that, on Wikipedia, WP:OWN is often conflated with simple WP:STEWARDSHIP, which I suspect is the case here. Ivanvector, I suppose there's WP:PROSE, though indeed, it is implied that sentence fragments on the mainspace place those pages in a state of disrepair. El_C 14:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, could you please clarify your accusation of me lying and threat to block me? I went into more detail about my reasoning for the claim I removed as being unsourced on the talk page. Thanks. -- 136.24.55.183 ( talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For vigilant reversal of whitewashing and original research on pages about anti-vaccination groups and others. Thank you! Robincantin ( talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Hey User - I know you are a part of discussions and Before reverting any edits. Try to participate and contribute something to prove yourself.Please refrain from adding, removing or changing
genres, as you did to
Siddha medicine, without providing a
source or establishing a
consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive. Please stop your disruptive editing and see
WP:BRD and
WP:CON.
90.185.50.46 (
talk)
22:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to vote Scottish Nationalist, but they dont stand here!! - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roxy the dog: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious why you restored content at Eric R. Braverman. I removed it as (mostly) BLP violations, and it's currently being discussed at Talk:Eric R. Braverman#Negative information and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Eric R. Braverman. I'm also surprised that you used Twinkle to revert a good-faith, policy complaint edit. Woodroar ( talk) 18:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Somewhere else where you can feel empowered by ignorance and idiocy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salviati64 ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Please see MOS:TENSE for the guideline here. Past tense is specifically for subjects which have literally ceased to be, or events that have passed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You've hit WP:3RR on Fulling here. Please stop. -- Jayron 32 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Generally pointless TE. My strong suggestion would be to ignore that and to stop editing or commenting regarding Fulling. Your work in various places I have seen is too valuable to be stopped by a silly dispute over is/was. It's best to keep some snark in reserve for FRINGE editors—spraying it around good editors is most undesirable. It is not possible that everyone agree with everything all the time and knowing when to step back is essential. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you please explain what's wrong with quoting a paper about the results of some basic research concerning the Feldenkrais Method? The publication doesn't even state claims of medical efficacy - it is simply a report about some interesting effects on the brain. The results where other than expected by the Feldenkrais people. I understand your scepticism, given the poor scientific evidence so far, but concerning this paper, we are not talking about some esoteric bullshit. The first author of the paper is a PhD with 27 RG points working in one of Germanys largest research institutes. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julius_Verrel
BTW Feldenkrais Method is a method of motoric learning, not a therapy. The goal of the method is to reduce the physical effort in motion. This may be helpful under certain medical conditions - serious research is necessary to find out which ones. The fact that some hippie-quacks employ the method and make evidence-free medical claims does not allow the conclusion, the whole method was quackery. Best regards, Erik ErikSchaf ( talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Gogolwold. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Macrobiotic diet seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Gogolwold (
talk)
10:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Roxy. I wanted to let you know that I placed that tag there as a way of de-escalating the thread. The resolved template I felt was more appropriate since it explicitly acknowledges that it doesn't close a discussion. Bilby's last reply to my request to drop the stick to me signaled that his initial concern, i.e., the reason for the thread, had been resolved. Not "resolved" as in "solved to everyone's satisfaction" but at least "resolved" as in "everyone agrees that this thread isn't going anywhere useful and it's time to let it die". I defer to your experience on this, but saying that it is unresolved because we haven't resolved what to do about Bilby does not seem like an issue for COIN. I have a healthy distrust of AN and AN/I so I won't be taking that aspect any further. So, just to explain why I added a template, even though I suspected placing it might be challenged. I hope this helps. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Just what it says in the title about "Polyester is NOT a fabric". I'm done arguing with you. It isn't funny, it's both RUDE and CONDESCENDING.
Dear Roxy the dog. I added the word "Nevertheless" in the Paleolithic diet article at the starting of the sentence "Following the paleo diet can lead to..." since the sentence conveys an idea anti-thetical to the previous one which talks about some improvements in health. I noticed you reverted saying "Weasel word removed". Just wondering how that word would qualify as weasel. This is not to contradict with what you did (for I'm okay with the removal), but only to know about the other view point so as to correct any mistake from my side. Thank you. Rasnaboy ( talk) 06:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
A "brand new account" adding biologist to the things Sheldrake apparently is. Guy ( help!) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
hi roxy, i have seen you check mostly the articles of wool. please can you help? i have very good information about german-english wool history but my english is not so good. i wroted it in Talk of Wool under /info/en/?search=Talk:Wool#English_%2F_German_Sheep_Market can you insert this information in the article of wool? many thanks and greets from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.56.161 ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamxz ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) forgot to sign Pamxz ( talk) 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz ( talk) 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
FYI I edited your comment on Reiki talk page to insert bullet before it to format RFC. Best. MrBill3 ( talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Why I take no part in RfAs. It is really really nasty, and petty and everything in between. Unwatched I'm afraid. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Roxy, I agree it is not really medicine. But I figure that the Transfusion medicine category is a bit more specific than the Blood category, in the same way the alternative medicine is subcatted under the medicine category. I don't feel strongly enough to revert but just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Greyjoy talk 07:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2019 Cure Award |
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your question on Macon's talk page.
WP:TRANS has more information, but basically, templates are
macros, meaning that code can be executed as part of page generation before it is sent to the browser. Any page can be used as a template, even if there's a special Template: namespace for them (that allow them to be used without needing to specify the full path to a page, for instance {{
uw-vandal2}} (equivalent to {{
Template:uw-vandal2}}) vs {{
User:Example/ExampleTemplate}}). Pages used as templates may contain macro code or not (in the case of page transclusion for deletion discussions and RFA, the feature is used to embed the page in other pages, rather than to process custom code). Templates (or pages to be used as one for embedding) can be utilized, or applied, by using brackets like {{<page>}}
.
Templates can be substituted ({{subst:<page>}}
,
Help:Substitution for details) meaning that macros in them like special variables or other code will be executed first then the result "pasted as text", rather than embedding/transcluding the template ({{
subst:uw-vandal2|page}}, the normal way to use that warning template, will generate a final (text) message including the name of the specified |page=
parameter). Infoboxes and citation templates are templates used without substitution. If the uw-vandal2 template was altered, all previous messages generated using it with substitution (subst:) remain unaltered, for the Wiki software those messages are "text"; for transcluded templates, alterations will become visible everywhere they are used (like the editor-specific RFA page that is transcluded/embedded in the main requests for adminship/bureaucrats page, the deletion discussion pages that are embedded in all sorting lists (
WP:DELSORT) as well as in the deletions page for that day.) So in this RFA case it allows a main central page to embed and provide edit access to all currently active request pages.
If the code {{
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon}} was inserted (this is transclusion) on your talk page, the whole page would become visible here (and would not be a separate copy). If {{#section-h:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon|Questions for the candidate}}
was used instead, only the "Questions for the candidate" section would be embedded instead. The WP:SKEPTIC alerts page is transcluded at the top of
WP:FTN and on my user page (via another page that transcludes it,
recursion is allowed), etc.
I hope this helps a bit, I'll be glad to try to clarify if you have more questions, the WP:HELPDESK is also a good place. — Paleo Neonate – 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
<4.5 EllenCT ( talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Roxy the dog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bright line not crossed, no benefit to project blocking me. I am aware of the rules regarding edit warring. The actual edit warrior, who had a grand total of 51 edits when I looked was editing through Extended Confirmed Protection. If ECP worked, we wouldn't be here. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests must exclusively address your own conduct, not that of others, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Gosh. I didn't know that you couldn't thank people when you are blocked. That's not nice. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
medicine
Thank you for quality article work, beginning in 2012 with edis to Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, for reverting vandalism with notices of unconstuctive editing, for excellent edit summmaries, for "recovery is more important than Wikipedia", - Roxy, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2361 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We really need better guidelines around all of these "people with disease X". In my opinion they should go in the article about the person. And maybe those who care can put them in categories. But unless one can write a paragraph about the disease in that person with multiple high quality sources (not just in passing mention or a tweet) it should not occur in the disease article. And should not occur as a list.
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
WLHESTER ( talk) 01:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I am confused as to how to get this corrected. The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally is lacking in the full scope of truth and is very slanted implying unjustly that all people attending the rally were quote... "Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[11] neo-Confederates,[12] neo-fascists,[13] white nationalists,[14] neo-Nazis,[15] Klansmen,[16] and various right-wing militias.[17] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups."
Well a rally is defined as: "a mass meeting of people making a political protest or showing support for a cause." Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=rally%20definition&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=rally%20definition&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=59D10D67E53C4E24A53E720538A745E7
To read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Unite the Right Rally" one is given the impression that the character of the marchers represented the character of all in attendance at the rally. The rally was not just the marchers, the rally by definition is everybody in attendance or all who were attracted to the rally. There were thousands of people and I would even say most of the people in attendance were there solely for protecting history, their heritage and the historical monuments. These were not there for racism, antisemitism or any other non-humanitarian or un-American purpose and they were the majority. Trump was correct when he said there were a lot of good people on both sides. We need to be careful to be accurate on this issue. These remarks by Trump have been used by the left to call him racist and this false narrative has been pushed by the liberal media and the opponent political party ever since. False information which is being fed to the citizens of the US for political purposes. This article needs to be cleaned up. It is full of false narratives, and contributes to the misinformation propaganda of the left. I hope someone can please help me correct this unjust portrayal of ordinary southern American citizens as racist, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and all the other negative character which Wikipedia has assigned to us. Wayne L. Hester
Hi Roxy Just a FYI that the Wayman Mitchell page is up for AfD in case you're interested in having a say. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayman Mitchell JohnnyBflat ( talk) 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir, In this edit, I have added few references to support the information in the page ' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Loyola_High_School&redirect=no', but it was again deleted. I just want to ask whether it is still below the Wikipedia standards and could you please elaborate on it. ImPritamShaw ( talk) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Then, if I use the same information in an page named as 'Loyola High School (Kolkata)'. Will it be OK with Wikipedia? ImPritamShaw ( talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently been blocked for three months. Among other pettiness and trivia the incredibly long and boring ANI complaint included the highlighting of the following wonderfully crafted edsums, which will vanish from ANI shortly, and I want them to hang around a little longer ...
your weasely bitching
you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
why are you being such a jerk?
yes, you are a jerk
you are so obtusely disputatious
Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
Get a better grip
(hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
do you have a hearing problem?
I think they deserve a barnstar, but I don't do barnstars. Thanks JJ. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
[3] The Sandra Melgar case has been featured on both 20/20 and Dateline. I was a bit surprised it apparently doesn't yet have its own Wikipedia article. Belteshazzar ( talk) 07:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, please don't delete Talk page material, as you did here [4], unless it really is beyond the pale, which this contribution wasn't. Within the deleted text I was pinged, but I couldn't find from where, and had to search the Talk page history. No big deal in the overall scheme of things, but deleting Talk page material should really be avoided if at all possible. Thanks. Arcturus ( talk) 11:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---
Rich
T|
C|
E-Mail
23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your attention is called to a mention of you at User_talk:Acroterion#User:Roxy_the_dog. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 04:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation; i'm glad it wasn't me that annoyed you ~ and i fully agree with you about much that did. In addition, i have just noticed the first section on this page, and i'd like to offer my condolences; others' sympathy surely doesn't make it easier, but i hope you know you are part of this community and therefore valued. Lindsay Hello 19:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you my edits on the Turmeric page, simply stating "not an improvement". I am rather surprised, as the goal was to improve the page by sticking more closely to the studies referenced in the paragraph. Looking at your profile, i understand you likely have (legitimate) concerns about trying to push pseudo-science, or cherry-picking studies. However, in this case, the edits simply offer further detail, directly quoting from the studies' abstracts, and present a subtler state than is currently the case on the page. For what it's worth, i also the French version of the page, removing some woo and adding some caveats to a page that is (far too) enthusiastic about Turmerics's supposed benefits.
Edit: I just saw about your dad in the opening paragraph on this page. I'm very sorry to hear, the whole situation is rubbish and not being able to attend his funeral even more so. My sympathies. I am axx ( talk) 23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
[ [5]], I assume ti was an accident. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Happened a few minutes ago, and I didn't attend because of Quarantine due to health issues. The law isn't clear, but I couldn't look an NHS worker in the face ever again, if I attended. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi, was the edit reverted due to the studies linked being meta or aggregate studies? Applejr35 ( talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I'm taking the lunatic charlatans user box - hope you don't mind! I think it's fantastic. V/R BasicsOnly ( talk) 17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm really trying to update this page, as it's an area I specialize in but I have no conflict of interest as this is all voluntary work and I'm not employed by the McKenzie Institute, but I've been working on this project under the approval of them. I saw a previous talk page about updating this posted by someone else and I have numerous actual scholarly articles to add to this page to help try and update the information and improve much of the provided literature, several of which is incorrect.
First the statement on the initial part of the article: “Research has found that the McKenzie method has, at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain. It is of no benefit for chronic back pain.” is number one, not referenced, and two, inaccurate. That statement, which was not referenced, appears to be referring to the first sentence under “Effectiveness” section which states: “According to a meta-analysis of clinical trials in 2006, treatment using the McKenzie method is somewhat effective for acute low back pain, but the evidence suggests that it is not effective for chronic low-back pain”. There have been numerous issues brought up about this research article already, reference number 8 by Machado et al 2006, which was also discussed by another wiki username Blueeye1967 (see /info/en/?search=Talk:McKenzie_method - Section “Efficacy seems overstated in a subtle way).
The article’s actual conclusion however was much different then what was stated on the Wikipedia article (see below):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16641766 Machado et al 2006 - “Conclusion: There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.”
Again, this report being inaccurate is one of the many reasons for the initiative to update this information. If you read on to our updated Effectiveness” section, there have been several recent studies done which have found much different conclusions (see below):
From our attempted update/edit: A 2012 systematic review looking at directional preference showed mixed results, with some evidence found supporting the effectiveness of directional preference when applied to participants with a directional preference upon a repeated end range movement assessment, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups.[43]
More recently, another systematic review[44] found that there was moderate to high quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for acute low back pain but is superior for chronic low back in reducing pain and disability. These findings conflict with another review.[45] However, the authors[44] reported limitations with intention to treat analyses not met in all the studies, some studies only looking at specific MDT subgroups, and no studies were included which compared MDT to other classification approaches.[44] Also, several of the studies[46][47][48[[49] included clinicians with minimal levels of training (not certified) even though they reported, “trained therapists are more reliable in classifying patients than are therapists who are not certified”.[44]
Finally, one additional systematic review[50] looked at the difference between pain and disability in patients with low back pain managed with the “core principles” of MDT versus treatment using “some or none” of the MDT principles. They found that trials following the “core principles” of MDT had greater treatment effects versus the other trials which did not follow the principles as closely.[50] They concluded that better outcomes utilizing the MDT system could be accomplished by following the core principles of MDT[50] such as matching the treatment to the specific classification. This appears to re-enforce some of the shortcomings of some the previously mentioned reviews.[44][45]
Again the attempt at all the updates/edits is to provide consumers/patients, health-care providers (doctors, therapists, chiropractors, etc.), researchers, and any others the most updated and accurate information about the McKenzie Method. We also attempted to present the information in an un-biased way to discuss the literature that was out there, specifically focusing on the systematic reviews, which did include reviews which discussed findings that were both positive and negative to the Method. No physical therapy system is perfect, and being honest about findings is important so that we can learn from them as well, but also be honest and discuss why there may be limitations to certain studies. To do an exhaustive review of the literature would be too much for the readers. We would appreciate allowing our edit back up the way it was and of course we can make some further changes to as needed. Hopefully this information was helpful and I apologize for the length of it. If there were specific suggestions that you have, or if there is a more specific way we are supposed to go about doing this then let me know. Thank you.
References (from the edit we hope to put):
8. MacHado, Luciana Andrade Carneiro; De Souza, Marcelo von Sperling; Ferreira, Paulo Henrique; Ferreira, Manuela Loureiro (2006). "The McKenzie Method for Low Back Pain". Spine. 31 (9): E254–62. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.
43. Surkitt LD., Ford JJ., Hahne AJ., Pizzari T., McMeeken JM. (2012).Efficacy of directional preference management for low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2012 May; 92(5):652-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100251..
44. Lam OT., Strenger DM., Chan-Fee M., Pham PT., Preuss RA., Robbins SM. (2018). “Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Jun;48(6):476-490. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.
45. ^ Machado, LA., De Souza M., Ferreira PH., Ferreira ML. (2006). The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine 2006; 31(9): E254-E262. [PubMed]. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766.
46. Garcia AN., Costa LC., da Silva TM., Gondo FL., Cyrillo FN., Costa RA., Costa LO. (2013) Ef¬fectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93:729-747. https://doi.org/10.2522/ ptj.20120414
47. Garcia AN., Costa LC., Hancock MJ., Souza FS., Gomes GVFO., Almeida MO., Costa LOP. (2018) McKen¬zie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised pla¬cebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:594-600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097327
48. Moncelon S., Otero J. (2015) The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in chronic low back pain with directional preference. Kinésithér Rev. 2015;15:31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kine.2014.11.086
49. Murtezani A., Govori V., Meka VS., Ibraimi Z., Rrecaj S., Gashi S. (2015) A comparison of McKenzie therapy with electrophysical agents for the treatment of work re¬lated low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015; 28:247-253. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140511
50. Halliday MH., Garcia AN., Amorim AB., Machado GC., Hayden JA., Pappas E., Ferreira PH., Hancock MJ. (2019). Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Apr;49(4):219-229. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.
Why did you delete my post on talkpage Baratiiman ( talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roxy. I've been trying to improve the article on the Simulation Hypothesis exactly as prescribed by Wikipedia, namely, on the Talk Page with enumeration of proposed improvements. There is no question that I'm in compliance with WP:COI and other policies.
Yet you left a warning on my talk page and have ignored my responses to you there. Your warning was as follows:
"This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Simulation hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)"
I don't quite know what "personal attacks" you mean. (If you choose to be more specific, please include the exact persons toward whom the "attacks" were directed.) I also note that nothing has been done about venomous personal insults against me by "Nigerian chess player" and others by "Gary", who was recently blocked for trolling but then inexplicably unblocked.
In any case, now that I know of your concern with "personal attacks" and violations of WP:TPO and other talk page guidelines, I assume you've warned "Nigerian chess player" and "Gary" to stop their abuse on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia article on the Simulation Hypothesis. (As you made a non-administrative comment there before your warning, I assume you're aware of this abuse. Yet the abuse continued after your warning to me.)
If you are not a legitimate channel for reporting such violations, kindly direct me to the proper page. Thank you. Chris Langan ( talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Vaccine hesitancy, is that correct? If so, why? You wrote "Better before, hand waving unnecessary" but that is not a specific argument. Why do you say the article was "better before" and call my explanation "hand waving"? How about some facts and logic before you revert someone's good faith edit? Incidentally I am very pro vaccination but I think that one sentence does a bad job of setting out the pro-vaccine argument. Dratman ( talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:53, 27 June 2020 (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.
GirthSummit (blether) 12:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(
Buttinsky) Returning to the
Ayurveda article after a while, I do think it would be good to remove the odd custom rules that were devised as part of the rather erratic admin intervention used on that page. The admin who placed them is retired (lapsed bit
[6]), so I suppose any other admin could do this - I am sure normal DS is enough to cope with any disruption in this area.
Alexbrn (
talk)
07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Good catch, the discussion I was remembering was about the bio, not the lede. Thanks. Squatch347 ( talk) 12:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I just caught myself breaking it. What has become of me? - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk
14:29, 13 July 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
Rab V ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Recently, you incorrectly undid an entire series of well-cited and sourced updates to the BLP Ebi. Pursuant to Wikipedia policy, please edit only those pieces of information or line items that you see troubling rather than wholesale undoing edits to appease BLP self-promoters, which is evidenced in the activity of the article. This is not the first time that your user name has removed several well-cited links from this particular BLP and the issue will be subject to escalation and penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeweyDecimalLansky ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from any rude comments as per the talk page guidelines. I will clarify: you vandalized a BLP by undoing proper revisions to it and this is not the first time on this article for Ebi that your name can be found doing it. If you have specific lines to edit, then do so and please state your reasons. If you have additions to make, then do so, and please state the reasons. Please do not undo a series of edits by manually inserting an old source code or reverting all the way to an old version to undo all the edits in between that are authentic. This is just a warning as WikiPedia policy asks that we settle this together before I need to escalate and lock the article appropriately. DeweyDecimalLansky ( talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I was not violating any policy, you called your "admin" friend to abuse the power.
Give me a solid explanation on the articles i posted/linked were against community guidelines such as web MD?
And the edits I made were presented fair. I am willing to work with whoever to make this fair, but it seems one sided?
WP:TOOLMISUSE WP:RAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by CounselorJustice ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support in opposition to Lugnuts truly unjustified attempt to create another ban on my actions. It is bad enough that I have to sit back and watch tryly non-notable articles languish for over a decade because of the annoying one a day AfD rule implemented against me. It is even more egregious to watch as Lugnuts tries to prevent people from trying to enforce GNG. What Lugnuts either fails to realize or refuses to admit is what he is really pushing for is a grandfather clause that gives huge power to people who create articles despte the fact that in the past we did not even require a person to have an account to create an article. Thankyou again for your support. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Care to explain your reverts RailwayJG ( talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"stop your poor series of edits to these NE england towns" - Personal attack? Keep your issues with me to yourself. RailwayJG ( talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Right okay thank you Ivanvector for your input. I'll take on board your advice and criticism. Appreciate it RailwayJG ( talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, I want to just say I apologise for any insults made. I'm not on wikipedia to make enemies. I obviously have a way of editing you disagree with and I do with you. I'd rather we didnt have any grudge. I just like editors who revert to specify why they reverted. You made some I my opinion some edits I disagreed with but I won't hold that against you as this isn't playground politics. I'd rather end with us agreeing to start over and maybe contribute as I live in Batley West Yorkshire. You obviously know the north east very well. Anyway sorry for any hard feelings. RailwayJG ( talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that, on Wikipedia, WP:OWN is often conflated with simple WP:STEWARDSHIP, which I suspect is the case here. Ivanvector, I suppose there's WP:PROSE, though indeed, it is implied that sentence fragments on the mainspace place those pages in a state of disrepair. El_C 14:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxy, could you please clarify your accusation of me lying and threat to block me? I went into more detail about my reasoning for the claim I removed as being unsourced on the talk page. Thanks. -- 136.24.55.183 ( talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For vigilant reversal of whitewashing and original research on pages about anti-vaccination groups and others. Thank you! Robincantin ( talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |