User talk:Roxy the dog

G-star

Hi Roxy! I want to share with the network users warning that the company is stealing money G-star ordinary users! I'm not one who is touched and I do not want this to continue! I have to prove it! There correspondence! There are accounting documents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail Zverev (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place Mikhail to try to complain about service you received from a company. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Language

Careful with the collegiality here, please? Simple tpyos are nothing to get worked up about. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I had just spent fifteen minutes trying to click from a link in an edit summary and getting nowhere, and it took me ages to figure it out. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is recommended that you don't even correct other's misspellings. See WP:TPO Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I've self reverted. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim's advice is sound, but I don't mind in this instance. I repeated the word (correctly) half a line later. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I could have done it better, perhaps by adding a comment just pointing out the error. That would have been easier too, I wouldn't have had misgivings either. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages (again?)

Heloo mr. Hoe could u change the chaudhary page ...and on what basis you are saying it wrong. ..and what's your name...The dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoty (talk • contribs) 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anoty, your changes didn't make any sense, and didn't improve the article. Thank you for your efforts, but unfortunately, I had to remove them. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) most importantly there was no source provided. Everything in WP needs a reliable source as per the policy WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, you are correct about sources of course. Question I was going to ask, is that the way to sort out unsigned posts on any talk page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

yep, that is how to handle unsigned comments. it is fine to add the unsigned template - that is what it was created for. :) and it is really helpful to everybody, so everybody knows when and by who the unsigned comment was added, and so that archiving engines can work correctly. Moving somebody else's out-of-place comment to a new section at the bottom is perfectly fine on your own Talk page. I do it sometimes, with caution, on article Talk pages, when a new comment is clearly out of place and the commentor seems pretty clearly to not know where new comments go. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sunde

There was no joke intended on Peter Sunde article, only facts. I've reverted your cencorship and added a source. Please do not sensor WP again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.37.66 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut the crap

So you're one the idealist patrolmen are you? Well familiarize yourself with the relevant code before violating it, and better still, familiarize yourself with the facts first, I already explained myself to one of your fellow idealists here, who like you, templated me on the very same matter which I feel vindicated in having struck out. The 5th Doctor (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, very good. Unfortunately, you have to be a regular in order not to be templated. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Not familiar with the informal social etiquette on Wikipedia, so thank you for the Thank You, I guess! Karin Anker (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you for the thank you! The use of 'thanks' is one of the few things that does not seem to have a huge ream of rules and regulations concerning its use here. Everything else does. I rather like that nobody but the thankee knows about it. They come out of the blue and can be very unexpected, and the system is nicely informal. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be interested

The forum links I added to User talk:Enric Naval#Vacuum teat Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Teh internetz never fails to amaze me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Our learned replies on talk:BLP were deleted! I tried sooo hard to make mine "a discussion to improve the article". Your friend, the The 5th Doctor is no longer with us and went out with a bang at the end No need to put notice on a user's talk page regarding WP:AIV. If they're that obviously vandalizing, they will likely just delete it. It's not really a discussion anyway... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks warning

Hello, I'm Holdek. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdek (talk • contribs) 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please sign posts on this talk page with four tildes. You haven't learned much in nearly ten years as an editor here, have you? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the template. --Holdek (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As you can't be civil enough to sign comments, even after you were reminded, I've done it for you. It helps with archiving etc. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks warning 2

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

(This is in reference to your most recent edit summary on your talk page.) --Holdek (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had a lovely evening watching a youtube video of probably the finest jazz pianist ever [[1]], plus a great drummer, and bass player, in Berlin, Germany, in 1985. It is a sublime concert, but you keep ruining it with sour notes. Your behaviour today towards BBB was appalling, and you are now being a hypocrite. Please, I ask once more, stop it. Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

oooo that is amazing. thanks for linking to it!! Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The best way for you to avoid these situations is to familiarize yourself with WP: NPA. --Holdek (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you react if I templated you for your own disruptive editing? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Where have I edited disruptively? --Holdek (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Holdek, if you continue this, I will bring to you to ANI. You provided notice to Roxy once and that is sufficient. Whatever you think happened, drop the stick and please go work on editing. Roxy, I suggest that you explicitly ask Holdek to stay off your Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion here Jytdog, I had considered asking him to confine himself to the rest of the internet, but it would serve no purpose. His lack of self-awareness is troubling, but I am aware of my own shortcomings. This sort of thing has happened to me before at other places on teh internetz, and I eventually regain some perspective. I have decided on another approach which may be worthwhile. I am going to ask for help on a subject where I feel his experience will be genuinely valuable to me, and see what happens. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

He asked me a question, I responded. You don't need to worry about it. --Holdek (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem

If u think the page was better b4 I made my edit then I have no problem with this. Thanks for telling me that my edit was not good in a friendly way. Bewbslova (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Vacations

You are quite right [2] of course. On a related note, a sometime tutor of mine once said - or perhaps he said it repeatedly - "vacations mean that the college buildings become empty; they should not mean the students' minds become empty as well". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No TM?

Thank you for your contributions. Just checking in with you. Is there really policy against using the TM modifier? I will refrain until I hear back. If so thank you and a pointer to the policy would be helpful. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was taking the mickey a little, actually a lot, but I do believe that WP:MOSTM applies - viz ...

• Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).
  • avoid: LittleBigPlanet™, REALTOR®
  • instead, use: LittleBigPlanet, Realtor

Also, take a look at the mini edit war I had this week on Jarlsberg cheese.

In case I ever make any similar observations or comments in regard to your editing in future, do remember that imho your abilities far outweigh my own, and you set a fine example for people like me to aspire to. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Really I just have expertise in citation templates, and maybe advocating for following policy (explaining the core policies two or three times a week will do that for ya). I suspected you might be slightly in jest, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't running afoul of something serious. I will continue to break all the rules as a bold Consensus Of One®. Thank you for your kind words. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See what happens when you bring an article to my attention!!! Four hours of my life on Jarlsberg... I just couldn't bear the existing references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If your not careful, I'll archive your talk page ;) - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching through the day, and couldn't resist a tiny contribution. You couldn't do that unless you were really secretly enjoying yourself, and the process as it progressed was very interesting to see, I am impressed. Thanks a lot. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that you know my secret process, I'll have to kill you ;) Its pretty basic. Step one, verify, check the existing refs, format them up including accurate attribution. Step two tag it up. Step three, research, assuming most facts are actually true, try to find better sources, deleting poor ones on the way. Step three add some stuff found in step two and anything that seems significant in general research.

The drawbacks to this approach can include supporting crap and following existing suboptimal organization. I haven't really worked on content development skills enough to use a higher quality approach of researching the subject independent of the existing article (with note taking and source prep) followed by creating an outline based on a decent understanding of the subject then superimposing that on the existing content.

As a reference/research nut I often just format up the existing refs, put a list of suggested refs in Further reading or on the talk page and try to point others at the article. I like to read up and learn about a subject but paraphrasing and organizing thoughts into a structured article meh.

Anytime you are looking for sources or information to improve an article you can leave me a note on my talk page. I have access to a substantial set of databases (keep your library and school accounts current), a few courtesy of the Wikipedia Library and am usually willing to help out. Thanks for your kind words. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr Bill, Shall we propose a name change from Roxy the Dog to Roxy the Dog™? Doesn't say anything about talk pages nor user names... Jim1138 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem the user name policy does discuss this, please see WP:U also note this WP:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2006/October#Evil-ted.E2.84.A2 .E2.86.92 Evil-ted. I would strongly urge the proposing editor to familiarize themselves with applicable policy. I would note in addition that the selection of a user name and attendant signature are a matter of personal choice and not subject to the consensus process. I might add however that although policy allows users autonomous and somewhat complete control of their talk page, my proposal to archive is based on facilitating ease of use by the community and as such would improve the encyclopedia. This action would thus be supported by policy, see WP:IGNORE. In case misinterpreted, my comments are intended as self parody - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just trying this out ... Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Krill oil

FYI, Josve2014 has been in #wikipedia-en-help recently, trying to get help with the drama with this article. He doesn't seem to be trying to act in bad faith, and we've given him some clue about copyvios, and tried to give him some clue about editing in general, including asking him to not make huge edits to something that has already had drama, and to keep things on the talk page for now. I'm currently trying to go through the last six months (joy) of edits that got reverted and see if there is anything usable that can be pulled out of it.

Unfortunately, the whole thing has recently been heated up by edit warring (some of which was legitimate removal of copyvios, admittedly) and huge reverts, so the history is confused. I'm not a 'content writer', and not going to try to write anything new, but see what I can get out of the past. Since edits were made on top of unusable content, I'm probably going to end up with something that's hacked together as hell for a bit, so I'd appreciate some patience if it gets mangled. We'll see what I can do, and then hopefully get the interested parties to agree on a NPOV about it. Revent^talk 15:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your user page, btw. :) Revent^talk 16:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No problems here, I haven't been able to make sense of what Joka is trying to say since he mangled Prak Mann's comments on the Talk page. I know Prak from another place, his skills at assessing the technicalities of papers of this type are good. I am hoping he will contribute to discussion soon, but we will have to wait and see.

As to my user page, I rather like its laconic style, with a little bite too. Thank you;) Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, show me the section where it's stated that the ID proponent said that

Remember that the article was written by the natural selection proponent. Here are the parts I could find where an acknowledged ID proponent is being quoted:

• “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” (direct quote made in article)

• “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.” (direct quote made in article)

• I mentioned in the debate that I thought this difficulty—acknowledged as it was by other ID theorists—was the deepest and most interesting challenge facing ID. But Meyer assured me that this is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory (paraphrased in article as here)

• The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like. (paraphrased in article as here)

• My presentation [...] was dismissed as a “bunch of pictures—characters from The Simpsons (a cartoon of Homer evolving); a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs (ambulecetus, a well-established and very significant transitional fossil connecting sea mammals to their terrestrial ancestors); and a pretty picture taken at [my] vacation home.” In contrast, my debate partner’s presentation was “sleek, professional, and chock-full of evidence and data.”

• [...] Meyer’s presentation was very technical, although anything but “chock full of evidence.” My rather serious claim that ID had no theory and thus no evidence at all was dismissed, not addressed. The ID folk are now assuring their readers that their guy won; my defense of evolution was apparently pitiful: “Where was the new evidence?” the reviewer asks. “Where were the cutting-edge studies supportive of [my] view?”

• My debate partner in Virginia was articulate, educated, likable, and familiar with a vast range of relevant scientific research.

Unless I've missed some parts of this article (please correct me if I did, but do so reproducing a quote from the cited article, or provide an alternative reliable source supporting your statement), the amendment, "conceding that they have yet to [...] have any kind of scientific evidence" cannot stand as nobody in the cited article conceded such a thing. The point here is that nobody has been quoted as explicitly conceding that they have no evidence. This can therefore not be adopted into the article.

Let me make a few further points about this:

1. We must avoid original research. Our job is to collate material from reliable sources, not to interpret them. That, by contrast, would be the job for an essayist such as the one referenced.
2. I'm not sure how relevant it is to reproduce what can be seen as slips of the tongue of one proponent or another, as this has happened to both sides. Particularly the lede of an article should represent a consensus view of a subject. I'm aware that ID proponents are sometimes quick to latch on to any ambiguity or unfortunate phrasing. However, what may or may not be common practice by the proponents of one theory cannot also become the basis of Wikipedia's style.
3. The reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is more important than any role - forced upon us, it seems to me, but perhaps inevitably so - as a soapbox in debates. This is made very clear in the policies that we as a community have given ourselves.

I have no interest in what views you or User:Dr.Brock.Schuman hold. I will simply ensure that Wikipedia's contents accurately reflect what its cited reliable sources say. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you could change the article to a version that complies with our policies and the cited sources. As the article receives close to a thousand views per day, I expect a swift response.

Thanks in advance,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADLINE and the source for that sentence. Its there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ALSO it might be a good idea to be a little more polite in your demands, especially when you are in the wrong. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just show me the line. The request is pretty simple. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this content discussion to the article Talk page, where it belongs. Please respond there. thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

kombucha change

Hi Roxy the Dog, I have seen your note on revert of my change of the part of kombucha article about “kombucha originating in Northern East China or Manchuria” - which I changed "as one of the possibilities". Do you know the source of such claim that it is really for sure from there? I have been working with kombucha for many years both as hobbyist and professional and I have not seen any proof of origin of the culture which would be lets say well funded, the same applies to the age of the culture - when it was created or it “happened to exist”. That applies to both scientific journals and popular literature. I am very interested to know where is the culture from and “when”, however I'm afraid that for really sound answer quite serious research would have to be done, I don’t think that even historical sources would be enough as prove - unfortunately especially from China, the claims about variety of subjects coming out from this country in last several decades are sometimes really ridiculous (which I'm sorry for, great history and I believe future). Please let me know if you know the person or source of the information if not I would suggest to change the "origin" to unknown or speculative because I do believe it is better not to give false evidence - I'm biotechnologist by training. Thanks a lot of any info and keeping an eye on the article, it is one of the ones which I check from time to time - biofilm based polycultures are what I’m into.

Sincerely FAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algoldor (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the nearest ended decade, It's the nearest decade.

Per above. No reverts are made to prevent escalation to Edit War.CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 09:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)