User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a waste of pixels -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Cjwilky (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

More pixel wastage. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hi Roxy, you made one of the several comments I'm concerned about - see you over there! Cjwilky (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm expected to reply to this nonsense, but I have no idea yet what to say - so why ruin a nice evening by thinking about it. There isn't any rush. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed with no action. Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was closed by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) who's topic-banned Cjwilky (talk · contribs) from homeopathy-related articles per WP:ARB/PS. Drama over (although the appeal might be amusing). Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, gosh. Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda page

Hi, I was telling that both sources, [1], and [2], don't really talk about the lack of quality control. Especially the 1st source talks about the toxic compounds that were found in medicines. I haven't removed it. Leading paragraph itself talks about the compatibility of the medicine with other medicines, but doesn't talk about its prevalence. So it is good to mention about WHO, and NIH. It hasn't been mentioned anywhere in whole article. నిజానికి (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Astrology page

Roxy, as a postscript to the discussion on cosmic cybernetics, I wanted clarify something. I have done serious work in astrological research, research methodology, and statistics. For example, here is a link to a published paper on a technical issue in statistics and I was one of the authors: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10705511.2011.557342?journalCode=hsem20#.U2KG-PldXD4 Also, one of the astrological papers was monitored and reviewed by published professors and data collected by a professor. Stephen Wolfram found my work in planet mandalas interesting and implement them in the mathematica software. Published professors have been impressed with much of this work. I have never encountered the hostile response that I received from you and other wikipedia editors. As a result of being told that I use buzzwords, conduct poor research, etc. when in fact I correspond regularly with distinguished professors, have attended academic conferences on research methodology, etc., my impression is that people like yourself actually have less experience and knowledge in the details of research methodology, statistics, and academic publishing and yet were condescending to me. I cannot see any justification for this, other than an a priori assumption that anyone pro-astrology must be daft. The entire experience gave me the impression that wikipedia is not a forum for information on controversial topics but instead a forum for defending philosophies and belief systems. I hope this information is helpful to you. There seems to be little interest in dialogue and I feel like I am forced into a position of defending myself rather than sharing information for the betterment of wikipedia. I have decided to avoid involvement with wikiepdia entirely and focus my attention in academic circles, but as a last attempt to try to make some positive contribution to wikipedia, I am posting this note here. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)DavidCochrane100

Oops, sorry, I should have put the above not in a new section. Sorry, still new to wikipedia editing. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)DavidCochrane100

This belongs on the Talk:Astrology page, not here. For the record, I stand by my comments there. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (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.

---

Dean Radin

Can you please explain why you reverted my amended edit and called it "POV"? What is your stake in that phrase, exactly? I'm trying to find a reason to avoid escalating this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to ameliorate your fringe pushing on that page, along with the other editors involved. Pov is shorthand for Point of View. Not sure how to respond to your "stake" question, except by explaining what pov means. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Dean Radin

 – Discussion moved to article talk page for wider consultation. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Pseudoscience through and through

"So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[3] The source clearly explains it is largely pseudoscience through and through. You hit the nail on the head.

Richard Keatinge disagrees with you. Keatinge thinks the WP:LEDE can be improved, but the current lede is unclear. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#The wording in the lede is ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda in America

Saw you comments after discovering an editor removing the lead as the sentences weren't simple enough. Do you want to start a merge discussion? Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda lead

Have your view Talk:Ayurveda#Cancer_UK_foundation_on_Lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

rollback

Hi Roxy the dog/Archive 2. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal Financing

Can you please explain how my revision to "legal financing" was not constructive? The previous reference was not available it was a 404 error. I located the PDF from the wayback machine, uploaded it and posted it; correcting the link on the subjects wikipedia page. The revision was extremely constructive as I simply fixed a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwfritts (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, there was nothing wrong with your contribution, and I have self reverted my mistake. Sorry. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC) i wanna talk Roxy.

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Roxy the dog, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why is a dog editing eikipedia? Also my edit concerning [Leroy Butler] is not at all a joke. we had someone who called in (I work in a call center) confirming he is in fact a computer hacker

PREVIOUS TECH NOTES PC Support Services (Level I) TT Joyce CB xxx-xxx-xxxx convinced that a pro-football player named "Leroy Butler" is hacking her computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.213.211 (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dogs can be very effective wikipedia editors, thanks to modern technology. Even inanimate food objects can do great work. Personally, I died several years ago, but even that is no obstacle. We expect that editors follow our policies on verifiability, neutrality, and so on, regardless of whether they are human or alive. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Acu page

The source is clearly outdated per WP:MEDRS. Good catch! See Talk:Acupuncture#This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Clan MacIntyre

About what i did in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacIntyre

Actually, i was translating the article, but it seems i pasted my translation in the wrong page. I'm so sorry, and thank you for correcting it. I'm translating it in a draft, but... apparently i "save the changes" in the wrong one.

) thank you.

--Kar Almaguer (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy > Do you think we were born yesterday. Not Done. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciated this.

TopherDobson (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have it roasted with some garlic and potatoes. Yum. ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Roxy the dog! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 06:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooooooooh!!! my first ever barnstar. Thank you. (but I didn't really do anything special) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note

Leaving a leading space before an image (such as in this edit) can break word wrapping. If you used a tool to make this edit, please ensure that it does not have a bug introducing this. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, no leading spaces there! Oh, I see what you mean, I shall report it to the STiki dev team, when I'm sober and coherant. Happy editing. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this a little closer, User:Xaosflux, and discovered that it was my own incompetence that led to the page formatting being broken, not anything wrong with STiki. I wanted to thank you for pointing it out to me. Thanks! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to let you know, happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not neutral?

re [4]: "Characterized" just seemed like slightly better prose, no ulterior motive. It's a synonym for "described", which is also neutral, and there's no subtle spin associated with it. [5][6] Could you elaborate? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Seeking input here, at MOS talk. Forgot to mention above that I also liked the word because it's very close to "demarcate", which is exactly what people do when they classify things as pseudoscience. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In context, I think my edit summary was perfectly clear and doesn't really need further elaboration. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, who is good with this stuff, thought "describe/call" more direct [7] so I've tried that. [8] --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I liked what you did there Invisible Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I noticed your recent response to a joke edit made by new user to Gerber Baby and was impressed by the message you left on that user's talk page. Is that your own wording or if there is a compendium of templates that give sane, friendly, brief explanations of frequent problem-edits? Thanks, please accept an invisible Barnstar, since barnstar-giving is another template-thingy I don't know how to use. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was just a standard message issued by the program STiki, which is intended to help fight vandalism on wikipedia. I've only been using it a week, but it seems to agree with me! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions template

I know that. Because I used the template, I have indicated my awareness of the sanctions. I don't intend to edit-war or edit tendentiously on any BLPs or pseudo-scientific topics. I haven't touched the Arab-Israeli wars or Indian-Pakistani wars with a ten-foot pole, and don't expect to, because areas that have real wars always have too many edit wars. Point understood. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you know that my point wasn't aimed at you in the slightest. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Message

Hey Roxy, when can we talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid1214 (talk • contribs)

Whenever you want kid. Post a message here, don't forget to sign it with four tildes. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC) ok. I'm sorry for adding stuff to your entries. I wanted to share my knowledge. Which entry of yours can i add stuff to? User:Superkid1214 ( resonate) 00:?, 5 July 2014 ( UTC). Not very good w/ tildes, whatever tildes are.

Dean Radin

Perhaps you can talk to Josephson's about his concerns on the Dean Radin talk-page. I am too busy working on other articles to get involved in a debate with him but he want's the page improved. Some other people's suggestions would be useful. Goblin Face (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll look, but must point out that I am not the intellectual match for Brian, far from it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't

Comments like this are unhelpful. Please do not make them. --John (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, but perhaps your time could have been better spent. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. It's worth my while when I can help a user keep their block log clean. --John (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

John, sincerely, thank you, I appreciate it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@John and Roxy the dog: -- John, thanks. Roxy, this (the last sentence) isn't helpful, and this (which is a response to my comment here) is grossly out of line, and such comments need to end now. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

i'm all curious

i'm all curious... why this? Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear me. I don't remember reverting, but I do remember reading that post. I've put it back, and hope you accept my apology. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

no biggie! so much goes on around here.. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You are both groovy. bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

socialist one-world domination plot

Carbon credits are in fact a fabianesque "green" socialist one-world domination plot. They hijack the means of production and the emission of currency, with what essentially amounts to a central committee deciding how much your country can produce i.e. even worse than a world central bank. I could go ON and ON and ON but nevermind. Just bear in mind as with all fabianesque operations this is probably just the first very small step. I don't blame you.

189.58.175.163 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

G-star

Hi Roxy! I want to share with the network users warning that the company is stealing money G-star ordinary users! I'm not one who is touched and I do not want this to continue! I have to prove it! There correspondence! There are accounting documents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail Zverev (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place Mikhail to try to complain about service you received from a company. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Language

Careful with the collegiality here, please? Simple tpyos are nothing to get worked up about. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I had just spent fifteen minutes trying to click from a link in an edit summary and getting nowhere, and it took me ages to figure it out. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is recommended that you don't even correct other's misspellings. See WP:TPO Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I've self reverted. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim's advice is sound, but I don't mind in this instance. I repeated the word (correctly) half a line later. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I could have done it better, perhaps by adding a comment just pointing out the error. That would have been easier too, I wouldn't have had misgivings either. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages (again?)

Heloo mr. Hoe could u change the chaudhary page ...and on what basis you are saying it wrong. ..and what's your name...The dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoty (talk • contribs) 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anoty, your changes didn't make any sense, and didn't improve the article. Thank you for your efforts, but unfortunately, I had to remove them. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) most importantly there was no source provided. Everything in WP needs a reliable source as per the policy WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, you are correct about sources of course. Question I was going to ask, is that the way to sort out unsigned posts on any talk page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

yep, that is how to handle unsigned comments. it is fine to add the unsigned template - that is what it was created for. :) and it is really helpful to everybody, so everybody knows when and by who the unsigned comment was added, and so that archiving engines can work correctly. Moving somebody else's out-of-place comment to a new section at the bottom is perfectly fine on your own Talk page. I do it sometimes, with caution, on article Talk pages, when a new comment is clearly out of place and the commentor seems pretty clearly to not know where new comments go. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sunde

There was no joke intended on Peter Sunde article, only facts. I've reverted your cencorship and added a source. Please do not sensor WP again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.37.66 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut the crap

So you're one the idealist patrolmen are you? Well familiarize yourself with the relevant code before violating it, and better still, familiarize yourself with the facts first, I already explained myself to one of your fellow idealists here, who like you, templated me on the very same matter which I feel vindicated in having struck out. The 5th Doctor (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, very good. Unfortunately, you have to be a regular in order not to be templated. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Not familiar with the informal social etiquette on Wikipedia, so thank you for the Thank You, I guess! Karin Anker (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you for the thank you! The use of 'thanks' is one of the few things that does not seem to have a huge ream of rules and regulations concerning its use here. Everything else does. I rather like that nobody but the thankee knows about it. They come out of the blue and can be very unexpected, and the system is nicely informal. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be interested

The forum links I added to User talk:Enric Naval#Vacuum teat Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Teh internetz never fails to amaze me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Our learned replies on talk:BLP were deleted! I tried sooo hard to make mine "a discussion to improve the article". Your friend, the The 5th Doctor is no longer with us and went out with a bang at the end No need to put notice on a user's talk page regarding WP:AIV. If they're that obviously vandalizing, they will likely just delete it. It's not really a discussion anyway... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks warning

Hello, I'm Holdek. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdek (talk • contribs) 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please sign posts on this talk page with four tildes. You haven't learned much in nearly ten years as an editor here, have you? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the template. --Holdek (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As you can't be civil enough to sign comments, even after you were reminded, I've done it for you. It helps with archiving etc. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem

If u think the page was better b4 I made my edit then I have no problem with this. Thanks for telling me that my edit was not good in a friendly way. Bewbslova (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Vacations

You are quite right [9] of course. On a related note, a sometime tutor of mine once said - or perhaps he said it repeatedly - "vacations mean that the college buildings become empty; they should not mean the students' minds become empty as well". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No TM?

Thank you for your contributions. Just checking in with you. Is there really policy against using the TM modifier? I will refrain until I hear back. If so thank you and a pointer to the policy would be helpful. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was taking the mickey a little, actually a lot, but I do believe that WP:MOSTM applies - viz ...

• Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).
  • avoid: LittleBigPlanet™, REALTOR®
  • instead, use: LittleBigPlanet, Realtor

Also, take a look at the mini edit war I had this week on Jarlsberg cheese.

In case I ever make any similar observations or comments in regard to your editing in future, do remember that imho your abilities far outweigh my own, and you set a fine example for people like me to aspire to. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Really I just have expertise in citation templates, and maybe advocating for following policy (explaining the core policies two or three times a week will do that for ya). I suspected you might be slightly in jest, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't running afoul of something serious. I will continue to break all the rules as a bold Consensus Of One®. Thank you for your kind words. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See what happens when you bring an article to my attention!!! Four hours of my life on Jarlsberg... I just couldn't bear the existing references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If your not careful, I'll archive your talk page ;) - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching through the day, and couldn't resist a tiny contribution. You couldn't do that unless you were really secretly enjoying yourself, and the process as it progressed was very interesting to see, I am impressed. Thanks a lot. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that you know my secret process, I'll have to kill you ;) Its pretty basic. Step one, verify, check the existing refs, format them up including accurate attribution. Step two tag it up. Step three, research, assuming most facts are actually true, try to find better sources, deleting poor ones on the way. Step three add some stuff found in step two and anything that seems significant in general research.

The drawbacks to this approach can include supporting crap and following existing suboptimal organization. I haven't really worked on content development skills enough to use a higher quality approach of researching the subject independent of the existing article (with note taking and source prep) followed by creating an outline based on a decent understanding of the subject then superimposing that on the existing content.

As a reference/research nut I often just format up the existing refs, put a list of suggested refs in Further reading or on the talk page and try to point others at the article. I like to read up and learn about a subject but paraphrasing and organizing thoughts into a structured article meh.

Anytime you are looking for sources or information to improve an article you can leave me a note on my talk page. I have access to a substantial set of databases (keep your library and school accounts current), a few courtesy of the Wikipedia Library and am usually willing to help out. Thanks for your kind words. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr Bill, Shall we propose a name change from Roxy the Dog to Roxy the Dog™? Doesn't say anything about talk pages nor user names... Jim1138 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem the user name policy does discuss this, please see WP:U also note this WP:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2006/October#Evil-ted.E2.84.A2 .E2.86.92 Evil-ted. I would strongly urge the proposing editor to familiarize themselves with applicable policy. I would note in addition that the selection of a user name and attendant signature are a matter of personal choice and not subject to the consensus process. I might add however that although policy allows users autonomous and somewhat complete control of their talk page, my proposal to archive is based on facilitating ease of use by the community and as such would improve the encyclopedia. This action would thus be supported by policy, see WP:IGNORE. In case misinterpreted, my comments are intended as self parody - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just trying this out ... Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks warning 2

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

(This is in reference to your most recent edit summary on your talk page.) --Holdek (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had a lovely evening watching a youtube video of probably the finest jazz pianist ever [[10]], plus a great drummer, and bass player, in Berlin, Germany, in 1985. It is a sublime concert, but you keep ruining it with sour notes. Your behaviour today towards BBB was appalling, and you are now being a hypocrite. Please, I ask once more, stop it. Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

oooo that is amazing. thanks for linking to it!! Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The best way for you to avoid these situations is to familiarize yourself with WP: NPA. --Holdek (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you react if I templated you for your own disruptive editing? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Where have I edited disruptively? --Holdek (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Holdek, if you continue this, I will bring to you to ANI. You provided notice to Roxy once and that is sufficient. Whatever you think happened, drop the stick and please go work on editing. Roxy, I suggest that you explicitly ask Holdek to stay off your Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion here Jytdog, I had considered asking him to confine himself to the rest of the internet, but it would serve no purpose. His lack of self-awareness is troubling, but I am aware of my own shortcomings. This sort of thing has happened to me before at other places on teh internetz, and I eventually regain some perspective. I have decided on another approach which may be worthwhile. I am going to ask for help on a subject where I feel his experience will be genuinely valuable to me, and see what happens. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

He asked me a question, I responded. You don't need to worry about it. --Holdek (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Krill oil

FYI, Josve2014 has been in #wikipedia-en-help recently, trying to get help with the drama with this article. He doesn't seem to be trying to act in bad faith, and we've given him some clue about copyvios, and tried to give him some clue about editing in general, including asking him to not make huge edits to something that has already had drama, and to keep things on the talk page for now. I'm currently trying to go through the last six months (joy) of edits that got reverted and see if there is anything usable that can be pulled out of it.

Unfortunately, the whole thing has recently been heated up by edit warring (some of which was legitimate removal of copyvios, admittedly) and huge reverts, so the history is confused. I'm not a 'content writer', and not going to try to write anything new, but see what I can get out of the past. Since edits were made on top of unusable content, I'm probably going to end up with something that's hacked together as hell for a bit, so I'd appreciate some patience if it gets mangled. We'll see what I can do, and then hopefully get the interested parties to agree on a NPOV about it. Revent^talk 15:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your user page, btw. :) Revent^talk 16:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No problems here, I haven't been able to make sense of what Joka is trying to say since he mangled Prak Mann's comments on the Talk page. I know Prak from another place, his skills at assessing the technicalities of papers of this type are good. I am hoping he will contribute to discussion soon, but we will have to wait and see.

As to my user page, I rather like its laconic style, with a little bite too. Thank you;) Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, show me the section where it's stated that the ID proponent said that

Remember that the article was written by the natural selection proponent. Here are the parts I could find where an acknowledged ID proponent is being quoted:

• “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” (direct quote made in article)

• “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.” (direct quote made in article)

• I mentioned in the debate that I thought this difficulty—acknowledged as it was by other ID theorists—was the deepest and most interesting challenge facing ID. But Meyer assured me that this is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory (paraphrased in article as here)

• The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like. (paraphrased in article as here)

• My presentation [...] was dismissed as a “bunch of pictures—characters from The Simpsons (a cartoon of Homer evolving); a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs (ambulecetus, a well-established and very significant transitional fossil connecting sea mammals to their terrestrial ancestors); and a pretty picture taken at [my] vacation home.” In contrast, my debate partner’s presentation was “sleek, professional, and chock-full of evidence and data.”

• [...] Meyer’s presentation was very technical, although anything but “chock full of evidence.” My rather serious claim that ID had no theory and thus no evidence at all was dismissed, not addressed. The ID folk are now assuring their readers that their guy won; my defense of evolution was apparently pitiful: “Where was the new evidence?” the reviewer asks. “Where were the cutting-edge studies supportive of [my] view?”

• My debate partner in Virginia was articulate, educated, likable, and familiar with a vast range of relevant scientific research.

Unless I've missed some parts of this article (please correct me if I did, but do so reproducing a quote from the cited article, or provide an alternative reliable source supporting your statement), the amendment, "conceding that they have yet to [...] have any kind of scientific evidence" cannot stand as nobody in the cited article conceded such a thing. The point here is that nobody has been quoted as explicitly conceding that they have no evidence. This can therefore not be adopted into the article.

Let me make a few further points about this:

1. We must avoid original research. Our job is to collate material from reliable sources, not to interpret them. That, by contrast, would be the job for an essayist such as the one referenced.
2. I'm not sure how relevant it is to reproduce what can be seen as slips of the tongue of one proponent or another, as this has happened to both sides. Particularly the lede of an article should represent a consensus view of a subject. I'm aware that ID proponents are sometimes quick to latch on to any ambiguity or unfortunate phrasing. However, what may or may not be common practice by the proponents of one theory cannot also become the basis of Wikipedia's style.
3. The reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is more important than any role - forced upon us, it seems to me, but perhaps inevitably so - as a soapbox in debates. This is made very clear in the policies that we as a community have given ourselves.

I have no interest in what views you or User:Dr.Brock.Schuman hold. I will simply ensure that Wikipedia's contents accurately reflect what its cited reliable sources say. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you could change the article to a version that complies with our policies and the cited sources. As the article receives close to a thousand views per day, I expect a swift response.

Thanks in advance,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADLINE and the source for that sentence. Its there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ALSO it might be a good idea to be a little more polite in your demands, especially when you are in the wrong. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just show me the line. The request is pretty simple. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this content discussion to the article Talk page, where it belongs. Please respond there. thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

kombucha change

Hi Roxy the Dog, I have seen your note on revert of my change of the part of kombucha article about “kombucha originating in Northern East China or Manchuria” - which I changed "as one of the possibilities". Do you know the source of such claim that it is really for sure from there? I have been working with kombucha for many years both as hobbyist and professional and I have not seen any proof of origin of the culture which would be lets say well funded, the same applies to the age of the culture - when it was created or it “happened to exist”. That applies to both scientific journals and popular literature. I am very interested to know where is the culture from and “when”, however I'm afraid that for really sound answer quite serious research would have to be done, I don’t think that even historical sources would be enough as prove - unfortunately especially from China, the claims about variety of subjects coming out from this country in last several decades are sometimes really ridiculous (which I'm sorry for, great history and I believe future). Please let me know if you know the person or source of the information if not I would suggest to change the "origin" to unknown or speculative because I do believe it is better not to give false evidence - I'm biotechnologist by training. Thanks a lot of any info and keeping an eye on the article, it is one of the ones which I check from time to time - biofilm based polycultures are what I’m into.

Sincerely FAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algoldor (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the nearest ended decade, It's the nearest decade.

Per above. No reverts are made to prevent escalation to Edit War.CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 09:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Corby as rock deity

I can see how the reference to Michael Corby as a rock deity may be viewed as not enhancing the article, but his and the late Adrian Millar's contribution to popular music through the formation of a seminal group such as The Babys does deserve greater mention. It is one of the most controversial matters I have ever come across in my study of popular music. It needs a fresh approach from someone who is prepared to give themselves to a truly accurate historical picture of the group's origins and development.

All that we seem to have is a Facebook Fan Page, although extensive in its content, detailing his role as financier and founding member. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Corby-Fan-Site/263555143795620. Other internet articles seem to refer to Corby in a dismissive fashion.

In case you are in any doubt (because of their humorous name) about the musical ability of The Babys, tracks such as "World In A Bottle" and "I'm Falling" should dispel any reservations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.29.17 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

question from inspector gadget, pasted from Roxy's User page

hello im inspector gadget and my edit was removed. I did online research and person to person and its well known in Caribbean history. Personal i feel its ridiculous but its what they really believe so if theres anything i can do to fox this please let me know thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectorgadget101 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2014‎ 15:49 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the above comment is about this edit by Inspectorgadget101 and this reversionby Roxy. InspectorGadget added it to Roxy's User page - I cut it and pasted it here. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gadget! What you need to do before you put something like that into an article is to find a reliable source for it. See WP:RS for guidance. That there wasn't a source was the reason I removed your contribution. It seems that you've stumbled across a bit of Caribbean folklore, and if you can find a source, I think it should go back in the article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding DangerousPanda's block of Barney the barney barney. I briefly mentioned your many helpful but completely ignored suggestions. I thought you made good points and did not get listened to and that's pretty much what I think I said at ANI. But it is ANI, so I think I'm required to give you a formal notice that I mentioned you, in case you wish to comment. The thread is What started it all. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The ANI was closed just over an hour after you posted this note, just a few minutes before I actually saw it. While I sympathise with BBB's unfortunate circumstances, I felt I was unable to comment there, having nothing to usefully contribute. The way things are although there might be the appearance of admins piling on after the fact, - I was unaware that Bearcat is an admin himself until some days after the incident - I am familiar with the pressure on admins to act properly from personal experience at another place. I can't see any policy or guideline based way that BBB can be admitted back. Your efforts on BBB's behalf are appreciated, as I believe him to be a valuable builder of content that wikipedia has deprived itself of. I think that the ball is in BBB's court now. I believe also, Msnicki, that DangerousPanda feels that way about BBB too, fwiw. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

hi Ilumk (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy (moved from top of page)

I do not want to enter into edit war. I completely agree with the suggestion of brunton and will implement his suggestion Drpjkurian (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Roxy my Dog

I used to have a dog called Roxy. She passed a few years because of her age. It's good to see her continuing somewhere Luxure (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Chopra

"if Chopra turns his back on the modern world to promote his magic, then so be it. If the cap fits." If you have strong, pejorative feelings about Mr. Chopra, are sure it's appropriate for you to be trying to influence the content of that article, especially since it's a BLP? Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Query

I was asked what you were trying to do here. Can you explain? --John (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Supporting DV. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. And would you stand by this edit? --John (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you threatening me? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a really simple question. Nevertheless, I will rephrase it. Do you plan to make more edits along the lines of the one I have highlighted? --John (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No. But I note you didn't answer my question. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you. In answer to your question, no, I am not threatening you, but doing my job as admin. I would not be doing it correctly if I did not point out that any repetition of this edit would lead to a block. This is not a threat, but an inevitable consequence. But as you said you wouldn't be doing it again, neither of us has to worry about that. --John (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the only good thing to come out of this is the knowledge that John doesn't play any favourites -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

The message you're about to read is not particularly important...I just wanted to say "hi!" I appreciate that you took the time to look into my edits I explained on TRPOD's talk page (the inclusion of "Derp and Merp" characters on the "Derp" article). Most "talk page stalkers" I have encountered immediately agree with whatever the owner of the talk page thinks and don't even look at the article edits that are being talked about. So, this isn't a question, concern or anything. Just a compliment on your ethic! Thank you, Squiddaddy (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this note, Squiddaddy, I appreciate it. My comment on TRPOD's talk page was a late night after two whiskys throwaway, but it was clear that your own "Derp" edit was a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia, and I wanted to make a comment reflecting that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss here

Now that you have already refused to make any discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine(per your statement - I shall not be contributing further to this), can you inform that how official guidelines disallow you to wikilink the technical terms at least once on the section? Also what's the reason behind removing the terms like Toxicology, Psychiatry, etc. when they are clearly supported by the reliable citations and there's clear consensus to include them. I am doubtful that why you are telling me to follow BRD, when I am already doing with this longstanding content. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets not discuss here, where other people who may have an interest wont be aware of a content discussion, unless you do your normal canvassing of sympathetic opinion to your cause. Instead, discuss it at the proper place, the article talk page. Note that though you didn't hear it, I did raise the issue at the project medicine discussion. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you had stopped responding there already right after you had made an irrelevant one liner comment. I don't see that you have raised issue anywhere, or else you are saying that your last contributions got deleted, which is just not possible. Anyways I have posted on talk once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary here. I don't think this is a revert, but I don't think it's right either. For what it's worth I believe on Wikipedia we capitalise Internet. --John (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A convention among early geeks was to use lowercase i for interconnected networks, and an uppercase I for the global interconnected network. However, the lowercase version is now very widely used in the real world. And when I seize control of the English language, I will ban all prescriptivism. bobrayner (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So, can I call on you?

Just saw this on your page: "This user resists the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans." Are you up to facing a very resilient editor working on a number of pages that are relatively out of sight (not major subjects) pushing extreme lunatic fringe views? Let me know. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'd take a look at anything interesting, but no promises ;) . -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the same userbox. I too would be willing to look at things, but I too have my limits. Let's hear it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we should find a very resilient editor in such unpleasant surroundings, we could perhaps convert them, and make them into a WP:NPOV editor? What do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What's the problem, and can I help? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, this is so encouraging. I saw your replies only now, and it is now 01:10 AM here. I will get back to you guys tomorrow. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

[11] Do you feel that WP editors should at least make an attempt to be neutral about the topics we edit, especially since it's actually a policy that we do so? Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of policy is monumental. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Travelan

The IP WP:DEPRODded it, and even though it was clearly bad faith we can't revert it. I started an AfD, so please comment in that. I'm not sure if it goes with the "obvious vandalism" anti-criteria in that section, but I'd like to play it safe. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 05:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Origamite, thanks for putting me right on this, it's often the only way I learn stuff. I also have WP:PROD open in another window - there is always something else to learn. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked your account for 24 hours for the latter part of this comment. I don't especially care what you think of me or my motivations, but you will not disrupt this article's talk page with comments on the motivations of other editors. On your return, please use article talk to discuss improving the article, and raise any concerns about editor behaviour in one of the other locations for this. --John (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

John -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin

Roxy the dog made these comments in full knowledge of the editing restrictions I placed here. I would rather see an acknowledgement that the comments were out of order than an appeal based on the legitimacy of the block. --John (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and I was very very careful not to make personal attacks or to harass anybody. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In my view you crossed the line I drew when I said "No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations." when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority". --John (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your reason for my block. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Further note to potential reviewing admin If we have interacted in the past, thank you for your interest, but allow an uninvolved admin to review this. I will of course accept any further review. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair warning to any reviewing admin; I am considering taking this block to arbcom for consideration, as an initial request to the blocking administrator has not met with a helpful response. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000:- in my humble opinion, a WP:RFC/ADMIN in regard to the whole thing, including the 0RR restrictions, Bladesmulti's block and QuackGuru's block would be more constructive. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• You were warned before.[12] What about "fringe editor/s",[13]-[14] irrelevant use of the word quackery[15]. After seeing your unblock request, I would just say that you clearly don't understand that why you were blocked. You have accused other user of vandalism when those edits were not vandalism and you have claimed that I do things underhanded.[16] That all comes from hardly four pages that I have viewed. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:- from my perspective, the comment you were blocked for does seem to be assuming bad faith to other editors. I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. Nevertheless, my advice would be to rephrase your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to thank you for your review using the normal method PhilKnight, as I believe my block prevents those links appearing. As it is very early in the morning here, and I haven't yet had my necessary amount of tea to enable proper cognitive function to set in, I will take your sage advice under advisement, and merely strike my appeal comments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@John I've been trying to understand your reasoning for this block. My best guess so far is that Roxy the dog used the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority" in this edit, and that you interpreted that as name calling in defiance of your editing restrictions here. Was that your reasoning? Cardamon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I, too, am curious about the reasoning behind the block.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this explain it a bit more? The admin John was not interested in this topic area. He became interested in this topic area because of me. It appears he got angry at me after I told him to stop restoring comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John's a passive-aggressive character underneath that veneer of gentility. Your best bet is to lobby other admins to join in supervising the article, the way Bladesmulti has lobbied John. (See John's talk page -- Bladesmulti has handled him well.) 216.3.101.62 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rolfing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rolfing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.playnlive.com/blog/rolfing/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   Bfpage |leave a message  14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you mad? Why have you posted this here User:Bfpage -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation of this, in other words a couple of clicks, it appears that User:Bfpage doesn't have a clue what is going on. I will watch developments with interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice

I noticed you alleged at the admin's noticeboard that I have "stated that he does not watch the page". Could you be careful about making inaccurate statements like this in the future please? A good tip is for any claim about another editor's behaviour you should always give a diff, as I have modelled for you here. If you can't (or can't be bothered looking), it's worth considering not making the claim. This is just friendly advice by the way, to avoid the risk of you looking foolish to others. Cheers, --John (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fed up with faux politeness. What do you want me to do? and do your daft sanctions extend to this or other pages outside the Ayurveda article and Talk page? cheers indeed -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider that my politeness may not be faux. I respect your good intentions as you should respect mine. Politeness and regard for editing process are necessary if we wish to make progress, especially in difficult areas like the one we are currently discussing. I am sorry if you think that my sanctions are "daft". What do you not like about them? I'll take your declining to comment on the comment and suggestion I made as implying that you acknowledge your mistake and you will try not to repeat it. That would be great. I do not hold grudges and I look forward to your continued contributions at Talk:Ayurveda, so long as you can avoid insulting others. Best regards, --John (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Lunatic charlatans deserve contempt. People who enable them also. The fact that I am worried that posting such a comment will lead to further sanctions from you is very very sad. So, should I consider my own talk page subject to your sanctions or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And how about userpages? Because there's a userbox for the lunatic charlatans comment, I think it's amongst mine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Its the only one on my userpage ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so it is. Could I persuade you to adopt any of mine? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I notice you continue to misrepresent my statements. You really do need to be careful about that. I will not block you for making false statements about me but if you continue it is likely that others may. My advice would be to let this aspect of the situation drop. Others will (mostly) have the intelligence to read the diffs and see what I actually said; by stating I said something I did not you will only make yourself look foolish and devalue any future points you may wish to make. --John (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• How about disagreeing with you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with me is fine, over matters of opinion or interpretation. Stating I said something which I did not say is a no-no, especially at an Admins' Noticeboard. --John (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Whether it is a matter of opinion or not could be argued, for example at arbcom or in the RFC/ADMIN that another admin has suggested might be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• It could, but not with any prospect of success. One of the problems this noise is causing is that, while my patience and ability to assume good faith are large, they are not infinite. In a situation like this, when a mis-statement is made, it is either malicious or incompetent. In either case it does not reflect well on those making it. In the diff Roxy the dog quotes, I said I had not been (past tense) watching the AN/I discussion, which was true; the discussion had been open around 24 hours at that point. Your friend has used it to support a claim that "he does not watch the [talk] page [of the article]" (present tense, and an entirely different page). When someone makes a false claim like this, whether it is down to incompetence or malevolence, it does do harm, because there is a danger that someone who is pressed for time will take it at face value. That is why such false claims will not be allowed to stand; even although minor misbehaviours will likely be ignored, something like this will not be. My preference would be that Roxy let this drop, correct the mistake (let's assume that's what it was), and try not to repeat it. If you, he, or anyone else thinks there is an RfC against me in any of this, while I cannot see it, obviously that is an option open to you, though as always there may be a danger of being hit by the WP:BOOMERANG if you are seen as filing in bad faith. --John (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

John, speaking of explanations, is there one for why you have not been able to give this up? A few days ago, I accepted that you couldn't possibly be involved because Roxy stood up for you and said you weren't. But the whole point of this thread seems to be to take Roxy to task for saying basically that very same thing, but not at a time when it would get you out of trouble. Should I unstrike that sentence after all? If Roxy says something about you in a talk page discussion that you think is incorrect, I think you should offer the correction at the time and on that same page and be done with it. What you're doing here looks like it's become way too personal to you and you'd like to make it personal for Roxy, too. That's not good. Msnicki (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) John, I am a bit confused about the precise nature of your objections, and if you would kindly answer two questions, I would be happy to help bring this thread to a close. Two questions:

1) The 2nd statement you objected to is this: "Here is a diff from John's talk page, following a comment from John on my talk page". The first dif is indeed from you and is from 13 November 2014; the second dif is actually by Roxy and is from 19 November 2014. Is what you are objecting to, that the second diff is not by you, and actually after the first (the first did not follow it )? I imagine that is the case, and if you confirm, I suggest that Roxy just strike the comment.

2) The first statement by Roxy that you objected to, was his statement that "(he) has stated that he does not watch the page" which Roxy wrote 19 November 2014 in this dif. However, on your talk page on 13 November 2014 you wrote the following when asked about the discussion on the Ayurveda talk page, in this dif: "Really? I haven't been watching." Would you please explain what you find inaccurate about Roxy's comment? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) (striking this, thanks to Roxy's comment below Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC))

John is unlikely to answer based on previous behaviour I'm afraid Jytdog, however, if you take a look at the first diff again, you will see that User:Kww and John are discussing WP:ANI#Ayurveda not the Talk:Ayurveda page. It took me a considerable amount of time to figure that out. I do appreciate your interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction, Roxy. I believe John will respond. On the second issue I raised (the first one John raised): do you have a diff, for the place where John actually said he was not watching the page? thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I had thought that that first diff meant that John said he was not watching the Ayurveda Talk page, but it actually meant he was not watching the Ayurdeda ANI thread, a very different but related thing. If I had a diff of John admitting he wasn't watching Talk:Ayurveda I would share it;) --- Are my diffs all wrong and messed up? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

i see. that is an honest mistake. in my view you should strike both comments and apologize, as both seem inaccurate in one way or another. it is actually a good thing, when you are in a dispute with another editor, to show you are not a crazy person and can acknowledge mistakes. helps make the other party look even more inflexible and unreasonable. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

John

I think John violated the guidelines in several ways when he blocked you. He failed to warn you as required by WP:BEFOREBLOCK. As one of the participants in the debate, he shouldn't have been using the tools anyway per WP:INVOLVED. More fundamentally, I don't think you did anything deserving a block even if warned and even if imposed by someone not involved. I just do not believe your comments were sufficiently rude and directed to clear the hurdle as personal attacks.

When I tried raising my concerns about the block with John (twice! 1, 2) he simply refused (twice! 3, 4) to discuss them in violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. I've never crossed paths with John before to have any personal knowledge but my guess is that if it's that easy to pick out problems in John's decisions, this is not the first time he's shown poor judgment. I'm guessing that if he makes it worthwhile to investigate, for example, by carrying out his threat of new blocks on similarly specious grounds, there's probably a treasure trove of bad decisions to be found and documented.

Since this was only a 24-hr block and it's over and given also how notoriously difficult it is to hold admins accountable for anything, I expect you'll probably decide to let this drop. That's probably the best course. But should you decide to pursue the matter or if he carries out his threat of another block I would be willing to certify an RFCU or to make a statement in support as an involved party in an ArbCom request. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

John has taken the discussion to my talk page, starting here. I am now satisfied that John was not WP:INVOLVED. Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Msnicki, in May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me. This is a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. This is a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. Any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Now the admin John suggests there should further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog. That is "problematic". QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may, I was persecuted by this admin and his cronies from day 1, arbiters of all things Scottish and everything scientific that they are. The unremitting threats (sorry, friendly pointing out the inevitable consequences of my actions) etc caused me to stop contributing to WP shortly thereafter. He is not interested in improving WP as an encyclopedia, only in exerting control over others. Entertainingly, on his talk page he rails against the 'arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia'. His hauteur is matched only by his hypocrisy. Flagators (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a major difference between you and I. I believe in following the rules. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh, seemingly not. Flagators (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting Chopra

[Inappropriate comments deleted.] Manul 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, check your email. Manul 00:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this sounds a big load of hookum, and borders on WP:OUTING as well. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[17] (second paragraph) :) And no this is not WP:OUTING. Please read Tumbleman's OWN post signing his comment with his real name [18]. I can give you loads more diffs, check his talk-page he admitted to being that person. Goblin Face (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda stuff

Best not to revert when another party adds content in violation of the sanctions. No, make that "best not to revert especially when the other party adds content in violation of the sanctions." By keeping your own nose clean the other party's misconduct is clearer, rather than turning it into a back-and-forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so bloody angry ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine. John's administration of the article has been considerably sub-optimal, but unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about it. I've tried to get other admins to join in and none are willing. But you don't want to give any excuses to block you. Like my dear sainted mother often said, "life isn't always fair." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have decided on a new strategy for tonight. I shall now turn off the computer and go and watch MOTD. Bye. _Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As a dog, it's best not to have an argument on the talk page of someone who has you on a short leash. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 blocked for a month

That looks suspiciously likely punishment not preventative precaution to me. Disgusting. I am glad you thought along the same lines. Greglocock (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)