User talk:Roxy the dog

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

TCM on Lonicera caerulea

What do you think of this addition? Seems a bit too strong of claim. What do you think? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A new editor making what appears to be a good faith attempt to improve the project. The sources don't meet MEDRS imho because at first glance I'd say they are Primary. I cant comment as to reliability of the publications. The claim made, (copied from one of the sources), means that MEDRS applies, and COPYVIO should be considered. I think. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's all moot now anyway. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Text of an email I sent a couple of hours ago.

Hi doc.

As I cant comment on your talk page, I'd just like to say that by that stage, you'd probably go to another pub, where you'd find a better welcome, Yes?

Best

Roxy

Roxy the dog™ bark 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, Roxy, don't have any contact with him whatsoever, either on wiki or off. No good can possibly come of it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In other news, a councillor claimed that "get in the sea" amounted to a threat of attempted drowning. Thin skinned people with persecution mania, very much of the minute I suppose. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Roxy, please do not do anything like that again. It was completely counterproductive, and certainly did nothing to improve Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

[1]. I'm serious about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

..and yet if you put something like that on the doc's page, he'd fly off the handle. No, not harassment, merely the logical extension of a crappy analogy. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, you've been around long enough to know how it goes. Anti-science types do not want to hear anything that conflicts with their beliefs. They consider anything that causes cognitive dissonance to be a form of harassment. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

True. I had to laugh at the latest porkies on that page though. Nobody has ever been asked to stay away from this page. -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Roxy, I have struck the message at my talk page and I have come here to apologise for unintentionally misrepresenting you. I genuinely thought you had banned me from here. DrChrissy (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that things seem to have cooled down; that's good. But Roxy, your (and Guy's) dismissal of what I said does not fly with me. Whether DrChrissy would react negatively to a similar message from me is irrelevant to how you react to the message I actually gave you. You know that, on the whole, I am friendly towards you, and I sure ain't no anti-science type. But I'm telling you very seriously that sending such an email (even if it was lighthearted in your mind) was a bad idea. Why would you have thought that your advice was wanted? I'm not having any cognitive dissonance, and I still say it was harassment. If you disagree with me, that's your choice, but don't be surprised if I take you to ANI if I see it happen again, where you will find out which one of us understands the harassment policy better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Are you labeling me as an "anti-science type"? A direct question. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Trypto: I don't dismiss what you said. Roxy's action was fultile and only ever likely to feed DrChrissy's persecution mania. @DrChrissy: Yes. That is, after all, why you were given topic bans from areas where your anti-science advocacy caused issues. Also, engaging here while "banning" the same people from your own talk page is hypocritical. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add that to the list of your indiscretions against me, including editing my edits to change their meaning and tell lies about me. DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, it sounded to me like you were encouraging Roxy, not discouraging him. And if you are disinclined to feed whatever that is, your reply to me sure sounds like a second dish-full. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am not encouraging Roxy. I consider DrChrissy to be a time-sink and everybody is best off leaving him alone other than checking his edits and advocacy within the actual encyclopaedia. Just look at the comment above - it leaves no space for the possibility that there could be anything other than a campaign of lies and smears. It's wearisome, but it's absolutely standard for frustrated POV-pushers.

However, the email is not harassment. It's just pointless. Guy (Help!) 05:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not told lies about you - If I had, I have no doubt you would have whisked me off to a noticeboard. DrChrissy (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You have, in fact, and I did, and they agreed. However, the ability of sanctioned POV-pushers to critically examine their own behaviour is typically very low, and you are no exception. You see yourself as a warrior for The Truth™. Hence the sanctions. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ermmmmm.... what lies have I told about you, which noticeboard did you take me to and who is "they" that agreed with you? DrChrissy (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your major problem is that you are so caught up in your activism that you don't allow for the possibility that reasonable people may differ, and you certainly don't allow for the possibility that any criticism of you might be legitimate. Hence you start flinging accusations of "lies" and "indiscretions". That's classic battleground mentality. You take everything so very personally. You're the one who wants to cast everything as The Truth™ and Lies™. That's not a game I'm interested in playing. Your own actions are sufficiently problematic that they have earned you topic bans, but you seem unwilling to accept these (or any other criticisms) as legitimate. That is your problem, not mine, Roxy's, or anyone else's. And now we're done because life is too short to try to overcome the cognitive dissonance of anti-science activists on Wikipedia user talk pages. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@JZG: I asked you as an administrator, a direct question. Please will you give me a direct answer. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is understandable that the Doc believed he had been asked not to post here, as I have just found (I'm crappy with page history) a post I made the last time he posted here, viz ... "I find it interesting Doc that you feel able to post on this page, after having forbidden me from posting on yours." I would like to thank Boris, Trypto and Guy for their sage advice. -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker) Now how could anyone not respect and appreciate your coming forward with that tidbit of information? I know in my heart DrChrissy will appreciate it. I don't want to be part of this discussion - I'm just here to learn - and wanted to tell you, Rox, that what I just learned makes me smile because I saw such good things in all of you. Oh, day-em! I just burned the popcorn!! Oh, well - that's ok - won't be needing it. How about a beer?} Atsme📞📧 00:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of DRN discussion of Michael Greger

I requested dispute resolution on Michael Greger. I'm notifying you because you made an edit concerning the relevant material. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Musahiban

Thanks. This is a California based editor who has threatened to get Anonymous onto me, and believes that his "Afghan Royal Family" is in a formal relationship with Israel. You can even find him editing Afghan Hound[2]. Weird but a real pain. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I remembered from last time. -Roxy the dog™ bark 07:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've used Twinkle to report this to WP:RPP, you might want to chime in there. I don't want to do it myself as I've been to active at the article, although it's been because of this idiot. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Result. I've gotta do some Zen stuff now, get my karma aligned after e/c. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User warnings

Hi. I noticed your reverted a bunch of vandalism on Fan death. It's helpful to warn the user/IP responsible for the vandalism as it creates a paper trail upon which an admin can block the offending account. Without the paper trail admins often hesitate even when, like in this case, the vandal repeatedly damages an article. Thanks for your help with this. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If an admin wanted to sanction the IP concerned, no paper trail greater than that which exists already would be needed, but I take your point. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

⁽talk page stalker) Where are you taking it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: By paper trail I don't mean contributions; obviously those are logged. Often admins will refuse to block an editor or IP because insufficient warnings were given. Thanks for your countervandalism, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, admins block or ban editors who make too many complaints. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Only if those complaints are frivolous or intedned to try to silence legitimate criticism. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if those complaints are legitimate and backed up with diffs. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I just noticed your categories below. I'm totally stealing them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict on my own talk Page! I would support such a proposal. note, if you look at the page markup, you will see comments as to where the cats came from. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)