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.

23 April 2022 Dear user, I just saw you immediately undid my revision on the article about the Great Barrington Declaration, where I removed the reference to "climate change denial" since it seems to be unsupported, and none of the sources cited is actually an article by any of the members of the AIER stating that climate change doesn't exist. I can provide evidence of the fact that AIER exponents do not deny climate change: https://web.archive.org/web/20201022221830/https://www.aier.org/article/climate-catastrophism-and-a-sensible-environmentalism/ https://www.aier.org/article/the-battle-for-1-5-degrees-of-warming-is-already-lost-so-whats-plan-b/ https://www.aier.org/article/climate-alarmism-reconsidered/ Both these articles acknowledge climate change as a problem; they just disagree about the common proposed solutions, while supporting nuclear power as a sensible and free-market-friendly solution to it. Since I guess you are very sensible about fake news, I would just ask you to provide evidence supporting the idea that AIER denies climate change, otherwise the statement expressed in the beginning of the article is just a fake news.

Best regards, a user

If you cannot be bothered to sign your posts, I feel no need to respond in any meaningful way. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about it, my name is Salvatore 93.47.219.174 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those links do not support your odd contention. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to send me a link supporting YOUR contention. Since you are claiming that the AIER denies climate change, you have the burden of the proof. I have just sent a sample of articles to show that they don't deny climate change, but I cannot prove that all swans are white by looking at all swans in the world; if you want to prove that some swans are black, you have the burden of the proof. 93.47.219.174 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not respond further here, as other watchers of the GBD page will not see our conversation. The article talk page is where you should argue for your point of view, rather than a user Talk page. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do so, hoping that anyone will bother to answer as quickly as you bothered to undo my edit.

Best regards,

Salvatore 93.47.219.174 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My speed in this was entirely coincedental, I assure you. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The article "Scardust" has had extensive editing issues in the past. I was dissatisfied with the previous iteration of the article, so I did extensive research and spent about seven hours last night and today fixing up some inaccuracies, cleaning up irrelevant information, properly sourcing claims, and providing a more comprehensive history of the band. At the moment, I believe the article looks fine, but I am afraid that the same users who have caused problems with the article in the past may aggressively change the article again, for the worse.

Would it be possible for you to check the sources, and make sure the article is indeed good and if not, let me know what needs to be changed and I will change it (including sourcing), and to moniter the article so that it remains high quality?

I did message the band themselves who suggested I make the changes I did, and provided me with several sources I cited in the article. I can send you that email exchange if you need.

Thank you in advanced.

(Eyesofagony (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I'm curious. What criteria made you select me for this request? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it was essentially random; I noticed that you're an admin, or at least a highly regarded editor who frequents "Biographies of Living People," under which this article falls. If you're not the right person, please let me know where to go. thank you.

(Eyesofagony (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Edit: although upon looking at your history you indeed do seem to be grumpy, so maybe I chose the wrong user... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesofagony (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I woke up, and found this!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated there, it appeared to me as if you weren't interested. Situation under control though. Thank you for the response. Eyesofagony (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy. I'm assuming when you said Already in cats that exclude these in this edit summary, you're referring to the English Male set of categories? If so, as Quentin was transgender, as is discussed in the article lead and body as cited to his last published work, why did you not remove the other set instead? Could I convince you to self-revert and remove the other categories instead please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wont be self reverting, sorry. If you want to ask your question on the talk page of the article, I would be happy to respond there so other interested editors can see. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxy the dog!

I happened to read about your health when I was going to post this. My condolences, I hope everything goes well.

You wrote this in the edit summary: https://web.stanford.edu/~davies/Symbsys100-Spring0708/Marx-Commodity-Fetishism.pdf However I can't find this document linked to anywhere in the edit.

Would you mind telling me where it is?

Kind regards, Pauloroboto. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

(I've now checked it again, and I can't find anything close to it. I don't even cite Das kapital.) Pauloroboto (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for your concern about my health, it is much appreciated.

You are somewhat justified in questioning my edsum. I certainly wasn't thorough enough in checking before actually reverting you. All I did was try to figure out where the strange unencyclopeadic text was coming from by googling huge sections and finding millions of results. It was an easy way of removing the edit that didn't at all justify itself in a list of topics characterised as Pseudoscience. Nevertheless, a load of marxist critiques and quotes doesn't validate "Economics" as pseudoscience. Would you like me to open a section at the article Talk page to discuss this? I note that another editor reverted your previous edit? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm glad to hear that. Hope you're doing better soon.

I would be happy to see a section opened on the talk page, then I can answer you there in more detail.

See you there.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reminder, nicely done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Roxy the dog. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]