User talk:Roxy the dog

Saturnalia disaster

My fridge has broken down. Damn. Freezer still working. Emergency measures in place. Silly thing is is that the weather here has just warmed up above freezing. For the last couple of weeks it has been below freezing most of the time. Damn. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I paid £130.00 ish for a repairman, who could do nothing, so I got my money back per our arrangement. Then I turned it off, and turned it on again, 48 hours later. It is now working perfectly. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

Hi Roxy the dog! According to the source, Wolfe has "Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara". I'm not quite sure where the confusion is. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This belongs at the Wolfe Talk page, not here. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought it would be politer to just get clarification here, given your edit summary. But no hassles, I'm happy to raise it there instead. - Bilby (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha. I just discovered that you are an admin. Good grief. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost as to what you mean by that. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, at first I was a little surprised that somebody with your service here could read that ref in that way, and now that I discover you are an admin, I'm even more surprised. The source doesn't support your interpretation is all. I do recognise that you aren't acting an an admin capacity though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know how we are reading that differently. The source states that he has Bachelors in of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science, and a Juris doctor in law from San Diego. What am I missing? - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The little ifnobox in the source about his education doesn't actually say he has a BSc. it actually says "Education: Bachelor's of science in mechanical and environmental engineering and political science from University of California Santa Barbara. Juris doctor in law from the University of San Diego." which is subtly different (Bachelor's? to me that's fishy). I've seen too many quacks claim degrees and doctorates that they don't actually have, so AFAIC, I don't actually think it can be stated in wiki's voice, with that source only. You are going to disagree with me, I can tell!! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Its shoddy writing. But its "Batchelor's" because its trying to indicate he has multiple degrees in both in both 'Mech & Environmental', and 'Political Science'. I suspect he has neither given his history of less-than-factual claims. But we shouldn't be second-guessing a staff-writer on a paper like that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm pretty certain that the consensus will overtake me, and that's OK. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

While we're all busy expressing skepticism over the claim the Avocado-for-brains has a bachelor's, is nobody going to comment on the liklyhood of him having a Juris doctorate? o_O I mean, this is a guy who said that the sun will fuck you with sound if you eat chocolate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - it seems that my reading of the source was correct, so there was just some passing confusion. I'm glad to see it cleared up. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As a Brit, no that does not surprise me MP. I of course base all my knowledge of the American legal system on Boston Legal, and that's no madder than anything Denny Crane does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As a fellow Brit, I base all my knowledge of american jusisprudence on Ally McBeal. (And CHiPs and Ironside). -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame, because it's American Dad that really nails American law and government on the head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of repeat delete nomination

Hi, Roxy. This is in regards to your undo of my repeat nomination for deletion of Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin. I followed procedure as written. Why is the procedure written that way if it's not followed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthorne01970 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you have withdrawn your Delete comment from the deletion discussion here, which is no problem as you appear to have withdrawn your ivote, thus changing your mind. I have no idea why you started another deletion proposal, as the deletion discussion I started is already extant. If you want to register your opinion, do so at that discussion, do not start a new proposal.

I deleted your second deletion proposal as it is redundant. Simples. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion:

If this article has been nominated before, use {subst:afdx|2nd} or {subst:afdx|3rd} etc.

Do not mark the edit as minor.

Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated.

The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

This is the procedure I followed. Don't be so cocky. Just delete the fucking page already. - Hawthorne01970 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Try to understand what is going on before making such a dickhead of yourself in future. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a personal rule. If you can't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all. Internet tough guy. Get out of the house once in a while and give yourself a reality check. Hawthorne01970 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops

Not sure how the hell this happened, but thanks for the catch. At least it wasn't the contents of my password safe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is basically what I thought. "How did that happen?" -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 03:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but it appears that participation in an AfD qualifies for this sort of notification. wow. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The infamous Genesis II Church fact from Miracles Mineral Supplement page

So you just undoing a just ‘‘infamous’’ fact with link to his religious movement’s poorly designed website, about his pseudoscience inspired ‘new religious movement’ from ex-Scientologist pseudoscience advocate. And I’m clearly not supporting him or again his new religious movement either because I suffered from ASD. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I don’t understand the point you want to make here. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m saying I don’t clearly supporting him or his religious movement. But I’m just stating informative fact about his pseudoscience religious movement. Chad The Goatman (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I don't think that linking to his "church", which is just a continuation of his MMS quackery marketing by other means, is particularly informative to our readers. The "church" is already mentioned in the article. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, But if someone (but possibly not me) wants created either that guy or his pseudoscience religious movement pages. That fact could probably restated in future. Chad The Goatman (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2018 (EST)

(talk page stalker)If someone creates an article on that church, then we could link to the article. But I doubt anything but the MMS itself will get much coverage in the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

LLLT

Changes made to LLLT page only included missing information. Regarding reimbursement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has changed their policy to indicate that LLLT is considered 'medically necessary'. Plenty more can be cited if further evidence is required. The treatment of Oral Mucositis included citations from multiple papers, including a systematic review and is further supported by the policy changes by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York medical policy states this (emphasis mine):

"A recent systematic review of RCTs on LLLT for prevention of oral mucositis included 18 RCTs, generally considered at low risk of bias, and found statistically significantly better outcomes with LLLT than control conditions on primary and secondary outcomes. In addition, three double-blind, RCTs published in 2015 found significantly better outcomes in patients undergoing LLLT than undergoing sham treatment prior to or during cancer treatment. The evidence is sufficient to determine qualitatively that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome."

Please review changes and tell me which content you feel is not supported by the citations and evidence.

edit: in case you are concerned about the use of static PDFs, you can search Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York's medical policy here, look for Low Level User therapy, you can do the same for Blue Cross Massachusetts and Blue Kansas City.

Academia salad (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have copied the above comment to the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair, will resume discussion on there. Would you care to weigh in further on your thoughts? Academia salad (talk) 15

44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)