User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Block shortened

The above-mentioned lengthy block of a constructive long-time editor is a complete overreaction. Moreover, it was placed well after another admin had warned Roxy not to make similar comments again. I'm going to change it to 24 hours, and I'm also going to reconsider one of my support votes in the ArbCom election. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. I have never voted for ARBCOM. This is why. - Roxy the dog 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen, I'll be honest - I hadn't noticed the warning. I came to block per the ArbCom ruling, and when I clicked on the block log I saw that Roxy had previously been blocked for 24 hours, one week, and two weeks for similar or related offensives, and so took the next step of one month. I feel 24 hours is too short given the behaviour history, you feel one month is too long. So it goes. The nature of a community is we tend to vary in our views, and that's a positive. There will even be some who empathise with Roxy's attitude, and that's all part of the community. I am not generally a civility warrior, so this block is somewhat out of character for me, but I did feel that Roxy's comments were somewhat toxic given the nature of the topic. We are removing inactive admins, and for a number of the people who are admins, this will be a somewhat sensitive time. Many people put themselves into Wikipedia: morally, intellectually, and emotionally identifying with the project and the community. Finding yourself no longer a part of the community, and in a sense, no longer wanted, when you may have spent a good deal of time, effort, and emotional commitment here, can be quite demoralising. It is right and proper we remove the tools from people who are inactive and haven't voluntarily resigned the tools; though, also, that we do it in at least a neutral manner. SilkTork (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you need to be an admin now to be "a part of the community"? I thought this block very odd and savouring of a kind of special privilege accorded to admins. Bon courage (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nor do you need to be someone who writes Featured or Good articles. The community is varied, as it should be. People do a variety of tasks, each of them of value. It is all of us together that makes Wikipedia what it is, and each of us should be respected and valued for what we do. There are people who, unsung, and largely unseen, work with dedication on templates, on categories, on correcting minor formatting or spelling errors, etc. All of us are part of the community, and that includes admins. Admins are no more special than anyone else. Though they are people too. And it is the people I was thinking of. I am getting, on this page, that my block was too long, and that is important feedback for me. I hadn't originally intended to block for a month, but selected that time because shorter length blocks had been applied, and we tend to increase the length of blocks. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@SilkTork thanks for these comments, but I still don’t see the edits as calling for a month’s block. In fact I think that most editors would not be blocked at all for them, maybe not even warned. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Most editors wouldn't make that type of comment at all in that particular BN discussion and most of the ones who would make such a comment would do so like Chris below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even know that noticeboard existed and I'm no newbie! Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. That is in its own way an example of the point I was trying to make and also make in this essay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me be more explicit. Doug suggested above that most editors wouldn't be subject to this action. I agree but for different reasons. Most editors don't know about BN, of the ones who do, most wouldn't think to make that type of comment there, and of the ones whould would make that comment most would do so like Chris suggested below not like Roxy actually did. The subset of editors who would do what Roxy did is small, not most editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend not to get involved willingly in civility incidents because civility is a judgement call, and also I am experienced enough to know that editing Wikipedia can at times be surprisingly emotional, and all of us can be subject to a rush of blood to the head. And nearly always we feel that we are at that moment justified. In this situation I noted Roxy's comment, and felt it was somewhat inflammatory in a potentially sensitive situation. I was also, I admit, somewhat influenced by Pedro's reaction. I was aware that Roxy had received a warning in An ArbCom case earlier this year: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing#Roxy_the_dog_warned, with the enforcement ruling that violations would result in blocks. I felt, given that Roxy's comment was inflammatory, and that Roxy had been warned earlier this year about making such uncollegiate comments, that a block was appropriate. Without having had a warning, then a warning was sufficient, but once we promise a treat or warn of a sanction, then we need to follow up, otherwise the promise or the warning become meaningless. So, the warning having been given, a block becomes appropriate. My thinking was - like Bishonen - that a 24 hour block would be appropriate, and that is what I intended to give. Having opened up the block page, I became aware that Roxy had been given a number of previous blocks for similar or related issues, and that the blocks had already moved from 24 hours through one week to two weeks. The default setting on the block page is to go from two weeks to one month. I admit I paused at that point, as one month was not what I had originally intended. However, that tends to be what we do - we warn, we give a short block, then blocks of increasing duration. The aim is to discourage future transgressions. It's not always effective, and it's not perfect, but those are the tools and method at our disposal. I kinda felt pushed along the line due to Roxy's block history, but also felt that I had to issue the appropriate sanction. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really add up. What did you mean with your reference to "it is the people I was thinking of" and "Finding yourself no longer a part of the community"? I'm prepared to accept admins can fuck up, but admins that fuck up and won't accept it are a problem. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: "the people I was thinking of" - sometimes we can forget that there is a person behind an account. Even if an account has behaved inappropriately, there is still a person behind that account. Be the account an admin or a gnome, there is someone very real with real feelings using that account. As such I feel we should behave in a civil manner with each other as far as possible. Yes, we can disagree, but we can disagree without being insulting. Such is the nature of Wikipedia that we can sometimes get the rush of blood to the head, though when we repeatedly get the rush of blood to the head, and it is pointed out, and we have been warned and sanctioned, then we should strive to adapt our behaviour.

The community as a whole has been concerned about inactive admins for some time. And, thanks to WTT's initiative, we have stepped up in removing the admin tool from inactive admins. The job is being down. And it is being done in a neutral manner. No insults or jeers. The tools are removed, and a note left on the admin's talkpage. The insults are not necessary, and they are pointless. The job is being done.

As for admins who fuck up and won't admit it - that's what ArbCom is for. ArbCom removes the tool from such admins, and sitebans them if necessary. Personally I'd prefer if the community had that role, and that we could find agreement on the community being able to desysop admins.

Essentially, there are means and methods and times and places for dealing with all sorts of problems on Wikipedia, including inactive or bad admins; and if there are not such means and methods and times and places then we can and should create them. I'll listen to anyone who has a grievance against another user, including admins, and I'll support that person if the grievance turns out to be accurate. But uncollegiate and uncivil comments chucked about without point or purpose does not advance Wikipedia at all - it does the opposite, it creates a hostile environment. I would urge you and Roxy to raise any concerns you have about any admin to the appropriate venue: WP:ADMINABUSE. If you or Roxy feel that there is a general issue with admins as a whole then pick a venue at Wikipedia:Community_portal and talk it through there. The more we all work with Wikipedia and the community the better it is, and the stronger it becomes. SilkTork (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I note you didn't answer my question about "Finding yourself no longer a part of the community". But as you say arbcom removes the tools from admins who've fucked up and won't admit it. To be clear, I think you are now in that category. Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

SilkTork, in this post you seem to be describing your actions as those of a robot: "pushed along" to surprise even yourself with a month-long block for a comment which you actually call merely "somewhat inflammatory", because "that tends to be what we do". You speak as if once you had opened the block log, circumstances gave you no other choice. I think that's quite concerning. Even though you "came to block per the ArbCom ruling", there is actually no rule against using common sense at any point along the track that you felt you were being "pushed along" — no rule against pushing back. Removing inactive admins may be emotional for some admins, but Roxy is people too, and being blocked for a month is surely a highly emotional experience. I remember when Jimbo blocked me (more briefly than that)... but I digress. Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC).

I went to see what was in the (first) redacted diff, and was half-expecting to see something that was directed at somebody in a really personal way. What I saw was "Sweep 'em out." I have two thoughts about that, and I have no difficulty holding both thoughts in my head at the same time. (1) What an overreaction! All of this, over just that? (2) Roxy, the overreaction was entirely predictable. You should have known better. It did nothing to add to the discussion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought the first diff was pretty benign and Pedro’s overreaction was a bit silly at best and significantly unbecoming and concerning at worst, and I interpreted the second diff as sarcastic humor, ribbing Pedro for the absurdity of his comments. Sure, it was rude, but in this case it was a complete dismissal and refusal to engage, in lieu of “civilly” taking Pedro’s comments seriously and opening that can of worms, which was honestly preferable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

civility

Rtd, seriously: underlines your status as an incompetent newbie? Literally intentionally biting someone you know is a newbie. That's an editor who made a mistake because they haven't figured out much yet and have only a handful of edits in WP space. They stuck their oar in where it didn't belong -- advised by an admin who should have known better than to take such a question from someone with 1100 edits at face value -- and hopefully they'll learn from it. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In fairness to Roxy, that user didn't just stick their oar in, they made a completely preposterous, and unprovoked, attempt to get Roxy shit-canned. Not like Roxy had done something to them. But like they were just looking around for someone they could propose a ban for, instead of, oh, I don't know, improving some content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought, considering their actions, that my response was very measured. Did you actually read their crap? - Roxy the dog 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I did, and I get it. I've already told them to stay away from ANI. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Grammar issue involving possessive form of "Davis" on William Davis (cardiologist) Wiki page

Hello Roxy the dog,

I reversed your reversal of the grammatical edit I made on the Wiki page of William Davis (cardiologist).

The possessive form of singular nouns/names that end in "s" requires adding an apostrophe "s" at the end.

For an example of a Wiki page that follows this rule, please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

For examples of university pages that give this as a writing tip, please see:

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2007/02/possessives-for-words-ending-in-s.html#:~:text=Only%20when%20the%20word%20is,apostrophe%20outside%20the%20%22s.%22&text=But%20many%20students%20and%20many,s%22%20to%20make%20it%20possessive.

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe/possessives

Hope this helps,

Kamtal75 Kamtal75 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't trump Miss Smith, who taught me grammar at primary school. Until there is some wikipolicy otherwise, I'll go with the correct way, thanks. Regarding the Moses page, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Roxy the dog 06:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a guideline rather than a policy, but we have MOS:'S, so I'd suggest going with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear me! Something else that I'm bound to support, and henceforth I will. It'll be easy to remember whenever I come across it, I promise!!! - Roxy the dog 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me

Thanks for dealing with user:Wdford, I was unaware of the soon-to-be edit war so sorry I couldn’t help out (as I’m currently in Europe and the time difference is galling). Although moments before I did post a section explaining my edit on the talk page (so if you want to read that and put your input your more than welcome). It is quite embarrassing that people believe herringbone is a complex. It’s even more sad considering Nickell (who I admire a lot) also believes Herringbone is a “complex weave” even though it is very simple, which unfortunately makes him look ignorant even though he isn’t. Hopefully if Nickell revises his book (whenever that may happen) he could perhaps correct this mistake. Either way thanks for your help. Wolfquack (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't look too much at the history, nor am I familiar with the sources, but basic stuff like that needs to be clear, or absent from the article. - Roxy the dog 11:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog I absolutely agree with that. Again thanks for your help. Wolfquack (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about promotion

Hi,

Just curious to know more about why my edit on the Kessler, Dallas was reverted. If you considered sentences like "high architectural integrity" and "excellent collection..." as beautifying language, I literally selected them from the national register pdf of the historic district. It's not something I made up, that's what the document says, would you still consider that has promoting language?MagellanAquarium (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

My edsums explain the situation. Are you an Estate Agent? Perhaps with special responsibility for Kessler? - Roxy the dog 20:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not. Happy to clarify I'm not being paid for this or selling homes at all. Should my edits be reverted purely based on your unfair suspicion? Btw, the content of the article has been discussed on the conflict of interest forum and multiple people came to my defense and no further action was taken on the matter. It's linked on my talk page so if you are curious you can have look. I'm just asking to be treated fairly. If I quote from trustworthy 3rd party sources, not promoting anything, not having a conflict of interest, I should be able to publish my content. MagellanAquarium (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you stop quoting marketingspeak, as I said in an edsum. I'm glad you have no COI, but please cut out the flowery language. I believe that there is more to remove before it is over! - Roxy the dog 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, @MagellanAquarium, what you linked was a document that was a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. The language in that document is the language that those who prepared the document used to describe the neighborhood. That does not make the language appropriate for an encyclopedic article. General Ization ^Talk 20:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No it's not a nomination. I reviewed again and it's the actual certified document (you can see the signature and certification on the first page, item #4). I just chose some words from the reason why the area was selected to a national register. If an area was selected as a national register, there must be some reason, is showing the reason promoting? MagellanAquarium (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article to remove the promo/marketing. If you wish to discuss this further, please open a section at the article Talk page, where other interested editors will see. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Polar fleece

Why wouldn't polar fleece be considered a winter fabric? Obviously any heavy fabric that would keep you warm would be more appropriate for winter, wouldn't it? ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It is worn in all seasons, that category is not defining. Also note that it is explained in the article, perhaps not well enough, that this isn't just, or even, a heavy fabric. Neither is Flannel btw, but I haven't decided what to do about it yet. -Roxy the dog 17:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Web case controversy

Season greetings, Roxy the dog. Editors may collaborate. Get informed about the Web, as in World Wide Web. M. B., Jr. (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

~~That's your consensus?? Really!!!~~

That was my initial response before I got distracted by something, and realised that despite having an account since 2006, you have very little experience here, and I've been assuming stuff that I had no business doing, and I should apologise.

I was using specific wikiphrases with wikimeaning that you cant possibly know, in our earlier interactions over the last few days, and got exasperated, for which I'm sorry. Can we start again?

When I post this, I'll go to the article where we've been at odds, and make sure we are at your version, then I'll open a section at the talk page, where I'm sure we'll find agreement. If we need help agreeing, I'm pretty sure we can find it from other interested editors. - Roxy the dog 22:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Fly

I need you to know that the fly thing freaked me the hell out and I slightly fell for it so good job. I think it's dope. Queenofconfusion (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I like it too, but I can claim no creativity in the matter, as I stole it from another user. - Roxy the dog 14:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era, thief (per above)

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Are you related to the Mother of Dragons? - Roxy the dog 16:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Article scope

Request for justification at Talk:Textile industry#Scope of article is currently the industry (mfg and distribution) since centuries ago. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

Why are you peddling fake information regarding Burzynski with fake sources created to spread misinformation? Does this not go against the wikipedia spirit? You should be ashamed of yourself! 71.73.5.199 (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It pleases me that people like you are annoyed with me. - Roxy the dog 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Hey! Stop your nonsense on Textile,

Your recent editing history at Textile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RV (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You may want to try WP:BRD to resolve your problem here. Open a talk page section and justify how water, wet processing and associated impacts are not linked, to show why the disputed section is justified in that position. Thanks. - RV (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

Hi Roxy!

I'm rather new to this so please forgive me. I noticed that you reverted the section on the Sahaja Yoga page without prior discussion on the talk page. May I inquire as to why such swashbuckling methods were employed? I was in the belief that my section, on which I worked on so earnestly, was within the full remit of the rules and regulations on Wikipedia :) If not, let me know what I can improve as this is my first edit, and now I feel a bit disheartened. All the best, Hutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Hutcherson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It was an "in bubble" contribution, horribly sourced to in universe sources that are not acceptable for the use you put them. See WP:RS for our sourcing policy, and WP:MEDRS for our more stringent policy on biomedical claims, which you also made in that edit. You used external links which are not allowed, WP:ELNO, and many many other problems.

As regards to "was within the full remit of the rules and regulations on Wikipedia" - I'm afraid it was not, not by a long way. Lastly, "swashbuckling" !!!, nope, yourself on the other hand have added a huge chunk of unnacceptable stuff.-Roxy the dog 18:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CATW#3 strikes again.[1] Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Hello Roxy the Dog

I have made minor edits to Patrick's page which are in line with his career and life achievements. His title was incorrect and I've added more information. He has published 45 books in 30 languages, I don't understand how you can dispute that? What I have done so far, are minor changes - there are more to come. Furthermore, we have taken advice from a lawyer and here is the response. If we are not permitted to make changes, which are factually correct, we will have no choice but to put the matter into legal hands.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes

Emma

The relevant legislation is the Defamation Act 2013 (Act) and the Regulations made under it, the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 (Regulations).

Under this Act, a statement, maybe defamatory if its publication has caused or would be likely to cause "serious harm" to the reputation of the claimant. Damage to the claimant's reputation is not deemed to be "serious harm" unless it has caused or was likely to cause the claimant "serious financial loss"

Accordingly, in order to succeed in legal proceedings (against either the author or Wikipedia) in relation to the matters of which you complain, it will be necessary for SH to be able to prove serious financial loss.

Further it will be necessary for SH to be able to establish that none of the defences permitted by the statute apply, these are that the statement complained of:

(i) is true

(ii) is an honest opinion or

(iii) its publication is a matter of public interest

Actions against an operator of a website, in this instance Wikipedia, in respect of a statement posted on its website are covered by section 5 of the Act. Section 5 provides that it can be a defence for the operator of the website to show that it was not the person who published the statement on the website. However, section 3 provides that this defence can be defeated if the claimant is able to show that:

(i) It was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement

(ii) the claimant gave the operator Notice of Complaint in relation to the statement and

(iii) the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint

In the Notice of Complaint, the claimant must

a. specify the complaints name,

b. et out the statement complained of and explain why it is defamatory of the complainant,

c. specifies, where on the website, the statement was posted and

d. provide such other information as is required by the Regulations

The Regulations (Regulation 4) provide that in addition to the matters referred to in the Act the Notice of Complaint must

(e) specify the electronic mail address at which the complainant can be contacted;

(f) set out the meaning which the complainant attributes to the statement referred to in the notice;

(g) set out the aspects of the statement which the complainant believes are:

(i) factually inaccurate; or

(ii) opinions not supported by fact;

(h) confirm that the complainant does not have sufficient information about the poster to bring proceedings against that person; and

(i) confirm whether the complainant consents to the operator providing the poster with:

(i) the complainant's name; and

(ii) the complainant's electronic mail address.

Following receipt of a Notice of Complaint, an operator must act in accordance with Regulation 4 (see below).

If you have submitted a Notice of Complaint, to Wikipedia, in the prescribed form, please send me a copy with a copy of its response. If not, may I suggest that you draft one which is complaint with the Act and Regulations and let me see this before it is submitted. EmmaSRC (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's OK, I've reverted your changes for the same reason as last time. - Roxy the dog 09:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

User has been blocked for legal threats. - Roxy the dog 09:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear me ! Fuck me backwards.

With the change in the skin, it took me ten minutes to find my own talk page. Good Grief. - Roxy the dog 18:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(Would that be "doggy style"? Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I agree, it's awful. I'm trying very, very hard to be a good little fish and give it a fair chance, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to roll it back to what it was before, for my own preferences. (In fairness, it's not that awful for the general public who are simply reading articles, but if one wants to edit....) Here is how to do it. At the far top right corner of the screen is a little cartoon icon of a person (head and shoulders) with a down-facing arrow to the right of it. Click that arrow. You should see "Preferences" there, and that's the same Preferences as in the past. Go to "Appearance", and the first section is "Skin". You'll see that the nice folks at WMF who know better than we do have made "Vector (2022)" the default. Change it back to "Vector Legacy (2010)" (that's what it was for me, there are other choices if you were using something else), and "Save". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I can now confirm that the "thanks" flag works, and the "you have new talk page messages" work as before. I'm going to persevere with it for the time being, as one can get used to anything, but it really feels strange. I suppose it should feel strange. The double pane editing window was a shock to my system as well.

Thank you for this help. - Roxy the dog 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes later, and I gave up and threw in the towel. I've changed back to Legacy/2010, and am slowly regaining my composure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The GUI functionality went downhill the day they removed the orange bar of doom. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been here some years, but how long ago was this doomy bar? Has my memory just gone the way of the rest of me into senility? I see dotage and decomposition on the near horizon. - Roxy the dog 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting rid of the orange bar of doom is the one good change that happened. Under Preferences, Gadgets, Appearance, there's something you can check called "Display a floating alert for new talk page messages" that might be it, if you want to get it back for yourself. Just don't do it for me.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Using Chris' edit summary, I looked at Template:OBOD, and there's a delicious bit of semi-vandalism there that I would not dream of reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep on for now, but the "recent changes" link which I use a lot is now two clicks away (I think) and I haven't found "user contributions" yet. - Roxy the dog 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For your own user contributions, they are on the same menu as where the preferences are. For someone else's, if you go to their page or talk page, it's still on the left side of the screen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I confess I gave up too, before the end of the evening. The skin affected my clicking about so much that I couldn't function. To have to think about every click after more than ten years clicking unthinkingly in my "workflow" was too much to take. I had started out with good intentions, and vowed not to add to the inevitable general hoohaw on complaint and dramah boards. In the past I would have been ranting about it, but it isn't worth it.

I've re-instated the "floating alert" for shiggles, but as is usual, it may take days for another comment to appear here. sigh! - Roxy the dog 18:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just reporting that the "floating alert" mentioned above actually works, but looks different to what it used to look. I haven't decided what to do with it now that I've seen it working again. - Roxy the dog 09:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Your recent editing history at Cryonics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to learn counting. - Roxy the dog 06:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I need to learn 2 + 2 = 3. Got it. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxy the dog reported by User:SurfingOrca2045 (Result: ). Thank you. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Odd that. I found a report about you edit warring, but not me. My goodness. - Roxy the dog 07:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Editor appears to be firing blanks, and has since been page banned for tenditious editing. - Roxy the dog 16:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Cetacean clearly not needed. (Sorry!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment is unnecessary and against the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia, and it trivializes all that has been done to protect marine mammals from extinction :( See WP:NPA. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know, smells more like Sealioning at this point.[2] KoA (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that it was petty of me to joke about another editor's username, so I apologize for that. In case it is not clear, it is a reference to "citation needed". However, the fact remains that this editor's conduct has not been constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I dont believe for a moment that Trypto had any other intention than to reanimate an old and jaded joke, in the same way that in my head I have a reputation for witty name alterations. - Roxy the surfing dog 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Lia Thomas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Salvio giuliano

16:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPUNDEL, "[w]hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first".

Salvio giuliano

16:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How does it not comply with policy Salvio?? - Roxy the dog 16:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what should decided by consensus and I am not going to make a call on content; however, until a consensus has been found that such addition does not violate BLP, it needs to stay out, per BLPUNDEL. If you are willing to wait without reverting and participate in the discussion on the talk page, I will remove the block right now.

Salvio giuliano

16:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe I have violated any policy, and I am happy not to revert again until a consensus has been found. I believe this block was harsh too. I'm not sure I want to take part in a discussion on this subject on the talk page though, as without question I am a TERF. - Roxy the dog 16:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have unblocked you based on your reassurance that you're not going to revert again. In my opinion, the policy you violated was BLPUNDEL, because you saw that other editors had good-faith objections to the material that other editors were adding and opted to restore it without waiting for consensus that it did not violate BLP. I also don't think the block was particularly harsh, it was fairly short and you are a very experienced user, so I am certain you are aware of how BLP works and how seriously we all take it...

Salvio giuliano

16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed yes re BLP. Thank you for the unblock - I'm not going to labour the harshness, and you'll forgive me if I go to a totally unrelated Talk page first before indulging at the Thomas talk page. - Roxy the dog 16:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I think it should set off a red flag in one's mind, when one makes a revert over a content dispute (not a straightforward revert of vandalism, but something that reflects different editors actually disagreeing about content) at the same time that one feels uncomfortable discussing it on the article talk page. Let me please suggest that you stay away from that kind of reverting on anything that has anything to do with gender identity. As best as I can remember, that's the topic area that's been involved repeatedly when you've had these kinds of run-ins, and I think it may be best simply to avoid it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont know how to do it, but there is a way to look at an imdividual edit history in an article. look at mine - I am aware of my bias here in the same way I am aware of my bias in ALT_MED. My overarching issue is the nature of fairness in sport. There is a cyclist on my watchlist, Rowling, Navratilova, Bliijean King, Crisp, a girl who died of glioblastoma, etc. I didn't know about Gamergate until very recently because who gives a shit about games!! Really! I edit according to policy and consensus; you know this.

But you are correct. My spidey sense was tingling even before I got sent to the naughty step above. - Roxy the dog 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Untitled (moved from top)

Hi Roxy, I am very much confused with you reverting back to the content I wrote for the medical research part of turmeric. There was no prior discussion on the talk page and then it was reverted within a few hours. Well, The content I wrote was fully proofread and much-studied content. If you have gone through my reference part, there is well-established research with very positive results concerned with the anticancer, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory parts of turmeric. The articles which were cited are published in high-quality journals belonging to NCBI and Scopus database, Also many of the articles are having a large number of citations. I don't understand even though turmeric is used in everyday life for one or the other medical use, then why it is written as Turmeric is not medically helpful. Any layman would disagree with it. Ayurveda has an immense use of turmeric in its medicines and other therapies. Because it is very clear that turmeric has a very huge medical potential. If you read the literature, there is strong evidence of the anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer properties of turmeric. According to me the medical research part of turmeric has to be studied well and the statements written has to be corrected. kindly let me know, what is the matter with reverting back the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWKGKB (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS?. It is the policy regarding the acceptable sourcing requirements for biomedical content on the project. Your sources must meet this requirement, and I'm afraid those are woefully inadequate. - Roxy the dog 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

sorry I'm just a kid

Roxy I needed help for my school project that's all 41.115.61.4 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Good luck in your school project, 41.115.61.4 - Troopersho (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

True, but...

Those aren't the kinds of stuff most people are talking about when they complain about bias in wikipedia. Troopersho (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You would be surprised by what bias people complain about. - Roxy the dog 15:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Own trumpet blowing

I am awarding myself the "edsum of the day" award for this one. - Roxy the dog 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have independently audited this award and concur. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

... concur also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Lia Thomas penis exposure

Just wanted to let you know that I found a new source for it that is not Fox News. [3]. Rodistron1 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely banned from the article Lia Thomas, as well as making any edits about transgender athletes, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for edit warring in contravention to best practices when dealing with living persons.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Courcelles (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lia Thomas. Hi Roxy the dog, the poorly-sourced controversial information is disputed on WP:BLP grounds, not just Fox News, and I am sorry you continue to try to add it. I have removed it again per WP:BLPRESTORE. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You are a worthless piece of shite liar, who is officially banned from this page. I hope you choke on your lies. -Roxy the dog 13:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Lia Thomas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This block is also justified based on that lovely personal attack above. Please don't do things like that. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, keep a cool head and remember that you can't win 100% of the disputes, even if you're right 100% of the time. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, you are a long-term editor here, and you know that the comment above is a personal attack against Beccaynr, and that's on top of the edit warring you did at Lia Thomas. Take a breather and understand you can't win all disputes and that this behavior is not helping your cause in any way, shape, or form. If this type of editing continues, I know you will receive further severe sanctions. Frankly, I'm surprised only this slap on the wrist was given. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 15:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen too many decent editors get kicked off Wikipedia because they couldn't keep their temper or avoid edit-warring. I'd like to think you'll still be around when I'm gone (involuntarily I mean), but that won't happen if you don't change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I agree with the block, the page ban, and with all of the comments to you above. That personal attack and edit warring are indefensible. I've warned you about this stuff in the past, but you clearly did not listen to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yow, Roxy. I totally get it that you're incredibly frustrated, but honestly you're lucky Courcelles showed up here before I did. I'd have indef'd for the absolutely egregious personal attack. Valereee (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

"we are biased towards CCM, and biased against TCM" Troopersho (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We are biased towards design thinking, and biased against intelligent design Troopersho (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

About Lentil rice

Hello. Is there a specific reason for removing a part of the Lentil rice article? Serving this specific food for Nazr in Iran is quite traditional and well-documented. Please check it out. Arbabi second (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

then you need to source what you want to say based on WP:RS reliable sources. The current sources are rather weak and dont really stand up to our requirements. - Roxy the dog 13:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this [4] proof is enough or not? Arbabi second (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont know Farsi, so I cannot help. - Roxy the dog 13:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

But you could delete, whereas it would be better if this was left to someone who knows Persian. After all, it was not so dangerous that it had to be deleted absolutely right away. Arbabi second (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert of Revision on Ideological Bias on Wikipedia Article

Hi! @Roxy the dog

I noticed that you reverted my recent edit on the "Ideological Bias on Wikipedia" article, and I wanted to discuss it with you.

To better clarify; in my edit, I changed the sentence about Larry Sanger to make it more neutral by removing the negative tone (it seemed to imply that Sanger's criticism was unwarranted simply because he was laid off from Wikipedia).

My proposed change is:

 The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has been a critic of Wikipedia since his departure from the project as an editorial employee in 2002.

as opposed to:

 The co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has been a critic of Wikipedia ever since he was laid off as the only editorial employee and departed from the project in 2002.

I'm open to discussion so that our edits are in the best interest of the article; ensuring that the article is informative yet unbiased.

Thanks! KyKatriza (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion should be opened by you at the article talk page, thanks. Roxy the dog 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

KyKatriza, it's interesting that you pretended at first to be merely concerned with grammar and sentence structure when you removed the fact that Sanger was "laid off", but when you started edit warring about it, as well as here on Roxy's page, your reason had morphed into being removal of the "negative" wording. Which was it really? Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC).

Ah, my apologies. It's my first time discussing a revert, so I didn't know the standard procedure (yikes!). Thanks for the BRD link! KyKatriza (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

b4?

Hi! In your reversion of an edit I made you wrote "As b4. your heirarchy arguement makes no sense. defining characteristic". I was wondering what you mean by b4.? If this is short for "before," could you explain why my argument doesn't make any sense, i.e. what the flaw in my logic is? And what do you mean by "defining characteristic"? —Kri (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for not replying, not too well at the moment. Will respond when I have a keyboard Roxy the dog 13:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that you will be doing better soon! —Kri (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you a lot for jumpscaring me with the stupid fly I now have a better insight into the meaning of life The Tips of Apmh 16:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome !! - Roxy the dog 16:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In hospital

Hope you're doing as well as possible, Roxy. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC).

Oh, my goodness, from me too. I'm glad you say that it's not life-threatening. But please know that you are in my thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I really messed up my user page, and I’m very unhappy with this page following my recent stupidity. People provide me with good examples of how to behave, and I’ve fallen short again. When I get to a keyboard I’ll fill in some detail, but ironically in the hopefully not too distant future, I’ll be having some abdominal surgery, rather like another of my examples to follow, but much less serious.Roxy the dog 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry about any of that. As I say all too frequently, this is only a website. What matters is getting back to good health. All the best wishes for your upcoming surgery. There will be plenty of time after that for editors to cut you another a-hole (that was a very bad joke). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I like bad jokes. Roxy the dog 21:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Poor little user be having abominable surgery! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 07:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

Truth be told, my abomin has been acting up lately. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Such mixed feelings - sorry that you are under the weather, initially concerned, then relieved when I read it was nothing serious. I just hope your hospital knows the latest research: your recovery is directly linked to the amount of ice cream they give you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

XXX000 from the cats. Sgerbic (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. To be clear, the surgery is way back on the unscheduled back burner.

I am in the heamotology ward, being pumped full of antibiotics to try to control whatever it is effecting my leukaemia treatment. I think. Like I said, not life threatening but they’ve shackled me to a bed for a couple more days at least.

GOD SAVE KING JUG EARS. Roxy the dog 12:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Terribly sorry to hear about this. Good luck. Hope an operation won't be necessary. I certainly know I'd never want another one. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

In honor (oh, excuse me, honour) of the crowning (no reference to childbirth intended, believe me!), I'd like to post this, but it's NFCC, so I'll just link: File:Jughead issue 1.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I am so sorry to hear about your struggles. You are unbelievably strong and an inspiration to many. As someone who remains in remission I want to see you beat this. I share in Doug's hope that surgery will be unnecessary. Much love! --ARose Wolf 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

An update. Am still here, pumped full of antibiotics and tasting horrible metallic flavours instead of food. Had a cat scan, looking at Lymph nodes and CLL issues. Co incidentally the full scan confirmed an inguinal hernia, comically huge, which is where surgery comes in, when I get on a list. Back burner stuff for now. have no idea when I’ll be out, but also wanted to thank people here for their concern. Roxy the dog 04:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Have to admit, it would be odd if a cat scan found any cats inside of a dog.[1] But seriously, I've had an inguinal hernia surgery myself, and it's not as bad as it sounds. Sorry about the bad flavors and other travails, but hang in there, you're gonna be fine! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] [5] (warning: animal abuse). Roxy, hopefully your master treats you better and you recover soon! DMacks (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Arggh just seen this. Best Wishes & All Power to you recovery Roxy! Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It is official. Out later, made bail. Roxy the dog 10:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Conga-rats! Eluding bail-bondsmen and fugitive-capture teams will be a good pracice for the ultimate challenge (if you're in the US): dealing with health insurance companies. DMacks (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Been home almost 24 hrs, and am totally exhausted, have been catching up on sleep, picking favourite foods (Marmite for eg). Roxy the dog 13:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Isn't Marmite the crappy Vegimite alternative? Or is it the other way around? Anyway, I'm really glad to hear it went well. Hope you fully recover soon. - Bilby (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Just checking back – how are you doing? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been back twice since I got out, once for a terrifying bronchial lavage camera jobby that turned out as easy as pie with the sedation and Comical Consultant. I woke up not remembering anything but saying "NNNnng nnng hhnnng" a lot. I've just had a letter from him saying stuff that I will have to look up!

The second was a comedy scan of my groin, using gallons of lube, and all dignity forgotton. "Hold your penis out of my way" said scan guy, and I got to look at both my testicles on the screen, and we jointly discovered two hernias, though officially scan guy cannot diagnose and I wait for official info. - Roxy the dog 12:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't sound good at all. I'm glad I'm at the stage when only chemo can help (if you saw my talk page, 30% chance of it being effective, and I was lucky - it stopped any growth. So next year instead of this year hopefully. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll be honest Doug, I get chills at the calm and matter of fact way you are dealing with things, and can only admire that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. - Roxy the dog 12:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I admire how both of you are handling it. Roxy, are you sure that lube thing wasn't, um, some extracurricular activity? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Roxy the dog. Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think thats a tremendous overreaction. Manning is well known by both names. - Roxy the dog 10:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure but unless she has indicated it's fine which AFAIK she has not, her dead name should not be mentioned on Wikipedia except when needed per MOS:GENDERID which is very very rare for a user comment. It does not matter how well known the name is. Nor how often people do so elsewhere, whether because they're unaware of the deadname issue, or who are and are transphobic. On Wikipedia it's not how we do things. Considering your activity in this area, you really should know this already and I can understand why Maddy is so concerned that you don't seem to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

But that horse has bolted, The point here is that her pretransition name isn't a deadname. What Maddy is doing is standard transexual hounding of people they dont like. - Roxy the dog 15:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID it is on Wikipedia unless she has indicated otherwise. If you aren't willing to accept that then you can fuck off from at a minimum anything to do with BLPs and transgender issues, but frankly all of Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

lovely. - Roxy the dog 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, what exactly do you mean by "standard transexual hounding"? If you are implying what I think you're implying, that is blatant discrimination. – bradv 15:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

I've been thinking about this over lunch, and I can't come up with any interpretation for the above comment other than you intended to make a personal attack against (a) Maddy from Celeste, and (b), all trans people. As this is by no means your first such offence, and you have been repeatedly warned about this in the past (including formally by ArbCom), I have blocked your account for 2 weeks to prevent further disruption to the project. I will leave a comment at the ongoing ANI thread to this effect, as they will likely wish to tailor this remedy further. – bradv 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Brad.

To me, this is a confirmation of the trope, and unfair, as I am now unable to defend myself against the pile-on that is confirming the trope also. People are actually telling outright lies at ANI about me now that I cannot refute them. How do you feel about that? - Roxy the dog 21:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Confirmation of the trope" – what trope? The blatantly xenophobic comment you made above? You're really going to double down on that? – bradv 21:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean transphobic or did Roxy say something xenophobic now as well? Dronebogus (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I know, Trypto. - Roxy the dog 22:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Brad, Do you know what Xenophopic means? Hmmm. ? Roxy the dog 22:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Before you dig a deeper hole, it means fear of people who are different than you are. (In this case, trans people.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It generally refers to foreigners in common parlance Dronebogus (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, foreigners. - Roxy the dog 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t excuse the fact that your above comment was blatantly transphobic and indefensible Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have replied to Brad below, you have both misinterpreted my comment. - Roxy the dog 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me refer everyone to xenophobia. Roxy, my advice is that you should consider focusing on demonstrating an understanding of those concerns that are legitimate, and a desire to do better, rather than arguing over what you think are mistakes by others. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Brad, do you really want me to explain what I mean by the trope. It has nothing to do with doubling down on any previous comment I made. - Roxy the dog 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Um… what IS the trope? Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked up Trope (literature) and Trope (disambiguation) and the word Trope clearly doesn't mean what I thought it meant. It is a bit sloppy, but perhaps we could settle on the word trend instead? - Roxy the dog 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what “trend” means in this context either… Dronebogus (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean bandwagon effect? Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, deciding the right words for how you feel about the way people reacted to your comments is a waste of time. There is an emerging consensus at ANI that you will be site banned, full stop. You are running out of time to explain that you understand what other people have said, and that you can make constructive contributions in areas outside of gensex. Anything less than that, the train has already left the station. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the only way this could be construed less damagingly is if what was meant was standard "transsexual language hounding" not "hounding by transsexual people" and even then it's not great. I'd suggest self-imposing a gensex TBAN and concentrating on other areas. Also, Roxy, are you on any weird meds following the above? Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I will third that Roxy; you really need to clarify what you meant by that. I get just being tired of things and feeling hounded to the point of not responding, but clearly addressing What Maddy is doing is standard transexual hounding of people they dont like.[6] is really the one thing that needs to be done. Specifically, what did you mean by "standard transexual hounding"? Some have read that very differently that others. I thought the same thing as Bon courage above initially when reading it, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Others will though at this point if you don't. KoA (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been on an ssri Fuouxetine, and a half dozen BP medications for longer than I've been here, and I have just ended a two year course of Venetoclax. The side effects leaflet on that stuff is huge, and printed in teeny tiny letters that are impossible to read, even with my reading glasses. - Roxy the dog 06:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It comes to us all I guess. Just about to go on holiday and realised for the first time the normal pre-trip check of "ticket, passport, wallet" needs to be amended to add "meds". Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I intend to give you every opportunity to explain yourself – I've even asked you several times to do so. If there is an adequate explanation for these comments that is not discriminatory, abusive, or hostile toward other editors, I'm sure ANI would like to hear it as well. So yes, please, post your explanation and I will copy it to ANI on your behalf. – bradv 23:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Brad.

Clearly the community has decided that I am unsuitable to be making any contributions in the Gensex area of the project. I cannot but accept this. I note that I haven't done so since my much more narrowly constructed Topic Ban.

My comment to Maddy on Silktork's talk page bears examining as ST just didn't deadname her. Her pre and post transition names are well known and in her article here, in the first sentence.

Perhaps an examination of the reason I was at the Silktork page may bring some enlightenment. SeeUser talk:CompromisingSuggestion That admittedly minor example and the vast majority of my 30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation. I have been and would like to continue be a positive contributer to the project.

I would be obliged if before you post this to ANI, you might allow Trypto to comment/advize. Thank you. Roxy the dog 07:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So this section, about a block, is 90% people arguing over the terms "xenophobic" and "trope". Wow, y'all really have a great interest in resolving this issue, doncha. --Golbez (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

~~Interesting that you should show up after the dissembling post you made about us on the ANI thread. I've never heard of you. see this Roxy the dog 07:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)~~ Actually, in the heat of the moment, I have misconstrued your post at ANI. I apologise. Roxy the dog 07:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm really bad at standing down when righteously angry. You have been an editor here for a long time. I don't want to see people blocked. But I also don't want to see my trans friends tarred with bullshit. Personal issues with Maddy, whatever. Issues over individual articles, whatever. But when you said "standard transexual hounding" you crossed a pretty thick line that poisons future interaction with anyone, not just on sex-related articles. I can only speak for myself but, I think if you responded to that issue specifically, rather than dancing around with "this is a confirmation of the trope" or whatever, then we could get somewhere. Your statement for Tryptofish to forward does not even address that. Good faith demands I assume it was an oversight rather than a deliberate ignorance. So please, respond to that issue now. The choice is yours now. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to second Golbez by saying you can either explain what you meant by “transexual hounding” and apologize unequivocally or get blocked permanently. That’s an oversimplification but you have massively higher odds of staying on this wiki if you do that. Dronebogus (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you should accept a topic ban as this does not affect your editing in other areas. A full ban would be punishment, not prevention of disruption. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I already have above. - Roxy the dog 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As regards "standard transexual hounding" perhaps my throwaway wording was unfortunate. One only has to look at my eponymous ANI thread to see what I meant. I follow the science, I am not any of those hateful things. Somehow wikipedia policy in this area has allowed this to happen. I am completely at a loss. - Roxy the dog 21:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps? Unfortunate? Here's a tip: Replace the word "transsexual" with, I mean, literally anything else. Jewish. Black. Mexican. Female. Then maybe you'll see why we're pissed. Your "I follow the science" remark is at best a non-sequitor (good for you?) and at worst attempting to dodge your insult by claiming some kind of scientific vindication, which would make it even more disgusting, so, you really aren't helping yourself here. This will be my last comment on the topic, you're going out of your way to avoid understanding why the community is up in arms, so enjoy your martyr complex. --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you delirious on meds or something? Dronebogus (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wow. -Roxy the dog 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Golbez is going after you as a way of going after me, and Dronebogus is just being Dronebogus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My ban doesn't allow me to click "thanks". - Roxy the dog 07:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So that's it then. I am a hateful transphobic bigot, condemmed by the community. I am very sorry, and I hope the community will allow me to continue to contribute in areas outside GENSEX, where I have already accepted I am not able to contribute in a positive way. I have contributed and would wish to continue to contribute in a positive way in many other areas of the project. -Roxy the dog 08:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement I am a hateful transphobic bigot will be used against you by irony-immune users. If I was in your place, I would strike it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hob. This is unfortunate, because this was me admitting my failings, acknowledging what I have done and the condemnation of the community. I was not being ironic. This was the accused admitting his guilt. Your good faith misenterpretation only serves to illustrate how difficult it is for me to achieve clarity in my responses. At this stage, everything I say is being picked apart, it is heartbreaking for me to acknowledge my failings in this way. Thank you once more. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A proposed resolution

As you are probably aware, a large number of editors on the incidents noticeboard are currently in favor of site banning you due to personal attacks you made against User:Maddy from Celeste, despite multiple warnings to avoid making personal attacks. This is an unfortunate situation because many editors, including myself, appreciate your contributions to skepticism and WP:FRINGE topics. Therefore, I'm going to suggest that you voluntarily agree to the following editing restrictions:

An indefinite, one-way interaction ban with Maddy from Celeste
An indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed

Of course, it's entirely possible that even if you do agree to these, there will still be a consensus to site ban you. But I think many editors are willing do give you another chance if you stick to the topic areas where you are able to edit without causing disruption. I would also strongly advise you against making any sort of comment that could even potentially be construed as a personal attack. You have a very, very small amount of rope left and the community likely won't be pleased if you continue your pattern of barely-escaped sanctions on noticeboards. I await your response. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I support this recommendation in its entirety. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already indicated, though perhaps not clearly enough, that I accept these restrictions, and would certainly abide by them. - Roxy the dog 06:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the (MEDRS) ranch

I hope your health improves soon, RtD.

I've never posted here before, but I'm aware of your work, and with the dwindling ranks of medical editors willing to engage anywhere anymore, in your absence, I am worried about who will maintain these articles. Other than Morgellons (and the related delusional parasitosis), I won't, because I'm worn out on the WikiShenanigans everywhere. As far as I know, these articles are likely to fall into disrepair now, so I hope some TPS will watchlist them.

See this article, which summarizes a recent study.

And topics at:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. That's just one reason why I oppose the community ban, but didn't dare say it out loud. (I've learned this topic is dangerous, and sometimes sanctions are tribal and go far beyond PAG.) A Tban would have been better, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but this one is. They are supposed to protect Wikipedia, and a Tban would have done that. It would have protected Wikipedia. Now we're short one more mainstream editor, leaving fringe editors more freedom to exercise their insidious influence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, and I want to make it very clear that I don't mean this as a criticism of Valjean. But as long as good-faith editors are afraid to speak up at drama boards, things like this are going to keep happening. We need to support one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, I want to put some more nuance on what I just said. I don't want anyone, least of all Roxy, to interpret me as saying that I think the result was the wrong one. It was properly decided, and should stand. But I absolutely believe that we have a dysfunctional system if editors of good faith are afraid to speak up, for fear of backlash. And the only cure for that is to abandon that fear. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I should also clarify, lest I also get banned for commenting. I think Roxy was dead wrong and deserves a block, just not a total ban. A Tban would be better. Punitive blocks and bans are wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to reply only because I think Roxy might benefit from thinking about my reasoning in this comment. Certainly, Wikipedia has a troubled relationship with WP:NOTPUNITIVE. But there is a legitimate argument to be made, and this argument got consensus at the ban discussion, that a ban prevents future feelings of being unwelcome for editors who are hurt by those kinds of comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not wading in to that other than to say I have been consistent. I did not support a site ban on an editor whose issues went well beyond anything diffed for RtD, and for many more years, and in many more places, and several arbcases, and that editor is still editing. I thought there were ways other than a CBAN to address the issues (I could be wrong), yet those were not enacted, so what do I know; that editor is still able to say the same things that brought them to ANI on their talk page, and no one is complaining.

Anyway, I'm here to say I just hope some of you will watchlist these articles; the trend at WT:MED is increasingly towards arguing that content doesn't even need to be cited at all, much less to a reliable source, much less to a MEDRS source, so as I said, the shenanigans have me increasingly worried about FRINGE and pseudoscience topics. As well as everything else. I wonder if I've cleaned up my last medical article given some of the environmental issues of late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I may well come to regret it, but I just put every article you listed that wasn't already on my watchlist onto my watchlist. I'm not saying that I have the energy to really take care of any of those pages, but I will hopefully notice if something egregious crops up. I hope some other editors will do likewise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

All but Cow urine, Ritz-Carlton Hotel urine, and Trump at the Act nightclub were on my watchlist.

I can handle Cow urine at least (along with a few others). Definitely in the realm of agriculture fringe stuff I deal with that I never had thought to check before. Hopefully a walk in the park compared to GMOs. KoA (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The pages I may have removed from my watchlist are the ones related to LGBTQ issues, which is sad. I'm still traumatized. It's just too dangerous an area to venture into unless one has lots of experience, knowledge, and never makes a mistake. Newbies get crucified and risk CBANs. Errors are punished hard. Forgiveness is in another universe, with the exception of a few editors, who do show understanding for the difficult learning curve required for editing or discussing there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both for watchlisting those. Please ping me if I can be of any help, but know that real life has not been kind lately and I am barely able to manage real content work. And then when I do real content work, I always have to deal with trivial complaints; not worth it anymore. Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much (see: none) experience with pseudoscience or fringe science topics, but I am willing to help maintain Neuro-linguistic programming if nothing else because it's a topic I am somewhat familiar with and I'm worried that fringe POVs may seep into the article in Roxy's absence. I don't know enough about other fringe or medical topics to commit to maintaining those, but every extra set of eyes helps, I imagine, even if only on one article. I'll further add that while Roxy's CBAN was likely the right call I wish them well with their health and potential appeal in the future once they have grown as an editor. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just done one of my periodic watchlist blankings. Probably picked the wrong moment. Oh well, I'm away from today until the end of June with no Wikipedia, so wish you all well in the meantime. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)