User talk:Roxy the dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Vandalism[edit]

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

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

I'll say it now, you're going to look silly if you carry on with this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to note, before this gets archived, that they did look silly. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, care to explain your reasoning as to why you reverted my edits on the Bitchute page? I gave a reasonable explanation for the edits in my edit summary and you reverted them with no explanation at all. I think I at least deserve a reason as to why you think my edits are invalid and why you reverted to the old version of the article, which in my opinion, contains irrelevant information. 139.62.82.100 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You removed sourced content, I merely repaired your damage. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Content dispute on Ivar Lovaas. I quoted a comment that mentioned you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am following that discussion, but thanks. You can see what I think of the op if you look two topics up this page! Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

you're cute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.120.41.222 (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many would disagree. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy[edit]

I think your short description for pulsed electromagnetic field therapy risks breaking WP:NPOV. There's clearly quite weak evidence for this being effective, and several applications are definitely unapproved for lack of proof of effectiveness, but a blanket label of "bogus" for the whole thing seems too much, unless you have a high-quality cite to back this up.

Note that labelling it as a "medical therapy" does not imply approval as effective; there are lots of other medical treatments with weak, at best, evidence for efficacy. -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit restores NPOV. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:13, 15 October 2019

(UTC)

I disagree, and will therefore take this to the article talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. I fully support such a move. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see the discussion for RF resonant cavity thruster[edit]

Please refer to the RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? & the Epistemology sections at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster. Peaceray (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also suggesting that we use cold fusion as a model there. Peaceray (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to RF resonant cavity thruster, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I do not place this lightly. I reverted what I consider to be edit warring. I have invited you by edit summary & on your user talk page to this article's talk page & you have chosen not to get consensus there. Peaceray (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You’ve been reverted, and not by me. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your statement is a diversionary tactic (please see red herring). Just because another editor reverted my edit does not excuse you from the WP:CONSENSUS policy. You have not addressed why you chose not to discuss this on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Nor does your behaviour excuse you from BRD, so I'll keep going to the status quo ante until a proper consensus is formed. It is really difficult to take seriously your badly spelled claim. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Two things
  • First, I apologize for my spelling. Editing in the desktop version on an iPhone on the bus or train is not conducive to proper spelling. That is the reason why I shy away from anything but semi-automated edits for articles at that time. Hopefully when I edit on a real keyboard rather than a virtual keyboard, I am a bit less prone to spelling & grammar errors. Face-smile.svg
  • Second, WP:BRD states "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." I believe that if you examine my edits, you will find that I am generally in accord with BRD. I, myself, tend to turn to the talk pages when reverted, especially when asked or alerted. I find the back & forth of edit-warring to be unnecessarily contentious, tedious, & generally unproductive. I believe it is better to hash it out on the talk page rather than expose the general reader to it.
Peaceray (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You are aware that BRD respects the status quo ante? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of status quo ante. When you reverted to these edits, you reverted to a version that did not exist before 2019-10-15. Personally, I think that we should go back to JzG's version of 2019-09-30. Peaceray (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest that you have commented on at the user's talk page. The thread is Karldmartini. Thank you. —-Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)