User talk:Roxy the dog

Related to ArbCom

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

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.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, don't worry about my doing this. I'm doing it as a sort of preemptive protection for the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been here long enough. This is of course one of my primary areas of interest. -Roxy the dog. wooF 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

I was just wondering why you reverted my edit. I thought my point made sense. I stated “Propagandist is a divisive term that should not be in the head section of this article. If you wish to put it in a better context in the criticism section then that should be fine, otherwise I would not recommend you add it to any article about any news broadcaster or political commentator. If you would like to start a section on the talk page of this article your more than welcome.” Shouldn’t we avoid words and phrases that can potentially be divisive, regardless if it is backed by sources or not? BigRed606 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi BigRed, I have seen this but I'm kinda busy right now (see below) but I'll respond later today. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm tired, but as promised - Hanity is a propagandist imho, and I dont see it as a problem if correctly sourced. If wikipedia had called him a "Raging left-wing commy propagandist" then I might be troubled by the "raging left-wing commy" bit, but we dont, so I think it is OK.

In fact, following what you said in your edsum, I said - "Reccomendation taken into consideration. Replaced, well sourced." -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Roxy, it looks to me like you got a very fair result. (You're welcome. ) If it holds up while the Arbs discuss it, I think that you will have dodged a bullet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it is Chemo day again, it has been four weeks. I'll take my ipad - I dont know if I should look straight away, or wait till I'm strapped in!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I briefly looked regarding selfish issues, and I'll study again later today, but you are correct. Back later. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Be well: that's what matters most. And don't worry over whether it's a "reminder" or a "warning", because they are two different names for what will have the same effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired, and I've sat here for thirty minutes thinking about how to respond having slowly read through the thing. I dont think the outcome for myself will be unreasonable, but beyond that I think it would be out of place to comment, so I wont.

I would like to thank you for keeping me calm, and on the straight and narrow the last few weeks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 01:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Hi, you seem to have deleted other editors' comments in your edit: [1]. I fixed it for you. Matma Rex talk 21:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I had an edit conflict, and thought I'd backed out successfully, made my comment and left without checking the history. I've been afk for a while, so I suspect the other two notifications I see will be you helping me. I bet I've missed something really obvious. I'll make the appropriate responses at that page, thx. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

and this on the second Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This happened when I clicked on the first reply link in this section Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the last one, and I have no idea where it'll end up Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Related to recently restored versions of Aromatherapy

Hi, I was wondering why you restored so much to the recent revisions on the Aromatherapy article. You cited a lot of POV when you restored it though there was source material from books to guides to back up the applications I put in. Based on the journals and books I used, I thought the most comprehensive/responsible approach to the article would be to have aromatherapy be seen as a self-care treatment rather than it being seen as a cure (which can be really dangerous and misleading to imply). That's why I included a lot of information from aromatherapy methods people typically use to real safety concerns even to condensing potential redundancies within the article. I also tried to separate aromatherapy details from essential oil details (since there's a whole page to essential oils). Kindly, let me know your thoughts. I just thought it was strange to remove so many edits even in places like the history part. Thanks!! :) Chocolataupain (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

My edsum reads, "Return to good following POV edits. needs MEDRS sources for BMI edits". Much of what you wrote wasn't supported by WP:MEDRS sources, and changes you made moved the tone of the article away from a mainstream scientific point of view. I just returned to a point before your edits started. If you wish to discuss this further, please open a new section at the article Talk page, where other interested editors will see. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it

Sorry to hear you need chemo, Roxy. Hope it's going as well as can be expected. Bishonen | tålk 17:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Hear, hear! The process is tough, but worth it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I expect to be undergoing chemo myself shortly if they don't operate on my bowel cancer first. Roxy maybe we should chat sometime, sorry to hear you are needing it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I’m up for a bowel cancer operation soon. I’m seeing a surgeon Monday. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)