Jump to content

User talk:Roxy the dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your fly

[edit]

...is open. For discussion, along with other similar things. In case you didn't know about it: Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: allowing editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly missed that. It reminds me of the hooha about red-linked Cats on userpages years ago. I was disenchanted with the outcome there, back then - but whatever the outcome here I shan't mind. I do love my fly though, and might stick my head above the parapet for the first time since being let loose ! - Roxy the dog 23:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
F'rinstance - would you believe I have not looked at FTN at all since returning. It's on my watchlist and I see the topics, but at the moment, I'm happy just fiddling. I'm considering making my user page look like Houseblaster's example though ... on steroids. Roxy the dog 23:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thank you! The above RfC passed; I took the liberty of adding the class to the fly. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now Roxy has a sticky fly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trauma of a sticking fly, and what's stuck in it, will never leave !
However, I've been sipping a single malt this evening, and can't figure out what happened.
Looks like it's good so thank you very much. Haha. - Roxy the dog 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

message from unsigned editor

[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not the preserve or personal properties of anyone, except for their intellectual significance related to content significance. It is therefore unacceptable for User Roxy the Dog to delete others’ input. Abetifi is OURS as a collective and not for you alone! If you continue wiping out edits that improve on content, I will be compelled to report you to Wikipedia for breach of rules. KB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:200:2C00:4720:90C2:2F68:5DF3:5630 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this edit to Abetifi, where I removed a huge chunk of unencyclopeadic, poorly written stuff. - Roxy the dog 14:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Moribundum (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moribundum Hello I absolutely concur, the users editorial reversions are inconsistent, non professional and arbitary, the user does not offer any explanation and on top of it gives vague disingenuous and non professional arguments for their reversals, the user does not read or give any constructive criticism and just says that "i dont like it" and "nope it isn't" arguments. Anonymous7773 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moribundum Here are a Few Examples "I have absolutely no expertise in this area whatsoever, other than to be able to recognise bullshine when I see it. There appears to be little encyclopeadic value in any of the articles, and the only internal consistency in any of the them is the pretentiousness of the writing aaaaargh. I will of course help in any efforts to find consensus as to how articles are dealt with, and try my best at AfD to find policy based arguement, in any direction appropriate, keep or delete. - Roxy the dog 15:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)" | "You made no mistakes as far as I can tell, so dont worry about that, It's just that a hot pink advert for Lastminute.com ruins the appearance of the page and 1 thought to myself "Why should the Millennium Wheel people get paid for advertising Lastminute.com and not us?" It isn't obligatory to have a logo on the page, and I can see why you wanted it there, but it is horrible!- Roxy the dog 15:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)" | "This is regarding this edit to Abetifi, where removed a huge chunk of - unencyclopeadic, poorly written stuff." Anonymous7773 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my Talk page newbie. - Roxy the dog 17:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't the own you think it is dog Anonymous7773 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things you should do as a newbie is to try to make what you write make sense !. Roxy the dog 18:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe it just goes over your head Anonymous7773 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI item was closed over three weeks ago and then archived. If you have a new complaint, I recommend starting a new discussion topic. DMacks (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks Got it 👍 Thank you Anonymous7773 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 10:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

London Eye

[edit]

Hello! Hope you are having a nice day. I wanted to ask about your undo of one of my edits to London Eye. Your edit summary was "Remove advert", but this is the official logo of the attraction. If it's because of the sponsorship element, this seems to be acceptable on many other articles like London Marathon, FA Cup, The Oval, and Manchester Arena. I apologise if I have made a mistake; could you let me know if there is a policy on this I am unaware of? Thanks in advance. Salsareans (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made no mistakes as far as I can tell, so dont worry about that, It's just that a hot pink advert for Lastminute.com ruins the appearance of the page and I thought to myself "Why should the Millennium Wheel people get paid for advertising Lastminute.com and not us?" It isn't obligatory to have a logo on the page, and I can see why you wanted it there, but it is horrible! - Roxy the dog 15:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... and now I've looked at your examples I'm tempted to remove adverts from at least two of those for the same reason. You may also find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS an interesting read, as it covers your point above. - Roxy the dog 15:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CIR

[edit]
Hello there please stop undoing my work thank you Matthewdfghjiu8765tredfcgvh (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then stop doing bad work. I will always correct bad work. (Cikarang) Roxy the dog 14:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
absolute trash 🗑 Anonymous7773 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Structural and NPOV Improvements in Recent Edit

[edit]

I'm opening this discussion in response to the recent reversion of my edit to the Out-of-place artifact article (diff).

While the revert appears to have been motivated by content concerns (specifically around the mention of the Shroud of Turin), I want to highlight that my edit also included clear structural and neutrality improvements that are independent of the disputed content and consistent with Wikipedia policy.

Summary of Structural and NPOV Edits:

Section Organization: I introduced a logically distinct subtopic as a separate paragraph, improving the article's structure and readability per [WP:STRUCTURE].

Language Tone: I adjusted wording to better align with [WP:NPOV], aiming to present material in a balanced and encyclopedic tone.

These changes were not promotional or in violation of [WP:FRINGE], and I believe they improved article clarity regardless of the inclusion of any disputed content.

Request:

I ask that the community consider restoring the structural and formatting aspects of my edit, even if further discussion is needed for the content it introduced. I'm happy to collaborate or adjust any part that needs improvement.

Thank you for your time. Anonymous7773 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Notice Regarding Editing Conduct

[edit]

Formal Notice Regarding Editing Conduct

[edit]

Hello roxy the DOG,

I'm reaching out to formally raise concern regarding a pattern of editorial behavior that appears inconsistent with key Wikipedia content and conduct guidelines, specifically [WP:BRD], [WP:NPOV], and [WP:CIVIL].

In the case of your recent reversion of my good-faith edits to the Out-of-place artifact article, no substantive explanation or engagement was offered despite structural and neutrality improvements clearly aligned with policy. A similar instance appears to have occurred in the London Eye article, where your revert of the official logo was labeled “Remove advert” with no follow-up to a user who raised legitimate comparative policy questions.

While editorial disagreement is natural, repeatedly reverting sourced or policy-aligned contributions without initiating or participating in Talk page discussions undermines collaborative editing and violates BRD principles. Additionally, non-engagement with user talk inquiries raises concern over transparency and good-faith collaboration.

I request that you engage constructively on article Talk pages when reverting or disputing contributions, and ensure that policy-based rationale is provided clearly. If such behavior continues, I will be forced to escalate the matter via appropriate noticeboards to seek administrative review.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I remain open to discussion if you'd like to clarify your rationale or collaborate constructively moving forward. Anonymous7773 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema Articles

[edit]

As someone with more than a passing interest in Hermeticism and Western mysticism I've a good grounding in Thelema and I have to say that the more I dig in the more right Warrenmck's assessment is. Throwing in cite bundles to obfuscate that the high-quality cites don't actually say what they're being cited to is dirty pool. But I think I want to take these articles on one-at-a-time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no expertise in this area whatsoever, other than to be able to recognise bullshine when I see it. There appears to be little encyclopeadic value in any of the articles, and the only internal consistency in any of the them is the pretentiousness of the writing. aaaaargh. I will of course help in any efforts to find consensus as to how articles are dealt with, and try my best at AfD to find policy based arguement, in any direction appropriate, keep or delete. - Roxy the dog 15:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revision at Hijaz Mountains

[edit]

Hi @Roxy the dog I am not a regular contributor to the topic, so I am not too sure. I just wanted to ask you if your restored version is truly better as I think it reintroduced vandalism of another user? Squawk7700 (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check now. I thought I'd gone back past some vandalism that had been missed. - Roxy the dog 08:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were correct, I missed that. Have gone to your version. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the quick reply ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]