User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Roxy the dog. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Roxy the dog! I am Bobrayner and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

bobrayner (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, apart from the slightly tacky templated message, if you are who I think you are then I'm sure your contributions will be really helpful and evidence-based. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I am who you think I am Roxy the dog (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. If there are any pages you're really interested in, you can add them to your watchlist, which helps you keep track of any changes since you last looked. If you want to improve any articles touching on alt-med, bear in mind that the WP:MEDRS guideline requires really strong sources for medical claims, and content which isn't properly sourced might be challenged/changed/removed. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A question for you, maybe an apology

Hello Roxy the dog,
I referred to you as "the dog lady" because I thought your name was female, Roxy, and you seemed to have a tolerance for the absurdity that is both amusing and annoying on Wikipedia. I love and hate it, but love wins out, so far. Anyway, I recall your brief presence during my brief time with the NLP article talk page, which I have since backed away from ;o) I apologize if it seemed like I was insulting you by referring to you as "the dog lady". I couldn't recall your user ID, just that it was someone the dog. I am female, and would be very unhappy to be referred to as the dog lady, unless it were meant that I liked dogs, or cared for them, e.g. in a kennel setting. That's the apology.

Now, time for the question! What is a pseudo-skeptic forum, do you think? Is it like Skeptics StackExchange? Or maybe Less Wrong #6? Or even the opposite of Less Wrong, I think, a critique of the critiquer's e.g. more right than Less Wrong? Or Snopes, or maybe the opposite view, Snopes is a hoax (this is an especially bizarre example)? In other words, is it a forum where they expose or try to refute superstitions that exploit or defraud people? Or is it "pseudo" because it merely pretends to do that? The latter would be an odd thing. Have you ever seen one of the latter? I haven't, and admit to some curiosity about it.

Thank you for reading this, and for considering my question. --FeralOink (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, absolutely no apology needed, I smiled when I saw your dog lady comment. As regards a Pseudoskeptic forum, such a thing does not exist, even though the internet is full of really strange things. I do not subscribe to the spelling with a "k" either. I'm a Brit, and sceptic is spelled thusly. I'm a member of the JREF forum, though I rarely post there, and not using the "Roxy" name either. I use many forums on a regular basis. The term Pseudoskeptic that was used on the NLP page was intended as an insult. I pressed the editor concerned on the subject, and he declined to comment further. I may offer him an olive branch. Roxy the dog (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IRRI

hi,

as the editor who most recently flipped out and called attention to this user's editing, I am interested in how this is dealt with even though i do not actually have any experience with rice or agriculture related articles.

I am also not sure exactly whether a user's talk page is the best forum for this. even though i assume that's not your intent, it seems a little cabal-like. At the same time, I'm not sure what a more appropriate forum would be. maybe WT:AG? That seems public enough, targeted enough, and even though the project is inactive, it might attract additional voices that could be useful in figuring out how to handle this. Other suggestions are of course welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to open a discussion on the IRRI Talk page as suggested by NickCT, rather than continue here - I don't want no cabal. Roxy the dog (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to encourage WT:AG, since it seems to pertain to a number of articles, and some activity there might have the benefit of getting some other people involved in the consensus process. But that's just me. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your thinking here, and the only reason I am a bit reluctant to go bigger is my inexperience at "wiki-ing." The proposed discussion on the IRRI talk page doesn't preclude me doing the same thing at WT:AG. I'll give it serious thought.Roxy the dog (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. But i appreciate that you are being thoughtful about this. we need more of that here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi - I just noticed your question to me at the alt med page (sorry for the wait). I don't recall any specific problem - people just kept opening a lot of new sections, so there were a lot of them open at once.

Anyways, on an "advice" note I would say that if you get involved in that discussion, it will be time-sucking (and soul-sucking!) based on my previous experience. :-) It may get very frustrating, and you need to avoid that (in general, disciplinary action on Wikipedia is solely based on user conduct). If you've read the archives, don't model yourself after ParkSehjik ;-). (He was also socking - the IP addresses were his - and his exit from the discussion occurred when he was banned.) I eventually concluded that the first sentence wasn't really worth the trouble, and that the definitions from the medical organizations give at the least a good argument in Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, etc. And of course WP:Verifiability, not truth.) The best opportunities to be productive in the article are probably, well, anywhere but the lead sentence.

By the way, we can always use help at WP:FTN. (There are also Wikiprojects, e.g. Medicine and Rational Skepticism, even though I don't spend much time with them myself.) Also, I'm not always around much, but feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can ever answer any questions. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

My question to you was a little facetious, and not really aimed at you, but I was having trouble following the discussion there. I am also aware that the topics here that interest me are the ones that cause heated discussion with true believers. You have obviously identified this, and your suggestions have opened up a rich vein of things that could be interesting for me. I haven't come to scepticism recently, (I'm 57) but have become more active here because of the NLP page and the Seralini Affair. I've been adding to my watchlist almost exponentially in the last month.

Thank you for your offer to answer a question or two - I'm sure I'll take advantage of that sooner or later.Roxy the dog (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I also remember the expanding-watchlist phenomenon from when I first started editing regularly. :-) I look forward to seeing you around. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a common problem. I, too, am a slave to my watchlist - about 4000 articles, mostly quite controversial. Sometimes you just have to let go once you're confident that other people have an article in safe hands. If you ever find yourself getting too stressed, Roxy, remember that the watchlist is your own creation and the world won't end if you skip a bit or ask others for help with a problem.

bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a few months ago I cleared mine, and let it start creeping up again. Sometimes its better to use the wikiproject watchlists like [1] and [2] etc for general watching, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear me. Another raft of new things to figure out. Thank you all for the suggestions Roxy the dog (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit close to arguing the topic over at the altmed talkpage rather than simply our coverage of it. Discussions go more smoothly if we can stay focused.

In the spirit of the above, never run out of stuff to fix. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I do appreciate it - but how do I cope with it all??? I also take your point re the Alt Med talk page. --Roxy the dog (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to drain the ocean if you don't want to. If you just take a cupful and let others deal with the rest, that's fine too. Relax and have fun! bobrayner (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Cope with it all? That way lies madness. Your watchlist will devour each spare moment you devote to it and still maintain its relentless scroll. Just pick something you feel like doing at the moment or look for somewhere you can make an edit that would otherwise go unmade, then go back to your real life. Guard your sanity jealously, it is your most precious asset. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to study local bus timetables for a bit - it will enable me to improve a real wiki page, with little controversy. Good advice from 2/0 (cont.) --Roxy the dog (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Help wanted, I don't know how to ......

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I don't know how seriously to take an editor debating nicely on a controversial subjects Talk page. Thing is, said editor doesn't have a wiki account and is what I believe is called an "IP Editor" If the person had an account, I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but he/she proposes (and makes a reasonable case) major changes to a page. It feels wrong that this could be done. How should I react? THX. --Roxy the dog (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If the IP account is behaving reasonably, there isn't a problem. People are encouraged to register an account, but "anyone can edit" is an important principle. See Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much. --Roxy the dog (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, there is another essay: Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people! JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read both essays properly now - I will have to reign in my grumpiness in future, thanks again. --Roxy the dog (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine

I have removed it, as a consequence of removing the extensive fringe/notforum that was just posted by an ip editor (which has a history of fringe contribs there). I can replace it if you'd like, but it seems like it would lack context. let me know if i should do so anyway, or of course feel free to do so yourself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. --Roxy the dog (bark) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Social experiment

I've been passing around this link. His initial appearance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake here consisted of extremely bizarre behavior: repeatedly (like 5 times) splitting comments after being told to stop (including splitting comments that ask not to split comments), arguing that http://blog.ted.com is a news organization and a reliable secondary source, and more.

I was completely convinced that it was his Tumbleman / Bubblefish trolling persona, as his boastful description of trolling activities elsewhere matched the behavior I was seeing. He took me to dispute resolution (the wrong place); the case was dismissed and I've ceased communicating with him altogether. He walks a delicate line of always being able to claim he's acting to the best of his ability, and so I'm unable to prove anything. He's been boastfully trolling for a decade, as his Tumbleman / Bubblefish persona on the 'net shows.

He was a defender of Sheldrake at the TED forums, so he has reason to be here other than random trolling. Maybe it's a real-life case of le Petit Tourette, where he's been trolling so long that he's lost the ability to interact for real. vzaak (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've crossed swords with him as one of his trolls in another place. I only really connected it all yesterday, though I had seen your interactions with him, now deleted, on your talk page, it didn't register. I saw the dispute resolution stuff as well. It's never simple, is it? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 06:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

G4

Same fellow, virtually same article. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha !! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced information from March Against Monsanto

We are seeking proper sources for a lower estimate, to give a range besides the organizers' claim. If you know of such sourcing, please join us at the RS noticeboard where consensus has been reached regarding the CVS source you have just used. Simply put, it has been determined by all that this source cannot be used as an estimate since much of the event had not begun at the time of its publication. If you need this concept explained in greater detail, the noticeboard will help.

Also you removed information about the upcoming march but did not explain why. Please be careful to use guidelines very carefully at pages related to Monsanto and GMOs, because the edits made to these pages are going to be scrutinized in the future.

Best, petrarchan47 t c 18:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

With your permission Petra, could I move this discussion to the article talk page, where I think it ought to go? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

All of this information is there, this does pertain to you since you added the source. Please go here to read about this issue and to weigh in if you feel to, thanks, petrarchan47 t c 19:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me Petra how you conclude that the 200,000 figure has been ruled out by that discussion. It concludes no such thing. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have misread me: consensus has been reached regarding the CVS source . Please don't ask me to argue or defend something I haven't said. Cheers, petrarchan47 t c 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll read it again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Petra, The point now appears moot, as Jytdog has used another source for the 200,000 figure. Perhaps I missed the notification about the RS discussion on the MAM page. I apologise again for misreading / misunderstanding your comment here, I'll try not to let it happen again. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hi, considering Tumbleman has been blocked, it would be best to avoid giving him the oxygen of publicity (trolls wish to disrupt by attracting attention to themselves). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, considering that you show far better judgment than the average editor, I'd caution against taking advice from blind squirrels on a regular basis, even if, on this occasion, the squirrel has found a nut. David in DC (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it very scary that after one troll gets dealt with, another one turns up. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sedgefield

Roxy,

We obviously have a difference of opinion in what people are interested in, with regard to the recent changes on the Sedgefield page. Fair enough! I happen to think that people may be interested in what has happened to the Winterton church, you obviously don't. However, I did find insulting your assertion that I should buy advertising and that was the purpose of the edit. For your information, my only connection to the gym is that I patronise it, and enjoy the facilities that they offer. Therefore, your assumption that my edit was for personal gain is not only wrong but a little offensive. May I ask that you take the comment, suggesting I buy advertising space, out of the reversion edit.

As for the information, perhaps you would like to add a line discussing what has happened to the Winterton church yourself. In the end knowledge is knowledge and I think people would be interested and perhaps if you wrote it then it would be in a format we could agree upon.

Best regards,

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryG1612 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gary - I think you should suggest this at the Talk:Sedgefield page where it belongs. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a very good idea. I will certainly do that. It's a good suggestion. GaryG1612 (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would however still like to see the comment on buying advertising taken out of the edit history. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryG1612 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is even possible to remove a comment from the edit history, but even if I knew how, I would be disinclined to do it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well perhaps that is the most accurate reflection of the type of person you are!! GaryG1612 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks please Gary, It reflects badly on you. It is possible for certain users to hide revision history in exceptional circumstances, this isn't one of them. I can see however why your edit was reverted - whether you have a connection to the gym or not your addition to the page reads like an advertisement. Fraggle81 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the personal attack. It was driven by the frustration that I felt I had also been personally attacked with the sarcastic comment. There are surely better ways to communicate with new editors such as myself. I had explained the situation, accepted that I had been clumsy in my edit, had looked for ways to gain some guidance on improving matters, and indeed have followed that guidance. What more could I do? Where is the equity in this situation and corresponding comments? Anyway, doesn't matter, just time to me to move on. Once again however, I do apologise that I lost my cool with my earlier comment.GaryG1612 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

sneaky, but not sneaky enough

The eye in the sky, she can't tell a lie.[3]

Seventy-four, they say "hi".

Did you know that monkeys fly? :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

p.s. There is a possibility to remove a comment from the edit-history, but it requires Vast Admin Powers.... and in fact that is not what GaryG1612 was asking you to do. WP:AGF. If you see somebody blank an entire article, replacing it with the backslash glyph, do you assume they are a vandal? Well, quite frankly, you are supposed to assume they fell out of their chair, accidentally hit ctrl+a while they grabbed for purchase with their lefthand fingers, and then slid their righthand fingers down the backspace-key, the backslash-key, and the enter-key, with a tap-to-click at *just* the right time to get their cursor into the edit-summary box, which would save the page. Now, obviously, you should still revert... but instead of saying 'vandal' when you revert, you can just say 'revert accidental pagewipe'. Well, okay, if you can say 'pagewipe' without spilling your drink, then you can do so, but as for myself, I say 'revert accidental pageblank' which is far less giggle-inducing.

Point being, Gary just wanted you to take them at their word, that the advert-scent your uber sensitive canine nostrils detected was unintentional... which means, Gary wanted you to WP:AGF. And in fact, they offered to let *you* do the rewrite, into NPOV, because they recognize that while they did not intend to be non-neutral, that maybe it is hard for them to accomplish. If you are willing to suspend disbelief enough to type 'revert pagewipe oopsie' in your edit-summary, you also ought to be able to WP:AGF enough to give Gary the benefit of the doubt, and go do a partial-revert of your edit-summary where you accused them of needing to go rent some billboards. By saying you are disinclined to make the symbolic gesture, of putting a different edit-summary into the edit-history in question, saying something like 'false alarm, my bad, Gary is innocent of the self-promotion charge, apologies for not AGF' ... you are saying you stand by your original assessment of the situation. Which is, namely, that Gary is a paid PR flack, or a stockholder in the church (or whatever you two are discussing), which is most definitely not WP:NICE. As you may have heard elsewhere, I'm a nazi about WP:NICE, because I think wikipedia badly needs it, for her long-term vitality. Anyways, if you want my unsolicited but good as gold or your money back advice, as always, you may check the edit-summary. :-)

As for *my* talkpage edit-history, I almost never use it. Feel free to leave me tidbits there, but I'm unlikely to see them, unless by chance. When I do happen to see them, you'll probably be rewarded -- or is punished the word I'm looking for -- with some horrid doggerel about monkeys, or somesuch. Thanks for improving wikipedia; please enjoy this treat, on the house. <reaches into pocket> <extracts bag of dog biscuits> <pulls out single biscuit> <tosses it> <spills bag during toss> <hundred biscuits on the floor> <dogpile!> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Roxy, do you live in the UK? If so I am wondering whether people there see the British political system as a Two party system or as a Multi-party system. Which is your view?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, UK. Personally, I don't see it as anything more than two party, with fringe organisations trying like hell to get a grip on things. At the moment, the LibDems are in cohorts with the Conservatives in coalition government, but at the next general election, the LibDems will almost vanish.

What we have is Conservatives, sort of like Republicans, and Labour, sort of like Democrats, and various fringe elements. That is a naive assessment though, and it is an awful lot more complicated than that.

So, to actually answer the question that you asked, rather than the one I wanted to answer, I think we have a two party system, that allows for other parties who like to think they have a role to play. The Liberals go back a long long way, and used to play a major part. The Social Democrats rose in my lifetime splitting from Labour, and joined/merged with the Liberals relatively recently, in historical terms, to form the Lib/Dems.

I don't do politics normally. ;) __Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roxy. Helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Methinks the mathematics of the first-past-the-post voting system guarantee a two-party system. In fact, where the races are close (like a national election), what you end up with is a twin-party system, because the winning candidate cannot afford to tee off 51% of the voters. So most elections tend to be razor-thin margins, and/or decided entirely by how much funding the candidate has, and most candidates tend to be shells who can fill themselves up with whatever slogans they need to pacify 49%-plus-one-or-two-percentage-points-more of the voting public. Anyways, as Roxy can no doubt imagine, I can actually fill several pages with detailed analysis of all these citation-needed claims, but I'll let folks mull over the conclusions without providing the step-by-step proof. Anybody that wants my WP:OR is free to ask on my talkpage, o'course. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Fool Explains

I will not even try an defend how I looked the fool. During my brief time on Wikipedia trying to edit, you have had made a couple of comments that actually made me laugh. I mean that in a good way, your witty remarks actually made me laugh. I just want bring up a couple things. Remember when you started editing? It wasn't easy. The quote from your user page kind of sums up what you felt. "I was so green when I wrote the above sentence, I didn't even sign it. I was wrong about the links on that page, and I can see that now, but I was furious at the time." Roxy the dog (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "I was furious at the time" being the key phrase. That's how I felt. I can see now that I was wrong, way overreacted and in my babble insulted an entire Nation. My point is I really did not mean to fly off the handle but did. You were right, I looked quite foolish. Different people have different ways of being furious. I tend to go off and yet my BP is actually lower then normal. Go figure. I'm not known for being quiet is the simplest way to put it. You are another person I owe an apology to for insulting the British. I really didn't mean anything by it, I was in full blown rant mode. Yes I should have just shut up. If you were anyway offended I owe you an apology also. For now I'm going to just sit back and let the editors such as yourself make edits. Perhaps when it is a bit colder out I will try and edit something or maybe even try and write an article. For now I'm just going to let things cool down. I did not edit on here to fight with people. I felt at first that I had a better understanding of the AfD then most. After getting guidance from Nat and Lesion and going over the rules I changed my opinion. 4 weeks later I was informed that what I thought was dead was now back and I was being accused of something. I was furious. I was thinking would you all just leave me alone and I promise to not state anymore opinions. Then I thought about it and was like I'm not allowed an opinion? Flame on and I made an ass of myself. That's my story but out of all this you are the only one who actually made me laugh so I really do appreciate that. Gibco65 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of wisdom. I have had similar experiences here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Gibco65 , I've been out all day and I'm dog tired, so I wont be saying much here today, but I'll come back and fill in some gaps, and stuff, this week. Secondly, I have to say that there was no need to apologise to me, on the contrary I was rather abrasive myself. I could have been a lot less antagonistic, so I'm sorry too. I actually have a COI in this, because I've known Bob for some years on the internet, and I've even met him a couple of times, totally non wiki related mind you. I've only become active here in the last few months, and it was Bob that pointed me at something he knew I would be interested in.

Tomwsulcer commenting on this is interesting. We have interacted on a talk page on a subject that I had no personal interest in, but I felt strongly about part of the discussion. I discovered that Tom has a huge history here, and he is obviously very enthusiastic about the project itself, rather than just personal interests. The fact that he has had similar initial experiences as we both have, is probably not uncommon. What we decide to do after is probably more important.

Lastly, for now, it is very nice to know that I made somebody laugh. I think I have probably come close to the edge of acceptable wiki behaviour in this regard, but I find it far too difficult to be serious all the time. Trouble is, I'm not very good at being funny either !! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roxy. About humor. I got a 5-minute mini-lesson from a famous comic (somebody we've all seen) years back at a comedy club in Manhattan. Building up anxiety before a joke is important. Example: an audience of young dating-age people may be nervous about later-on in the evening, about dating snafus, sex, so a comedian will try to heighten anxiety about that. Jokes are like releasing air from the collective anxiety-balloon. Another example: retirees may fret about aging, doctor visits, retirement homes, adult diapers; dating problems won't rattle them as much, so a comedian will foster anxiety about that, focus on subjects which are unsettling. Don Rickles ratcheted up anxiety by getting audience members to worry about being called on and insulted. So, if you want to be funny, consider the audience: what bothers them? Talk about that. In Wikipedia, there is a fear of getting reverted, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I will tell you both something I have learned about comedy and humor. Whether its a open mike night or in my case just on a whim to give musician friends of mine a break, try and do stand up at least once in your life. Very long story shorter, my friends family owned a bar/club and every Monday night was an open mike night for bands or just individual musicians. Some people would bring just their guitar and my friend who played with Dave Mason and others, well his family owned the place. It was sort of like live Karaoke but say your were just a guy with a guitar and some songs, well basically the house band would play with you if you wanted. My friend plays keyboard. An important part of this is I don't drink so it's not like I was buzzed in the least bit. Anyway one night it was pretty grueling for them. Not many "bands" showed up but a lot of individuals. Some just wanted to sing, others would bring an guitar and the house band was playing for hours and needed a rest. In my infinite wisdom I was like well if you want I could just go up and do stand up. I'm one of those people who has a knack for being funny so even though shocked, it was like alright go up and do what you want. This was not a comedy club audience and nobody had ever just did comedy here. This was open mike band night. I walked up on that stage like a deer in the headlights. The first five minutes were just full blown anxiety. I had a couple of older guys just heckling me badly. Instead of pulling a Kramer I just kept going. The audience began to laugh at my stories. I had not prepared at all and was just telling life stories mostly about my family, nieces and nephews mostly and in 10 minutes I had the audience. The hecklers stopped and were laughing. I didn't go blue for laughs, I was just up there telling funny life stories. I was basically just winging it and talking about stuff that I found in my everyday life to be funny. Little things that were said or done that were just stuff that happens everyday where you have to just walk away and laugh. The audience could relate. I was up there for almost a half hour and when I was done I actually got a an standing ovation. Would I do it again without preparing? Hell No. I'm not doubting you at all Tom but there are all types of stand up. Some comedians just tell stories which lead up to a punch line and that's basically what I did. They were just funny life stories like losing an argument to a 5 year old over the rules of Candyland. That's the punch line to that story. I just lost a argument about Candyland to my niece. What do I do now? Do I keep playing, do I go back to start, WTF? It may not seem funny but once I was on a roll it actually was. The point of all this is try it at least once. You, a microphone and a audience. Nothing else. Its not like a lecture where you are prepared and usually have a podium. Its you and them. Can you make them laugh or are you going to fall flat on your face. Most definitely prepare. I didn't but that's why I think it actually worked out. It was something I did on a whim. I didn't have to worry about anything before hand. I went up there and just did my thing. The audience liked it. Even though the point was really it's something you should try, the other point is Roxy you might be funnier then you think. You made me laugh which is actually not hard but I have your take on it also, life is too short to take everything so seriously all the time. There are way too many people walking around with sticks up you know where and you just don't want to be around them. I guess that is universal. I know Tom is funny, I have read some of his stories and he is someone I could talk to for years in person. We have some very different views on certain things but a lot of what he says makes sense. I read his New Zealand story and couldn't of put it any better myself. I read a lot of How to prevent violence: a guide for citizens and have some things to say, basically how in 1998 I knew that something very bad was going happen involving airplanes because security at Chicago O'Hare was a sick joke. My friend, a Chicago cop accidently went right through security with a loaded handgun. He actually had to UPS it back home. It truly was a mistake, we were running very late. That's a story for another time. Gibco65 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool you did stand-up! Hard to do. Kudos to you. Even cooler you stuck it out and won over the audience. I've done stand-up maybe 10 times. What did I learn? I'm 95% funny. Meaning: I suck as a stand-up comic. I've had ice cubes chucked at my feet I was so bad. Cool you read my stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Its just one of things that I suggest everyone try at least once unless you have an absolute phobia of public speaking. Keep trying, even the best get crap from certain audiences. 95% funny is a lot better then having no sense of humor at all and that what I was trying to tell Roxy. He may not think he's funny but during my little Wiki online fracas he made me laugh. Yes I'm trying to read your stuff. I'm a huge supporter of what Thomas Paine did and Common Sense. From reading your Wiki user page I was like "this guy has a awesome sense of humor so I will read what he has to say." It's a bunch so I read some here and there. Seeing a person holding a orange tabby in New Zealand told me this guys alright, lets see what he has to say which led to read your whole bio. When I got down to "My thinking on Wikipedia" I was like "Hey that sounds familiar"! Being one that thinks that our Nation is broken myself I was like alright lets read. I went to Common Sense II BUT then saw An American’s perspective on New Zealand. Sorry Common Sense II but this I want to read and now! I read that first and am working my way through your writings. Remember this is coming from a guy who fell off his own roof 3 times. I can relate to the handyman thing, it's my roof that has the problem. In my defense one of those times I actually saved someone else from falling through one of my skylights, the other two were me being a little too carefree plus the fact that I'm pretty sure my roof has an agenda. I have learned a special thing from all this. How to fall where people are ready to call 911 and walking it off so to speak. Another thing that I find absolutely hilarious was not a outright fall off of my roof but falling through a section where I took the sheathing off into the house while in mid conversation with someone on the ground. I had ripped off a bunch of sheathing that had gotten water damage. I was sitting next to this huge hole in my roof driving screws and went to stand. The person on the ground was like "how's everything going up there?" "Fine". I lost my orientation and stepped on insulation. Whoops!, just drywall underneath and right down into the bedroom. I had caught myself between the rafters but was like its hopeless, just fall to the floor. I walked outside through the back door and was "you were saying?" What? "I think I'm going to need some drywall." Had I been seriously hurt, none of this would be funny. Since I wasn't I find it hilarious. Neighbors running over and being like "Do you want us to call 911?" "Give me a couple minutes, No I'm OK." He fell off the roof again. I'm getting too old for this but on any given weekend you could see me on the roof. The next time will just absolutely prove the roof has it out for me. Sorry Roxy, I'm taking up your entire Talk page and you're not even talking. You can delete all of this if you want.-- Gibco65 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gibco65:, cool. Glad you weren't hurt. I almost fell into a large bush while holding a 6x6 tall beam for a porch. Be careful up high. Overall handyman rule which I learned from a plumber: only do one thing at a time. And only focus on that one thing. For example, on a roof, taking one step is one thing; reaching for a hammer is a second thing; don't do both at the same time! A city inspector, despite my protest, made me attach a handrail on the basement stairs; a month later, I fell down those steps but the handrail saved me, so now I always listen to city inspectors. My writings looked much prettier with great photos and diagrams on Google's now-defunct magazine service called knol. The New Zealand account was picked up by a paper there and reprinted. The Common Sense stuff is tough, most people are reluctant to even think about such a subject, so I admire anybody who finishes the tough stuff. Much more fun to read is my screenplay -- I'm trying to get a local high school or college to do it as a play or movie; so far no success. Even better is a sci-fi novel I'm finishing up now which will be fun to read, about a high schooler who builds a spaceship and encounters sexy aliens. If interested, I can email a copy but it may not be finished for a few more months, or more.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roxy the dog. You have new messages at Alexbrn's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter Sellers bio, cite from The Northern Echo, are they are reliable-not-gossip source?

Have you heard of that newspaper? Are they more like national enquirer, or people magazine, or more like the new york times?

Context, if you care... they have a quote from 2005, long after his death, accusing Peter Sellers (who was Jewish I found out today) of purposely rewriting the synopsis of the final character he played before his death, from a generic British conman (is "spiv" even a word?) into a specifically-Jewish conman, which then led to some kind of outcry over the stereotype, back in the 1980s. So as of 2005, is Northern Echo some place you might trust for well-researched clear-headed journalistic integrity, or instead, some place you might suspect of gossip-oriented veiled-connotations yellow tabloidism? I've never heard of them, but apparently they are in the "top fifteen newspapers" for the northern half of the UK. Thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha Ha. I have driven past the head office of the Echo this evening, on the way back from standing in a field, in the pouring rain, freezing cold, doing a BBQ for 1200 people for a charity. I'm no longer shivering and wet cos I've been in the shower, but I'm typing in my skivvies. Based about ten miles from home, a solid reliable local newspaper, and probably for your case an RS. Papers here are very different to the USA, so I don't know how to compare with something over there. I'd like to see the echo reference.

Spiv is a word instantly recognisable to a Brit. Sellers is one of my personal favourites, whose talent was only matched by the very best. I'd compare his acting and comedy talents to Robin Williams in breadth, and he was a very very good writer, so rewriting the part was probably accurate. I'm guessing however. Which film was it? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well well well, I've just seen the reason for the question. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been back over there yet... supposed to be page 13 of the Northern Echo of March 11th of whatever-year-it-was (2004 or 2005 if memory serves). They have an online archive, which "pipl" has cached one sentence thereof, but is otherwise no longer available at northernecho, nor at archive.org (some articles kept but not this one) nor at archive.is (no hits). If you have a chance to make a trip to the library, it would help if we could know whether the author is a gossip-columnist, or a respected investigative journalist... sometimes a fine line! :-) You prolly already know this, but do *not* simply paste the contents into wikipedia, if you find a copy of the stuff somewhere, or even paste a *link* into wikipedia that goes to an unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted work of northernecho. WP:COPYVIO is very strict, and not to be trifled with. If you do get ahold of a copy, though, you can post the author's name, and the section of the paper, and paragraphs on either side of the money-quote, plus give us your thoughts on whether it was a hit-piece, or true. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

my name is Inigo Montoya...

Vizzini: Inconceivable!!!

Inigo: You keep saying that word; I do not think it means, what you think it means.

(As usual, the book was better.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Opera singer and TV doc in that film was superb. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Andre the Giant is the opera singer... but who is the teevee repairman? I thought that was Jim Carrey who starred in the Cable Guy... but he wasn't in Princess Bride. Color me confused. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake reverts

Hi. Can you point me to the bit that you're referring to? Those changes you reverted strike me as simple copy edits to improve the language and flow - what was contentious there...??? Thanks. Blippy (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page does not agree with you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I understood you to mean. I was hoping you might specifically point me to the part relevant to your reverts...?Blippy (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to be facetious and say all of it, but I've opened a new section on the page, just to obfuscate even more (joke). The Talk is a morass of stuff, caused imho by woolly thinkers, and my two changes are just indicative of the feeling of the page. Major difference of opinion between believers and realists have escalated into argument over minutiae that has stopped useful development, and I don't think you have helped. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But, while Blippy is going to have to settle into the cozy chair by the fire to really help, they *are* helping by bringing up the theory-vs-concept NPOV troubles (in a new section thank goodness), which methinks were started by IrWolfie all the way back in April, long before most of the current difficulties. They were editing in good faith, getting rid of obvious-in-their-view mistakes, not realizing that *every* letter on Sheldrake's page is a Glyph Of Controversy, to swipe David's phrasing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of everyone's favorite BLP, I just wanted to reiterate that I was not trying to edit war on the Sheldrake page. I'm not a combative editor, but I saw a revert that did not reference the reasoning behind my edits either in the tag or the talk page, so I replaced the edits I'd made with an explanation. I still feel that my version was more supported and reasonable, but I don't want to provoke a flurry of edits so I'm retiring for the night. Just wanted to clear the air. The Cap'n (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lilac Pen Of Doom

You are going straight to whatever netherworld the sceptics believe in for that one. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

truth-o-pedia

"I always believed that Shelly stopped doing science in the eighties." No doubt that is a fully 100% correct statement of your beliefs. Possibly, we can even posit, your personal belief -- the mental model in your head which represents your take on reality -- could even be objectively true, in the sense that your belief-model reflects reality accurately.

Wikipedia is no place for such things. :-)

Sucks, eh? There is a pragmatic point to this pillar two, however. As you are well aware, there are tons of folks that want wikipedia to validate what they believe: Chopra is one you seem familiar with. There is a pragmatic defense mechanism, called COI aka Jimbo's Bright Line rule, which keeps Chopra from directly editing his own article in mainspace (but just like Weiler... Deepak or his staff are free to comment constructively on the Chopra-talkpage). But more importantly, anything in wikipedia that is challenged must be backed up by WP:RS.

This is a specific wikiJargon. "Reliable" is not the standard meaning, any more than "Notable" is the standard meaning. Everything is defined in terms of sources. There is a single reliability-filter: if the source is a blog, or something equivalent that does not have a professional editorial board or peer-review system or somesuch (which provides *basic* fact-checking and *basic* noteworthy-filtering), then the entire contents of the entire source are excluded.

Many of the people that frequent the fringe-noticeboard have the mistaken belief that additional reliability-filters can be applied: excluding reliable source X because it logically conflicts with reliable source Y, or excluding some portion of reliable source Z because it conflicts with what-I-have-always-believed. Ahem. :-)

Anyways, this has always been one of the worst parts of wikipedia. It excludes the crackpots with a blog that have a new "theory" overturning galileo... but on the other end, it also excludes bloody obvious common-sense truths, that by happenstance have never yet been glanced over by some junior staff-member of the newspaper editorial board, or by some overworked anonymous peer-reviewer. WP:RS also means that anybody who *does* manage to get published and/or interviewed, like Sheldrake and Chopra, automatically become Noteworthy (and soon Notable) by wikipedia's strange counter-intuitive basis for the NPOV standard.

But take the long view with me... decades from now, either we will all be morphing each other about forgotten shopping-list-items (causing a crushing decline in smartphone sales), or there will be a footnote about the Sheldrake Fad which happened during the 1990s through 2010s, but then abruptly died down in 2018 when phytomorphologists in Shanghai published their bonsai tree research documenting how DNA is solely responsible for adult shape... applying it to humans, to win 87% of the Olympic medals at the 2020 olympics. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I should have written "The evidence says" rather than "I always believed". --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But the BBC... which says 'biologist' ... it also counts as evidence, right? At least, evidence of what mainstream *journalists* believe. Or do you mean, the real evidence that really really counts as reliable? I'm a-tryin to tell you, something I learned the hard way, this place is not truth-o-pedia. Objective, hard-nosed, realistic evidence, backed up by impeccable logic, is literally against policy here. If some reliable source says it -- including 'peer-reviewed' academic 'journals' like Social Text -- wikipedia has to treat it as true, unless everybody involved later fesses up it was all a hoax. Until the BBC issues a retraction, Sheldrake 'is' a biologist. In case the cross-the-pond-political-ref is lost on you, Clinton was tried for perjury, and that was his defense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been away all day, came back late, and dreaded looking at my watchlist this evening. I don't understand why I have become so involved. I have always disliked woolly thinking, and that manifests in my attitude to Shelly. His ideas offend me - he started out on the right sensible path and then took a turn to the darkside and can't get back. He is a nice guy, comes from near where I spent my childhood, he's far cleverer than I, and yet he is so far outside the envelope of reason that even the US Postal Service couldn't deliver to where he can be found. He understands the ways of science, and chose to explore elsewhere.

The BBC counts as an acceptable source for lots of things here on WP, but just because the BBC says something, doesn't make it so. Wiki policy on acceptable sources is OK for Manga and cities and pop music, but if a woolly thinking peer review panel peer reviews something, should we accept it as reliable? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh... now we are getting somewhere. As it turns out, I believe that I know why you got involved: morphic crap offends you. Offends you? Somebody else used that language: Maddox, in the 1990s, the book-for-burning-publisher-made-me-add-this-question-mark-guy. And as you may be starting to grok, I have similar feelings about some of Sheldrake's theories, albeit his take on philosophy-of-science seems 100% correct to me, for instance. You dread your watchlist, because you get the sinking feeling you are being suckered into something you did not sign up for. Correct! You are letting your emotions -- your genuine gut-level anger that Sheldrake would throw it all away that he would dare spit on all that is good and pure in this world -- govern your wiki-behavior. You overcame the dread. Allow me to explain why you did. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of trying to blackwash the sheldrake page, because you fear that some pro-Sheldrake, umm, person, yeah, some pro-Sheldrake person like Craig Weiler The Psychic Healer^TM will come along and whitewash the sheldrake page, just let the reliable sources tell the true tale. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... unless in cannot be reliably sourced and then wikipedia is not at fault. But believe me, we have the sources we need. We're just abusing them, torturing them, really... let my sources go, cry the silent masses of wikipedians! :-) Here's the real tale.

biologist-&-now-parapsychologist, co-author 14 books, lecturer/researcher/theorist in phytomorphology, philosophy-of-sci, subquantum physics, telepathy, politics-of-sci, theology, etc.

Rupert Sheldrake. 1942. Fine upbringing. Likes plants. Confirmed atheist at 14; boarding school. Worked vivisection lab at 17, horrified by it. UCambridge undergrad, did very well, but resisted the mechanistic realism of the coursework. Left the country, left the field, arrived in the home of deconstructionism to study philosophy-of-science, on a prestigious fellowship. Read Thomas Kuhn. Science is only a paradigm. Rupert's mind finally clicks: Goethe was right, botany is holistic.

Returns to UCambridge, love of biology renewed, but only wishes to pursue *holistic* biology, not mechanistic. Tries drugs; dislikes them; switches to transcendental meditation. Gets PhD anyways; he is that smart. Plenty of fellowships, too. But his real focus is not academia-in-the-now, but scholarly digging, seeking holism. Rupert reads biology papers, travelling back in time: 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, 1930s, 1920s. Finds the morphogenetics work... eureka! Generalizes it to the idea of morphic fields, the subquantum magic juice that neatly explains phytomorphology (something Rupert had been unable to explain with DNA), and not-so-coincidentally fits like a glove with Rupert's experiments in meditation/sufism/hinduism/christianAshrams. Seeks research funding, to prove the subquantum juice exists. Funding denied. Not just denied: mocked. Word gets around. Hey Rupert, telephone call... but you knew that already from morphic hahahahahahhhhaaaaa ... leaves UCambridge, six years short of getting tenured (seems little doubt he *would* have become a UCambridge professor -- cause as you point out the fellow is bloody smart). On his royal society research fellowship to study the rainforests of malaysia in 1969, he had spent a month with friends, staying near the gurus of India.

So, laughed out of academia, scorned despite his brilliance, Rupert returns there, using his highly respectable academic credentials to get himself a commercial R&D position, studying improved legume crops, as part of the green revolution of the 1970s. But as with his time in academia, his real goal remains unchanged: holistic biology must resurge, Goethe must be avenged. How? His cushy research job pays far better than assistant-teaching-professor-wages, and his living expenses are next to nil, Hyderabad prices being somewhat lower than Cambridge prices. But ICRISAT does not pay well enough to buy a supercollider, and research the subquantum juices!

So he does the obvious thing, and becomes a celebrity. Easy to do, if you are smart enough, and Rupert is that, sure enough. He switches to a part-time R&D position, just enough to pay the bills; he's about to get married, after all, and needs *some* cashflow. He writes a book. He finds a publisher. He unifies his Christian-with-eastern-leaning-roots, with his impeccable biology credentials, and puts forth a Theory Of Everything. ... which one or two scientists noticed... and one or two journalists... and tens or hundreds of thousands of now-rich used-to-be-hippies that sold out, who *respect* his scientific cred, while simultaneously *despising* science itself, due to their deep internal mental contradictions. The rest of the story is obvious. Catapulted to fame, the scientist despised by, nay, offensive to other scientists, loved by the New Agers *because* they secretly despise everything Sheldrake represents but cannot resist a Real Scientist who even partially validates their mystic worldview, the phytomorphologist that just wants to understand how plants work, and why the Cambrian explosion happened the way it did, becomes a spiritual guru. He publishes again in 1988.

By the 1990s, he is becoming a Serious Goddamn Threat, and the organized real-world (as opposed to unorganized-in-the-wikiverse) guerrilla skeptics -- Randi, Wiseman, Maddox, Dawkins, et al -- are taking notice. It becomes a war of the gurus. Sheldrake, no moron, realizes that any publicity is good for his cause, namely, getting funding for his subquantum juice research. He gives lectures. He writes letters to the editor. He goes on teevee. In short, the man is a genius, *and* photogenic to boot. All those years at UCambridge, debating with the sharpest tools in the shed, are finally paying off. Sheldrake gets the big UTrinity bequest grant. No longer on a shoe-string, examining dogs for psychic powers, and trying to see if people really do know they are being stared at. He gets his professorship, too, albeit at LearnDotEdu rather than at CambridgeDotEduDotUk, but still.

Wikipedia, in the meantime, has become one of the top ten websites in the world. Sheldrake is wikiNotable, morphic fields are wikiNotable (there are five book and fifty papers and 500 newspaper articles that mention "morphic this-or-that" at one point), so both get articles. Ditto over on deWiki for the German-speakers. But in the real world, outside the wikiverse, Sheldrake is still seeking publicity, to fund his quest. He decides to write a new book, a *very* provocative book, Science Set Free, in which he, Sheldrake, *dares* to play the sceptic-of-philosophy, questioning the conservation of energy... zOMG NEWTON IS SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE! There is a TEDx talk. There is a scandal over censorship; Rupert comes out smelling like a rose. Freshly-minted editors show up at wikipedia, ready to spend however long it takes, to give Sheldrake what he so royally deserves. They give it to him. Morphic fields: deleted. Sheldrake's BLP page turns into a rupert-you-suxk screed, ever so slightly tamed by making sure that every sentence is verifiable in a (cherrypicked) source.

Not surprisingly, Sheldrake capitalizes (cf capitalism) on this mistake. Blogs about the woeful bias in wikipedia. Asks his buddy Craig to "help" on wikipedia. Allegedly, has a short meeting with Tumbleman, a fascinating-transhuman-wannabe, who thereafter uses wikipedia as their personal debating society for two months, imitating *me* from what I can tell. But interestingly, tellingly, the real guerrilla skeptics, Gerbic and Farley and Randi, disclaim any hand in the deeds that Sheldrake is baldly accusing them of. They claim it is an emergent phenomenon. They are right... but by publishing rebuttals, they only feed the fire. Sooner or later, with gridlock in the Sheldrake wikiverse, and constant hype from Sheldrake/Weiler/Chopra in the blogosphere, the mainstream media finally... notices. Sheldrake goes on BBC. Coyne -- the sucker -- unable to resist, publishes a rebuttal in NewRepublic... just what Sheldrake would want, now isn't it? That *guarantees* that his wikipedia BLP page will have to cover the phenomena, of how alleged guerrilla skeptics are allegedly out to get Rupert.

Bet you a million bucks that if Coyne had not taken the bait, Rupert would have found somebody else to do it, one way or the other. Look over at deWiki; they are no suckers. What did they do? Nothing. Why not? Well, quite frankly, because Weiler and Tumbleman don't sprechen sie Deutsche, is why. The talkpage on deWiki had two messages in the last three years. Mainspace was updated six times; only four by humans, the others were bohts. Sometimes, the best way to win is by intelligently relaxing, rather than by forcibly resisting.

The man is very smart, and he is playing this situation like a fiddle, using wikipedia to advance his subquantum juices, and should you care to do so, I want you to have a nice talkpage conversation with the lilac pen, and darth vader, and the man with three names, and explain to them what blowback means, in a few terse morphic barks. Please. Oxygen of publicity. Let David run things, and watch the oxygen dry up. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

this Paul_B, the Shakespeare and early religions specialist, is the one I meant

They have dealt with, and are still dealing with, far worse problems. For example, User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Religion, this little ongoing problem. The skeptic-is-identical-to-npov folks on the Sheldrake page think that the Sheldrake article has trouble, with zealous pro-Sheldrake editors. WP:NOCLUE applies. Paul_B, with help from David, could probably clean up our minor BLP scuffle in less than a day of walltime, perhaps two hours of actual-editing-and-commenting-time. But only if we let them, and don't ninja-revert back to the sheldrake-cannot-be-a-biologist-logic-abhors-it-dance. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this one User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Umm... which resulted in the fringe-noticeboard discussion, as well as *this* one which seems applicable to the quid-pro-quo with Weiler User_talk:Paul_Barlow#zionist_propaganda. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Beadle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CLL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Batshit Insane

It might be on hold, but it isn't right yet. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this Callanecc, though I was aware of it prior to this notification, there are warnings about it all over this project. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There are which is helpful. The only difference between seeing the warnings and being notified is that the warned user can (officially) have sanctions imposed against them. Not that I intend to sanction anyone at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI note

Hi Roxy the dog,

Just to respond to something you asked on ANI: yes, non-admins are allowed to participate at ANI. Some ANI threads are simply someone seeking admin attention for something, in which case an admin will usually either do it (or not do it if it seems like a bad idea). Others are discussions about the appropriateness of blocks or other admin actions and constructive, mature discussion from both admins and non-admins is encouraged. I hope that clears that up. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom, thanks very much for taking the time to respond to that question here. I've only been active here for a relatively short time. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic Therapy is not a Fringe Theory

"Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"

Abstract Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined.

Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.

Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library

Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.

Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7 Maalche Raamat.

Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947 (1993)

Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum 1983

Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc. ISBN 0-918812-72-0 1992

Music in der Medizin , ed. R. Spintge , R. Droh. Springer.Verlag ISBN 3-540-17265-3, ISBN 0-387-17265-3. 1983 and 1985

Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag ISBN 0-387-18862-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. 1988

MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199

Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)

ISBN 978-88-548-3603-7 Aracne Editrice 2010.

And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.

Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT

-- Cyrinus (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Comments such as these are not helpful to establishing consensus or a collaborative and collegial editing atmosphere, suggest a [{WP:Battle|battleground attitude to editing Wikipeda]], and the first borders on if not is a BLP violation. I ask you to please remove or refactor your comment, and take more care in the future. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, Callanecc (talk · contribs), and when are you going to take action on those taking the piss by trying to avoid overall consensus by violating content policy, rather than someone who has a little humour in reaction to said piss taking? The atmosphere is quite collaborative and collegial, apart from certain editors who want to WP:POVPUSH - the rest of us get on fine. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc I'm not entirely sure what you consider to be a violation of BLP in that comment, but I suspect it is the phrase "batshit insane" - which you will note I already withdrew. Could you confirm that it is this that is infringing WP:BLP and explain how criticising Sheldrakes ideas in this non serious way violates that important wiki policy. I will be very happy to comply with policy, but I think you may be interpreting it a little harshly here. With thanks --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to engage about this. Yeah that was my BLP concern, and yes I did see that you withdrew it. I am interpreting it harshly, no disagreement there, but given the discussions about various editors' BLP concerns I think it's best to interpret it a tad harshly and encourage people to back themselves up with a reliable, secondary source.

In answer to your first post I'll take action against those who make any discussion on the talk page difficult for others, which ever 'side' they may end up being on. Not that is applies directly in this instance, but if one side is collegial with the other side but the other side isn't then it's pretty clear where further action is needed. Likewise if there is a source and/or policy based consensus on one side and the discussion was conducted fairly and civilly but one or more editors won't abide by it then I will take action against them for. That's something which led to imposing WP:1RR, though it was mainly the constant edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkstalk says... Callanecc, the first post was *not* by Roxy, that was Barney. And yes, Roxy, <drops biscuit> calling the BLP's work something negative, which is not Very Reliably Sourced, is out of line. See WP:BLPTALK, or the discussion at User_talk:Flyer22 edit-history regarding Angelina. We have coyne today and maddox in the 1980s, though, so if you wish to hammer home a point, just pick one of their juicier quotes, which is fine as long as you are judicious in using them, per WP:NICE. :-) Those two are certainly not representative of the *bulk* of the Reliable Sources, but the outliers tend to indicate the golden mean, if you catch my drift. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie thread on ANI

Sorry, I have to take it to your talk page, but I am afraid your are not going to get off that easy on this one. I am very interested in getting an explanation of your reasoning. Apparently you sympathise with the group that User:Sgerbic is connected to, and you are willing to accept the actions on Wikipedia regarding them. Then you reason that since they should be allowed to do whatever it is they do, the same should apply to "Drug Free Australia". When I raise some technical points with regard to policy in this particular case, you dismiss it on the grounds that "For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below" without commenting (and I presume even taking the time to read) on the evidence I provided. Again, sorry for harping on you about this, but I couldn't help but notice that "woolly logic" is one of your pet peeves, and as such I assume that there must be more to your argument than mere "wool". --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, Saddhiyama, your language seems to suggest you will be keeping the dog-biscuits out of reach, if Roxy does not bark on command? Please read WP:REQUIRED. Also, please read the diff you posted again, and note that your phrasing of the question was quite ambiguous -- you accused Roxy of opposing the block, by *one* interpretation of your prose (the most reasonable one methinks), because Roxy allegedly supports DrugFreeAussie. That is what they objected to, in their response, although they should not have called you silly methinks. But too many pronouns, leads people away from The Grok, I have learned the hard way.

Anyhoo, point being, there is zero need for Roxy to reply to you here, nor for that matter read all your commentary at a noticeboard. They could have pointed out your prose-ambiguities more gently... but then, you certainly weren't being very WP:NICE then, or now, right? Quit harping on the canine, please. You can come harp on my talkpage, if you want to have somebody explain the position you attributed to Roxy, which is one *I* actually hold. I'll even read your technical points of policy, and see if I agree with you, though I'll warn you in advance my favorite rock-solid policy is the bedrock of pillar five. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of revert

Hello, your recent edit to Sheldrake and comments elsewhere perhaps indicate that you didn't realize that consecutive edits by the same person don't count as multiple reverts? Also, a revert is not tied to a particular piece of text. Changing N pieces of text is at most one revert, as long as there are no intervening edits by others. vzaak 12:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes - if somebody makes several consecutive edits to a page, then technically they might be separate edits but functionally they should be treated as one single action. If they change several different bits of text in a single revert, it's still just one revert (but it can make discussion harder). Some other things don't really count as reverts, in one way or another, but be very careful with that. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, enough technicalities. Have fun on Sheldrake! bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Barney the barney barney got a 24 hour ban the other day, reported by that Alfonzo Greene, for going over the bright line of 3RR on what I had previously thought were simply edits, rather than reverts. That has left me confused, plus the fact that we now are restricted to 1RR, and I'm not a particularly technically competent editor. I felt that I could have spent ages trying to work it out. So I thought it prudent to just do the one. Thanks for the advice both of you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As a wise old sage once said: "You got to cool out, relax. Things like this work out. Trust me". It's always tempting to hit the revert button when you're sure that you're Right (as we all are), but discussion achieves much more durable results than reverting. If you're locked in a pro-versus-anti cycle, it can be helpful to get some outside input - from a noticeboard, or dispute resolution, or something like that. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that consecutive edits by the same person don't count as multiple reverts... unless you reverted multiple people, *or* reverted multiple contributions-spread-over-time by one person. My further understanding is that bobrayner's advice, to seek discussion as the more sustainable and far-less-adversarial option, is a win. Ask questions first, shoot later. Getting outside input helps... but only if all parties to the content dispute believe that the outside input was fair, independent, just, and so on. Contrast the time when TRPoD immediately went to the noticeboards with accusations of wp:canvassing, against Lou Sander (we might quibble about the merits of the claim... but the end result helped nobody right?), or going the other way with Mangoe's failed attempt to noticeboard Alfonzo (same parenthetical again), with the arrival of Callanecc the arbcom clerk and now-admin, who methinks(?) all participants agree is tough but fair. Old story, honey, vinegar, all that. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please enable email

I want to continue this love-in away from prying eyes.

Get a throwaway gmail account. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration - review of reviews

Hi, noticed your comment [4] at Talk:Acupuncture. Seen this? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Their results suggest that acupuncture is effective for some but not all types of pain. Yes, so what are you saying? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't appear consistent with the existence of evidence for efficacy. So I was wondering if you just hadn't seen the source (and others of similar quality; e.g. Cochrane doesn't hedge re nausea + vomiting), or if there was another reason for your remarks. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Citations of Own work

Hello, Roxy the Dog.

I was hoping we could have a discussion about the deletions you made of my addition to Integrative Medicine. I did start a section on the talk page, but you seem to have just made the deletions without adding to the discussion, so perhaps you didn't see it. Your comment was that I was citing my own article, but you neglected to take into account that it was still from a peer reviewed medical journal specifically on pain relief. I carefully thought through which topic I felt was missing from Integrative medicine and spoke on the subject. I believe that I was not introducing anything controversial, and only presenting carefully sourced information. May we please have a discussion before you make any further changes? Thanks CJ (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated Source

Please read what the (previously and now) cited source says: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Osteopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

And I quote directly from the article from the section Does osteopathy work?

"There is good evidence that osteopathy is effective for the treatment of persistent lower back pain. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends it as a treatment for this condition. There is limited evidence to suggest it may be effective for some types of neck, shoulder or lower limb pain and recovery after hip or knee operations. There is no good evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for health conditions unrelated to the musculoskeletal system (bones and muscles)." This fits exactly with what my edit said. You're right that I mistakenly hit minor edit (ever consider that perhaps it was an accident and assume good faith maybe (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)? If you feel I deviated somehow from what the text says, let me know how exactly I did that and I will attempt to correct it, but I do not appreciate the COI and POV comment. That was entirely unnecessary. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Come now. You are training to be an Osteopathic doctor. You have family who are osteopathic doctors. You have friends who are Osteopathic doctors. You are editing a wiki page on Osteopathy. You cannot pretend that your edits are anything but COI and POV on Osteopathy related pages. Regarding the minor edit thing, leave the box unchecked and it is very difficult to accidentally click it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said I'm training to be an osteopathic physician. Don't make assumptions that you know who I am. I have said numerous times I am familiar with both the D.O. and M.D. professions. I have family and friends of each. My edits are not COI and your accusations are ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm not pretending about anything. Also, ever heard of someone being tired while they edit? It's been known to happen. Also, you are editing a wikipage on osteopathy as well (just saying). Regardless, you're missing the point, my edit was true to the source, which you evidently did not read. I'll be somewhere else now going back to important things...like editing Wikipedia pages. I refuse to bicker with you any longer, nothing could be a bigger waste of time. Since the issue on the osteopathy page regarding that sentence is now concluded, so is our conversation. Good luck with whatever projects you're working on. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think Roxy has a point, but it would be better to discuss this somewhere like Talk:Osteopathy, and try to focus on content rather than editors. bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

If the claims in his article are covered in the text of the article, please add in-line citations backing up those (very incendiary) claims rather than removing the citation tags. Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy does not allow uncited claims like these in articles. - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the body text? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The general principle is that the lede of an article just summarises what is written below in the body of the article, so it shouldn't usually need inline citations. However, if in doubt, our verifiability policy should trump that. Where something is disputed, it should have an inline citation - this is especially important for living people. I'm sure that sources are close to your heart, Roxy; do you have a source handy which supports that controversial claim in the lede? bobrayner (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My citation tags have now been reverted twice; I'm not going to get into an edit war, but that borders on vandalism since this article definitely violates the BLP policy at this time. I do not have the time at the moment to read all the sources listed further down in the article myself to see if they support the very incendiary claims made at the top of this article, which is why I placed citation tags on the article. Please either add sources or add back the citation tags so that another editor can do so. - Gloriamarie (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read the body, then despite what Bob says above, I don't think you should have placed the tags. However, I have put one ref in place, badly, I'm not good at this, and I'll look at the other one. I wont be replacing the tags though. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Common sense"

Read policy (as on Talk:Acu or Talk:AltMed -- here). You're wrong. Objective standards exist; part of WP:FRINGE. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You're joking. Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE/PS; laugh it up --Middle 8 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, missed your reply. WP:PSCI (last sentence) explicitly says that FRINGE/PS applies for pseudoscience, but sure, both guidelines apply. And both say to avoid using unambiguous categorizations when RS suggest NPOV issues, which they do. See 2nd para of the one you mentioned. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 08:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiatsu corrections

Hi roxy the dog,

About your insistence on the old version. 1. Namikoshi did not invent shiatsu, he developed a version of it. You are using Ernst opinions and citing his book of opinions but this is not the same as research denying its effectiveness. The history of shiatsu should be laid out. Then we should have a section for the criticism but your support of the one-sided and extreme position of one particular critic is not good for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankank (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiatsu

Roxy, a quick message re Shiatsu. In the future please avoid edit warring unless it meets the exceptions (which this didn't). I'm mentioning this to you and Bobrayner because you continued the edit war well beyond 3RR (even though you didn't break 3RR yourself). In the future, report to [{WP:ANEW]] or WP:ANI and wait rather than edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 81.151.2.172 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The troll's been reverted and blocked. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) What's the backstory here? Presumably the problem goes beyond Fraggle81's userpage. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bob. I saw the IP posting a report on ANI,[5] complaining that Roxy had reverted this edit. (It was true; they had. Thank you, Roxy.) Can't get much more trollish than that. Even as I was reverting the ANI post, Kww was blocking the IP for vandalism.[6] Oh, and I suppose this post by Fraggle81 was the reason for the IP to vandalize Fraggle's userpage. None of it out of the ordinary except the ANI report, which kind of suggests to my spidey sense that this is a registered editor amusing themselves. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Gosh, nip out the back for a cigar and all hell breaks loose. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bishonen. Somehow I was expecting more... intricate drama. I hope you enjoyed your cigar, Roxy. bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --173.59.201.71 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Liliane Bettencourt revert

Check the history of your recent revert of my edits, you reverted my removal of the section on the scam emails. Was that your intention? DES ^(talk) 17:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We got the right result though, and cos I'm a slow editor, I started when you were only half way through, and didn't see your second edit. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin board

I have filed a complaint on the admin board regarding two fringe proponents causing trouble about parapsychological related articles. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Goblin Face (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler

Tom Butler is being discussed at WP:AE. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). We've had some interaction relatively recently, but Iassume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Roosh V

Roxy the dog, you are well respected member, Probably impossible to understand by anyone, who lied to you so that you protect a misogynist RooshV who was named the most hated man in the world, part of extremist and hate group, who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s extremism report, a privilege usually reserved for neo-Nazis and terrorists

Maybe you should read more about him, before editing his page and removing important information about him.

Do you realize the effect that it has on your reputation, to support an extremist, mysoginist, have you even read his hateful works and the interviews for Washtington Times or Daily Dot magazines and what RooshV constantly promotes? Have you read his books and his articles and what Roosh constantly promotes? Do you realize the effect on your reputation to associate yourself with RooshV ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egirl90 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

He is a thoroughly unpleasant character isn't he? Your edits to his article are however unsuitable, ungrammatical and encyclopaedic, and will not stand. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)