Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, I saw that my edit was reverted, and as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing I wanted to reach out and ask for clarification on the specific reasoning that you felt that this should be reverted? What is the distinction in your mind between this source, and a similar source that you would consider to be reputable by the guidelines provided by Wikipedia for source reliability? (which I've just read through to better understand Wikipedia's take on this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A crowd sourced website does not meet WP:MEDRS. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The platform in question has both user-generated content (a forum) and administration-generated content (a blog), and it's clear when you look at the source that it is not user-generated/crowd-sourced, but an article that has been produced by the administration of the site. I have reverted your edit, based on the fact that your reasoning for removing it does not conform with referenced guidelines in WP:MEDRS, as the source is provably not "crowd-sourced". Joel McLeod (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have fixed the page. You need to understand WP:MEDRS or your experience here at Wikipedia will not be a pleasant one. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have left a welcome note, and a reading suggestion on your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarification on what the issue is, Roxy. The reasoning you provided initially was that the source was "crowd sourced", so forgive me for addressing the concern that you gave me directly with refutation. Now I am of the understanding that your reasoning for editing is because the nature the topic is medically-based, which requires enhanced prudence when sourcing compared to other material. So that my experience here at Wikpedia will be as far from unpleasant as possible, with minimal friction, would you be able to confirm that the reasoning for you edit is actually not relating to "crowd sourcing", but to greater strenuity when sourcing for medical topics (with reference to WP:MEDRS a number of times)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wot up dog? Please kindly refrain from subtly implying that I am an idiot on my talkpage. The word is an archayic medical term which was replaced by the term "severe mental retardation". Neither of which are very nice. I know you get away with a lot on here, but I'm pretty sure that using offensive derogatory terms in this way is a breach of WP:civility and if you do it again I will have to report it on the WP:ANI. I also want to say that if you ever need someone to talk to or a shoulder to cry on I am here for you. With love and empathyEssayist1 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you were the one that used the word, and I was making a determined effort not to be as you put it, incivil. When you are no longer a newbie, and have some wikichops, then you'll understand WP:NPA. good luck. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a research study that clearly documents Fibro in people. The science is sound. Rather than helpfully edit the line so that it doesn't fail some arbitrary set of rules....let's just remove it!

Oh and research trials? FORGET ABOUT IT.

These Wiki editors clearly don't care about the health of people and clearly are interested in spreading decades old ideas about PSYCHOSCHEMATIC sources of pain and suffering. Yeah...all these millions of Americans are MAKING IT ALL UP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.188.34.107 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, nice to see you. What on earth are you on about? It may help communicating if you try to make some sense, instead of incoherant ranting about your problem. Read WP:MEDRS at the same time. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Roxy, I'm looking for the discussion on the Homeopathy talk page where it was established that the use of Category Consumer Fraud was appropriate and can't find it. I actually looked for it before doing my edit and what I did find was the FAQ that I included in my edit summary. And now I looked some more, still can't find it. BTW, while I do agree, personally, that homeopathy is quackery and, in many cases, fraudulent, I came to the conclusion (based on that FAQ page) that the category isn't appropriate. If could be so kind to point to me where this was discussed, I would much appreciate it. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That link has nothing to do with homeopathy, it is about FAQs Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake, I had placed things the wrong way around. Sorry about that. Fixed it now. Either way, the link was right on my edit summary, which you should have considered before reverting. And you didn't answer my question. VdSV9•♫ 13:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read your edsum. Content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and I'm not trying to discuss content, I am going from the assumption that you claim this has already been discussed, and asking you where this discussion happened. In your edit summary, you wrote Return established cat. I interpreted this as meaning that there had been some prior discussion where this had been, well, established. So, going back to my initial comment here, I'm asking you to show me where it was established. Or is my interpretation of your edit summary wrong? If so, can you clarify, please? VdSV9•♫ 14:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Health fraud" are contained in the article. Article content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the words "health fraud" are contained in the article, that's not what I asked. Look, I don't like to assume things, but it really looks like you're avoiding my question. Take your time, but please answer. What did you mean by "established cat"? Where has this been established in the discussion history of the article? Or are you claiming that since these words are contained in the article this means the category in "established"? If so, that's not a valid argument. Are you aware of the past discussions that resulted in the FAQ I mentioned earlier? Are you taking this into account? I really think we're on the same side here where science is concerned, but I'm looking for a resolution based on WP policy and past discussions, and I don't feel like your answers so far have been very satisfying.VdSV9•♫ 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VdSV9: This editor edit warred on cupping therapy over that category too. He only stopped when I threatened to report him. Roxy, as I've told you before, this editing pattern is disruptive. Show sources and discuss content, please. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Roxy. I've added a description about artesunate on 11:12, 18 August 2019. The content I added was with citation. Could you please tell me why my revision is innaccurate, thanks. the content is :

 invented by Liu Xu in 1977.[1]

your reference doesn’t support your edit. She didn’t invent artesunate. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in page 20 of this book, Chapter C: Artesunate, it shows the inventor of artesunate is Liu Xu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then the book is wrong. She did not "invent" Artesunate Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you made me confused. Liu Xu is the inventor of Artesunate actually, he had received several prize due to his invention and, of course, the National Invention Patent. Or you means I need use another word, like synthesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word "invent" does not mean what you think it means, perhaps the word "discover" is what you want? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, discover is talking about something that is already exist and somebody find it, for example, Artemisinin is discovered by Youyou TU. Invent means someone create something. Actually Artesnate is a synthesized drug and the person who find the way to make it is Liu Xu. Artesnate had a patent number in China (Patent No ZL85100781.3), only an "invention" could be authorized a patent number. Maybe "discover" didnot suit for Xu's achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, I have left a comment on the talk page of this article for you to respond to. Textorus (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, I have posted this dispute for review at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Textorus (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, a Third Opinion has been posted on the talk page of this article, which supports my edit. I have also posted a question for you on that talk page. Textorus (talk)

Your link above is not helpful at all. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not helpful" but my request for a third opinion was removed from the Active Disagreements list by @Work permit:, per standard procedure, after he responded on the talk page of the TVBH article. You can see this on the "View History" tab of the Third Opinion page. Textorus (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to link to the 3O request itself, rather than some policy page which wasn't helpful. I know what a third opinion is, but it's moot now anyway. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I just told you, Roxy. I did indeed link to the location of the request itself, which was only one line - which you can view via the

1. Talk:Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong § Political postion. Disagreement about DAB's political position. 07:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Talk:Stonewall riots § Owner photo? Disagreement about establishment's management. 09:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1362–1367) § Concerns regarding results. Disagreement about the result. 06:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC) article history over there. But apparently, by the time you followed my link, Work permit had already deleted the request, as is their standard practice once a request has been fulfilled. And now let's have an end of all this and go our separate ways. Textorus (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ROXY - What on earth is wrong with you? You just reverted me AGAIN. After you just got through saying on the talk page of TVBH that you "accepted the outcome" of the WP:3O comments, and on this talk page here, you said "the point is moot now." This is ridiculous, and your action just contradicted your own words. I'm going to bed now but for sure I will be going to Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..and the page has now been protected against your editwarring. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, RE adding the link UFTmachine.com, you declined the link due to "works best on Chrome and Safari". This is old text and it does work on most browsers now including Firefox. So, I will remove this text. Thanks. VideoCTO (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which text will you be removing VideoCTO?. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed all references to browser support limitations. It was in two areas, now removed. VideoCTO (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you are talking about, what text have you removed, can you provide a diff? You do not appear to have removed any text? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, I was speaking about my editing of the UFTmachine.com website. I removed the out of date offending text from this site. So there is no diff to provide. FYI, the suggested text for inclusion in the "External links" section is: [URL:Universe Fine-Tuning Machine] Learn about and simulate six of nature's fundamental constants. For STEM students and physics enthusiasts." Hope this clears up any confusion... VideoCTO (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:VideoCTO and uftmachine.com spam --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, I have no problem with a sort description being improved, but deleting does not help get them done. If you know a better short description for fiber, please add it to the article. It does not have to be perfect, just better. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I'm afraid that the wiki style of short description doesn't work very well for "fibre" in that a fibre cannot be adequately defined in the short description format required by wikipedia. The closest you can reasonably get is describing a substance "very significantly longer than it is wide"; but a stalk of wheat fits, as does a blade of grass. neither are fibres. I believe it better to have no description at all rather than an inadequate one that is wrong, particularly as the article itself isn't that bad. If we can find a reasonable short descrip[tion then I'm all for it, but I haven't come across one in a lifetime in the textile industry. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you reverted my edit in the intro. I did so because the claim of falsehood requires a citation or some kind of source. Can you provide one? I’m happy to look at the source! Thanks. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC) PS I hope your dog’s health has improved. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are in the article and the lead, even though they aren’t necessary in the lead. The real Roxy died three year ago, she was wonderful, thank you for asking. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edits on the Osteopathy page without explanation? Golan1911 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxy, you just reverted my edit on rayon, explaining that the source is unreliable being a blog.
I sincerely thank you for your vigilance.
Wikipedia policies can accept blog references in a number of circumstances (Please refer to Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources). I think such circumstances apply in this case:

• it is hosted by wordpress and it is called blog, yes, but it is run by a reputable entity, the Moroccan artisans association Anou. They have their own website The Anou
• they are supported by the British Council The Anou Residency
• the text shows that they have done serious research
• it has not been contested by anyone, and there is no other reference arguing the contrary, except for shops with vested interests

I hope you find that these credentials are enough to include the referenced edit, it is relevant to a lot of people. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I did some work with the British Council in Rabat many years ago. Cactus rayon is something I've never heard of however, and sourcing it to a blog is certainly not acceptable. It is also totally undue for the lead, even if you could find a reliable source. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, it is not "cactus rayon". They are selling standard cellulose rayon imported from different places, but they are labelling it "cactus silk" pretending it is made by hand by Berber women. It is a clear case of mislabelling, and it fits perfectly in the corresponding existing section of the article called precisely "mislabelling". If you think this is undue, you should eliminate the whole "mislabelling" section.

As for the source, I insist, wikipedia policies do allow blogs as references in certain circumstances, so the debate is not whether blogs are acceptable, the debate is whether those circumstances apply. If you disagree with wikipedia policies you should try to change the policy, not just enforce your own idea.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to indent your posts on Talk pages when responding to somebody, using colons. I have done it for you this time. As regards your proposal to use a blog for sourcing, my answer is no, according to our P&G. Please make any further comments at the Rayon Talk page, so that other interested editors can see discussion related to the article. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which part of my edit do you think the notion of verifiability applies to? Sthatdc (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing. Exactly what claim did I introduce to the article that was not verifiable? Sthatdc (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an example of intolerable usage of, and I hesitate to call it a word, "gotten", in an article earlier today. It is still there.

What have I become? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not even think about the rise of "bias" to mean "biased". Alexbrn (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just me, but you're the second person to note that this week, -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let Jimbo decide what he wants on his talk page. María Sefidari is the chair of the WMF board. Jimbo is on the board. Bitter Oil (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off from this page.Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Was he a troll? Didn't seem to be ... Jimbo's t/p allows for a weird variety of stuff to be housed and I didn't think that the request was necessarily, in bad-faith. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bitter Oil: Jimbo already inappropriately involves himself regarding articles about people he knows. If you have no conflict of interest regarding the subject, why bring it up to someone that does? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent has removed it again, with a cogent edit summary.[1] Kindly do not edit war further to reinsert it, or you're likely to be blocked. Bitter Oil, you showed enough poor judgment in putting it on Jimbo's page in the first place, and the reason you give above ("María Sefidari is the chair of the WMF board. Jimbo is on the board.") is amazing. You have been disinvited from this page, so if you want to answer me, please come to my own page. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am rolling back your continuous edits as vandalism. Cite sources and DO NOT remove cited information without any sources to back your changes up. If you're not sure about the truthfulness of the already-in-place sources, dispute it on the talk page and do not edit war. ɱ (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been an editor for long enough. I won't accept lazy edit summaries of "this isn't true" to remove what I found in multiple sources to be factual. ɱ (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it now, you're going to look silly if you carry on with this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --ɱ (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a single source. Even if I'm wrong with my facts in the article, that's not even the issue now. You haven't discussed the facts with sources, only mocking and insulting me. Why? ɱ (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy’s reply at ani covers it. I doubt I’ll bother to reply there further. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]