Jump to content

User talk:Roxy the dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roxy the dog (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 12 June 2017 (→‎"Flatulance" claim: wut?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite - how is it that the above user is able to canvas for support anytime, though when I attempted to included previous commentators on the move, it was frowned upon? Talk about hypocrisy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation 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 user group 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 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you for this insult in which you saw an editor blocked for calling someone a "prick", went to that editor's talk page and below the block notice, called the blocking administrator a "prick". Can you see why this was not a wise thing to do? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that make you? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page access revoked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Ivanvector, if you sign up to be an admin, I think you sign up to show a thicker skin than you've displayed here. Admins should strive to model the behavior they seek, including resisting the temptation to escalate situations. They should try to resolve and deescalate conflicts, e.g., in this case, by first giving Roxy the chance to revert or edit his comment to make it conform to the guidelines. Admins should definitely avoid giving the chilling impression that if you criticize an admin, you will be blocked. Admins aren't royalty immune from criticism and behaving as if perhaps they are undermines the legitimacy of the authority you've been granted. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I second what Msnicki just said. I would ask you to take 2 minutes and thoroughly read Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility and then to reconsider what you just did here. ~Awilley (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's under review at ANI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe give Roxy a break. Check out the user's block log, clean except for the same people involved in this discussion. Roxy the Dog seems to be giving a personal opinion from some kind of earlier interaction between themself and the admin, so it's more of a you holding them back and both trying to get the last punch in on someone, anyone. Maybe keep Roxy in the hoosegow for a few hours, and then, per Roxy's fairly clean block record, let the good dog loose on society. Randy Kryn 19:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I too see this as a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roxy! I'm not sure I know you very well, so I suppose I'm uninvolved. I also think Ivanvector is a pretty decent admin, and I think one shouldn't go around yelling bad words at other people. Having said that, if you tell me (and the rest of us) that you'll stop doing that, I will unblock you, if that's OK with Ivanvector. I'll unblock your talk page so you can let us know. Please do ping me when you respond, since I'm sort of out and about--you know, after dinner, kids' baths, James Hardin and his magnificent beard on TV... Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roxy, I'm going to jump in here and unblock you, hopefully saving Drmies a little time to spend with his family. I realize you're probably a bit agitated, but I would ask you to refrain from calling anybody names. I've not had the pleasure of being blocked myself, but I imagine that a block would make me feel helpless, like I couldn't control anything that was happening to me. Well, this unblock puts you back in control again. If you want to get blocked again there will be plenty of admins (including myself) watching you closely for the next little while happy to oblige. ~Awilley (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. Berean Hunter, I think you need to learn how to deescalate. Way too many of your posts are judgemental and filled with hostility. This threat is a new low that nearly takes my breath away. Your objective as an admin should be to encourage good behavior primarily by modeling it, which is definitely not what you're doing here. Msnicki (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berean, Awilley, I propose we don't do anything until we hear from Roxy; if they don't have anything to say, we don't need to be unblocking right now. Awilley, I do not see a consensus to unblock--not that we necessarily need one--nor do I see a reasonable unblock request; Roxy's next edit might be a valid request to be unblocked. Berean, I do not see a consensus that the block is unproblematic, and you know that we don't need to to plow deeply into policy to come up with a decent solution. Roxy said some stupid things and shouldn't have said them; whether they deserve a block for that is another matter. Let's deal with these one problem at the time, without creating new ones along the way, please. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, Drmies, I'm in no rush. Thanks for stepping in. My priority here is to do this in a way that creates as little drama and wastes as little time as possible. Looks like my first attempt at that backfired. ~Awilley (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks--hey, you can't win them all. I know you a little bit, and I know Berean Hunter a bit too, and we all want what's good for the project. I'll make some coffee and let's all check back in a little bit. You saw, I'm sure, that I offered to unblock too, but I proposed certain conditions based on my (quick) reading of the situation; if you think I misread it, we can discuss--Berean Hunter, I invite you too to weigh in about an unblock and its possible conditions. Oh, it'll be instant coffee--I'm running low on the real thing. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Drmies & SQL but that would be Wheel wouldn't it? I mean on you if you reblocked. I was looking to avert wheel with a block warning. Trust me, I don't want to but the community needs to have it's chance without admins gaming. If you can halt them then I'm fine with that. No cowboy unblocks here. I don't have an issue with Roxy at all, this is about letting proper procedures take there course. Nothing personal against Awilley either. I find the emotions run higher when this happens which is why I want to see it averted. Let it roll 24 hours at ANI. Beeblebrox has made the excellent point of not closing threads so quickly...this one should run a bit.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You want a discussion about whether a 24 hour block should be lifted to run for 24 hours? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. :) 12 hours or Roxy and Drmies work something out, whichever comes first...I'm good with that. I can't speak for Ivan or others in that discussion but I'm fine with that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Berean--yeah, I suppose so, but that's a price that's worth paying to maintaining a status quo--maybe. IBeeblebrox frequently makes excellent points: of all the admins I want to have a beer with, he's on top of the list. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede as I hope you will that the guidelines requirement that Roxy be given notice before the block was not followed and that what should have happened was a warning with no response required, then I hope you'll agree there is simply no valid rationale for demanding Roxy say anything at all as a condition of lifting an invalid block. The only thing that should be required of Roxy is that there should not be any repeat offenses. Msnicki (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki, I appreciate the comment, but please leave it to the admins: this is not ANI, and it will be an admin who decides on an unblock. Any admin who does that will be able to derive plenty of advice from that ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I'm allowed to tell you when I think your actions as an admin are unhelpful, unfair or inconsistent with the guidelines as I believe they are right now. Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a free-speech zone, and you can yak all you want but you fail to realize that you got three admins here working to achieve a resolution, and you're not helping. You are the last thing that Roxy the Dog needs. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it pretty nearly is a free speech zone. As long as I stay within the guidelines, I can say anything I like. Your behavior makes it appear the rules are different for admins and non-admins. Roxy's block was not in accordance with guidelines and happened within minutes. But you'd still like to block him. Yet nothing happens to Ivanvector for the bad block. I implore you to consider how this looks. It's not helped by the "move along kid, nothing to see here" dismissal. Admins must always be clear in communicating that their actions as admins are always answerable to the community and that when they make a mistake, they will admit it and fix it. Msnicki (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... You read this as @Drmies: wanting roxy to remain blocked? You might want to re-read. SQLQuery me! 03:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as Drmies insisting on keeping the block until Roxy promises not to do it again. Did I read that wrong? Has Drmies decided to lift the block immediately? The block was wrongly imposed without the required notice. It should be lifted without requiring that Roxy do anything. Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you say, but you aren't an admin, and there is no consensus that your opinion on the block is correct. That's how you're not helping. If your question is whether Drmies is working on getting the editor unblocked, I think the answer is clear. 03:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
User:Msnicki there was no consensus that the initial block was bad (but it was not ringingly endorsed either). Drmies is and the other admins are working out a reasonable approach to resolve the issue and it would be great for everyone (especially Roxy) if you would just allow that to unfold. Please. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC) (fix, sorry Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
If there's a lack of consensus, it's because so many admins appear to believe that only regular users need follow the guidelines. Not one admin endorsing the block at ANI ever addressed the question of whether the guidelines require a notice even though it's black letter that they do. They only considered whether Roxy's behavior met the guidelines, not whether the block met the guidelines. This is unfortunately all too typical. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'll assume that you don't deal with many unblock requests. I do, as many other admins do. It's part of what we do. This is why Drmies is asking you to leave it to us to help work out. One of the things we do is to try to make sure that an unblock is in the best interest of the project. One of the best ways to do this is to verify that the user understands why the behavior that lead to the block in order to protect the project was neeeded. And to try to make sure that the user will avoid this behavior in the future. Hence asking that the user promises not to continue to disrupt the project. SQLQuery me! 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, I have not dealt with many unblock requests. I did however get a LOT of experience with one block in particular by DangerousPanda, who also had trouble admitting a mistake, leaving me sensitized to the problem. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That user - whom hasn't edited in 3 years - really isn't relevant to this discussion. SQLQuery me! 03:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant if you ask about my experience with unblock requests. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question. This was case of a bad block of Barney the barney barney that ANI refused to do anything about despite a continuous stream of personal attacks from DP. When it went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda, DP was desysopped, but not before Drmies defended DP's frankly indefensible behavior as no big deal. It is important to avoid creating the appearance that only users, not admins must follow the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fwiw, I have a notion that Roxy is from the UK and if that is true, it is 3 AM there, so it is unlikely that Roxy is going to be responding here soon. Jytdog (talk)
    Good point. I'll hope to wake up to a happy resolution in the morning. ~Awilley (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, and I suppose because I was asked directly, I endorse Drmies' approach to this situation. I'm likely not going to see it because it's just after midnight here, but if Roxy makes a proper unblock request in what is the morning for them and the reviewing admin approves, then I don't object to unblocking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I decline to appeal the block, and wish to thank whoever restored TPA. I haven't read this section yet, I've just got up, but I will be apologising to admins concerned just as soon as I get my thoughts together. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault EEng, entirely my own. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation thereof, Roxy, I have unblocked your account so you can say what you wish to say wherever you wish, and I firmly believe you won't repeat what led to the block; I hope Ivanvector and others will accept my guarantee that I have faith in you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Drmies, but I feel I ought to follow the spirit and intention of Ivanvectors original block, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go with the flow, Roxy. Block-martyrdom is a lonely road. EEng 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you insist, I will respond by pointing you to Dante's Inferno. Please see Canto 30.130-48, and then the beginning of the next one, 31.1-6. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care much for blocks being used to compel apologies, for a variety of reasons I think they're silly and that wasn't my intent here. I'm satisfied by your comments and Drmies' personal guarantee that the comment which led to the block won't shortly be repeated, and I endorse this unblock. If you're worried that I'll be upset that you were unblocked early, don't be. Drmies' endorsement is like legal tender here. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...I could do with a couple of quids' worth myself, as it goes; *rattles tin* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Well... better than a cup of coffee or some cookies or something?

Tryptofish has given you a dog bone! Seriously, though, I think that you were treated rather shabbily, and I'm happy to see you back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Remind me again, why are we doing this shit? Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was this intentional?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Craniosacral_therapy&diff=781003854&oldid=781003809

Best, Carl Fredrik talk 14:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it was, but if you had beaten me to it, I wouldn't have reverted you. I've been afk, I'll take a look to see how it stands now. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still there, and Jytdog has done more. I just thought it was a reasonable thing to add to fill out the meaning of the term. It isn't explained anywhere else, not that the term has any meaning in the real world, at least to me. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I should mention that I didn't see you had edited that page when I did my edit. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Hi. On the Henry page, I was actually trying to soften the impact slightly of having the section named just Criticism. Please see WP:CRITS. As an example, see the article on the queen of medium scam artist: Sylvia Browne. There is no section named Critisism there, though many sections actually are just that. RobP (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, I do understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree that your edit softened the feel of the title somewhat, and that is why I reverted. I don't think we should waiver from the mainstream scientific POV that Wikipedia is written in. The people listed represent that very well, and don't need to be highlighted as anything special over and above their own articles. (I also note that I personally don't like "Criticism" sections if they can be avoided, but this article is too short to incorporate the mainstream view into other sections.) So, what do we do? Would you mind if I moved this discussion to the article talk page? Roxy the dog. bark 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points... and please do. RobP (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the above discussion to the Tyler wossname talk page. you know... Roxy the dog. bark 20:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{tps}} I commented at the Tyler wossname talk page too. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"Flatulance" claim

I see you reverted the removal of the "Flatulance" claim from the article John A. McDougall (your revert). This claim is not listed in the source provided. If you have a reliable source for this claim feel free to add it back in. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@DCEvoCE: "High fiber intake results in increased intestinal gas" - generally known as flatulence. Leave it alone. General Ization Talk 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog&oldid=785331956"