1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
Category removal at Quentin Crisp
Hi Roxy. I'm assuming when you said Already in cats that exclude these
in this edit summary, you're referring to the English Male set of categories? If so, as Quentin was transgender, as is discussed in the article lead and body as cited to his last published work, why did you not remove the other set instead? Could I convince you to self-revert and remove the other categories instead please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I wont be self reverting, sorry. If you want to ask your question on the talk page of the article, I would be happy to respond there so other interested editors can see. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Will do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright?
Hello Roxy the dog!
I happened to read about your health when I was going to post this. My condolences, I hope everything goes well.
You wrote this in the edit summary: https://web.stanford.edu/~davies/Symbsys100-Spring0708/Marx-Commodity-Fetishism.pdf However I can't find this document linked to anywhere in the edit.
Would you mind telling me where it is?
Kind regards, Pauloroboto. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello again!
(I've now checked it again, and I can't find anything close to it. I don't even cite Das kapital.) Pauloroboto (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you for your concern about my health, it is much appreciated.
- You are somewhat justified in questioning my edsum. I certainly wasn't thorough enough in checking before actually reverting you. All I did was try to figure out where the strange unencyclopeadic text was coming from by googling huge sections and finding millions of results. It was an easy way of removing the edit that didn't at all justify itself in a list of topics characterised as Pseudoscience. Nevertheless, a load of marxist critiques and quotes doesn't validate "Economics" as pseudoscience. Would you like me to open a section at the article Talk page to discuss this? I note that another editor reverted your previous edit? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello!
- I'm glad to hear that. Hope you're doing better soon.
- I would be happy to see a section opened on the talk page, then I can answer you there in more detail.
- See you there.
- Kind regards, Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for this reminder, nicely done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Roxy the dog. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Roxy, at this rate, I'm going to start charging you for legal fees. My bill is in the mail. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I've just got back to the PC and havn't seen this yet. I have a jolly good idea though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Don't be too jolly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for your comments there. Do you think I should add that the careful comments Sideswipe made about DS awareness aren't really necessary? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome, of course. Which careful comments are you talking about? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- They're concerned that the timing of the alert was after some of the interaction example diffs they provided. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw the question. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I beat you to it, and better it come from me rather than from you. You should focus only on "what you did right", especially post-notification, and not on what Sideswipe did wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could this diff help me? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if you present it as indicating that you have no ill will towards trans people, and are (at the Crisp page) just trying to stick to sources. But the best thing is to explain in your own way how you are interested in improving the page and, post-aware, have been trying to do the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- See also my most recent comment at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm about to post to the AE Noticeboard btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for a very good statement, that I think will help you. One suggestion: the part at the very end, about if you had known it would be weaponized against you, comes across the wrong way, because it deflects blame. Maybe change it to something along the lines of if you had known that it would be taken as insensitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for a very good statement, that I think will help you. One suggestion: the part at the very end, about if you had known it would be weaponized against you, comes across the wrong way, because it deflects blame. Maybe change it to something along the lines of if you had known that it would be taken as insensitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm about to post to the AE Noticeboard btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could this diff help me? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I beat you to it, and better it come from me rather than from you. You should focus only on "what you did right", especially post-notification, and not on what Sideswipe did wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw the question. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- They're concerned that the timing of the alert was after some of the interaction example diffs they provided. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome, of course. Which careful comments are you talking about? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for your comments there. Do you think I should add that the careful comments Sideswipe made about DS awareness aren't really necessary? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Don't be too jolly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I've just got back to the PC and havn't seen this yet. I have a jolly good idea though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Wrong revert
You have reverted my proper edit on the article Clothing where I corrected the nonexistant word "bicep" to the correct singular "biceps". I will correct it again and I would ask you to refrain from trying to revert it again until you learn more about that word. Thank you. --Arny (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you are incorrect. The phrase is constantly used in the fashion industry, sorry. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) At least in terms of anatomy (and with the US Engvar), the muscle, as a noun, is spelled biceps. But I don't know anything about the word usage in fashion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- AS a veteran fashion and textile industry proffessional who cannot spell proffessssional, I am correct. In describing bicep length sleeves, the word bicep is used, not biceps. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That explains it: bicep is an adjective, whereas the thing covered by the sleeve is the noun. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- AS a veteran fashion and textile industry proffessional who cannot spell proffessssional, I am correct. In describing bicep length sleeves, the word bicep is used, not biceps. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- another (talk page watcher) This article on Merriam-Webster addresses the question: Is the Word 'Biceps' Plural or Singular? (Also, multiple google book sources that demonstrate that books on fashion and sewing use "bicep".[1][2][3][4][5][6]) Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to both Trypto and Schazjmd for the background work. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced as the proper word is still "biceps" and using the other version in fashion is obviously some sort of slang. My opinion is that vernacular words, although much used do not belong in an encyclopedia. We shouldn't have words like "wanna", "imma", "cos" nor "bicep" in normal encyclopedic text, unless quoting someone or something. However, I'll let it go now if that word is really part of the accepted terminology in the given context, although I'm still not comfortable to see slang words creep in. Arny (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't considered slang in this usage. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced as the proper word is still "biceps" and using the other version in fashion is obviously some sort of slang. My opinion is that vernacular words, although much used do not belong in an encyclopedia. We shouldn't have words like "wanna", "imma", "cos" nor "bicep" in normal encyclopedic text, unless quoting someone or something. However, I'll let it go now if that word is really part of the accepted terminology in the given context, although I'm still not comfortable to see slang words creep in. Arny (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to both Trypto and Schazjmd for the background work. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) At least in terms of anatomy (and with the US Engvar), the muscle, as a noun, is spelled biceps. But I don't know anything about the word usage in fashion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
All your bias are belong to us
WP:CATW#9 strikes again? Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I bet you could picture me pulling my hair and gnashing my teeth! - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Delusional parasitosis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.
- (talk page stalker) Sundayclose, you added a "See also" for an article about a movie to Delusional parasitosis. Roxy the dog reverted it, and you reverted him back, with an edit summary that read in part "If you want it removed again, get consensus on talk page". That seems to be a mistake. It's you who should attempt to get consensus on talk, per WP:BRD. It's an even bigger mistake to post a warning template intended for newbies on Roxy. Please take the issue to article talk yourself, rather than attempting to force it through with such inappropriate actions. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: point taken, and on reflection I agree completely. I marked out the warning, and my apologies to Roxy the dog. Thanks for this message. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I feel that I normally do pretty well with edsums, but dropped the ball with this one, so SC had some justification for commenting. For some years now I have ignored any templating silliness, intended or not, as life is calmer that way. Thanks to both of you, it's all good here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Roxy. Wish I had a dollar for every time I forgot to leave an edit summary. I could take a nice vacation. :) Sundayclose (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- If one goes to user preferences, editing, section on editor, there's a box one can check, labeled "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I've been using that for a long time, and I find it helpful in saving me from forgetting to leave an edsum. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Roxy. Wish I had a dollar for every time I forgot to leave an edit summary. I could take a nice vacation. :) Sundayclose (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I feel that I normally do pretty well with edsums, but dropped the ball with this one, so SC had some justification for commenting. For some years now I have ignored any templating silliness, intended or not, as life is calmer that way. Thanks to both of you, it's all good here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: point taken, and on reflection I agree completely. I marked out the warning, and my apologies to Roxy the dog. Thanks for this message. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Editing on Joe Root
Can you tell why u have edited the Joe root version of page Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- As my edsum said, it was unsourced. Further, it was unsupported by body text per WP:LEAD -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- But it's a well established fact one can look by even doing a Google search about the fab four, no offense any way Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We dont introduce unsourced "facts" by policy. When I google "fab four" I get lots of stuff about a 1960's beat combo. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- But it's a well established fact one can look by even doing a Google search about the fab four, no offense any way Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Good catch...
and thank you for the report. If you come across something like this again, could I ask you to use the procedures outlined at WP:REVDELREQUEST or WP:RFO? I know the contact methods there aren't ideal, but the AN(I)-Streisand effect can unfortunately be fairly strong for cases like this. Thanks! --Blablubbs (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really should have known to do that rather than ANI, and I had some reservations but couldn't, in the heat of the moment, think of a better way. Thanks for your prompt actions too. I'm going to put WP:REVDELREQUEST and WP:RFO in my sandbox for future reference. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)