User talk:Roxy the dog

Unblock/Unsanction request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roxy the dog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please could an Admin lift the sanction imposed by Courcelles on 21st March 2023. After eighteen months of not violating that sanction, an Admin refused to lift the sanction, so I am asking after a further six monthsish of non-violation. Roxy the dog 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think it's unlikely that this is the way to ask for this. You'd want to check with Courcelles first, then WP:AN, probably - but if this can be unilaterally lifted and you want to try via unblocks, please provide links to the sanction and any previous discussions of that sanction, so the responding admin doesn't have to go hunting for them. Thanks. asilvering (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Roxy the dog 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Roxy, if I understand correctly, this is about a 1-week block that happened two years ago, so this would just be a matter of changing the record in the block log, which is rarely done. (Years ago, I tried to get the system changed to make this more of a routine thing, but that idea went nowhere.) As far as I can tell, it's not something that people continue to hold against you or anyone else, so maybe it's not worth the trouble. I do understand the desire one can have, to "clear one's name" (I was blocked once, a very long time ago), but I don't think it's worth worrying about. (By the way, I'm relieved, because when I first saw this on my watchlist, I was worried that you had gotten blocked again.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I was blocked as an April Fool's joke once. That record still stands and cannot be changed. The only way to "fix" a block is to make another block and unblock that includes an explanation. There is no revdelete for blocks. That's why my block log looks weird. See User:Valjean/BlockLog. I wish you the best with this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Valjean and Tryptofish, a better guess is that this is about the TBAN from Lia Thomas and trans athletes (logged here). To answer asilvering's implied procedural question, an uninvolved admin is indeed allowed to to remove the sanction, since more than a year has passed since it was implemented (see WP:CTOP#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction). We'd still recommend you check with Courcelles first, and if you don't, admins responding to an unblock request will probably reach out themselves. In addition to the links asilvering mentions, it would also help to give a short explanation of why the ban is no longer necessary; presumably there's more to it than just the passage of time and adherence to the ban's terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Courcelles hasn't edited for ~seven months, so I'd skip that bit. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Still worth a talk page notice. They broke a months-long absence last December to respond to an admin-related matter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

FFF has linked the one I'm talking about. I didn't know how to find it. I'll leave a note on Courcelles page and see what happens. (For the record, given that my own personal edit restrictions make the sanction redundant, particularly as my further sanctions have now been lifted) I can see no objections to wanting a clean record.

Thanks to FFF and FIM for your responses. Roxy the dog 14:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

See Courcelles' talk page for my unsanction request. - Roxy the dog 14:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Roxy, sorry I thought you meant something else. I had simply looked at your block log and assumed it was what I saw there. Thanks to FFF for solving it. And Roxy, good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for trying Roxy. It is unlikely Courcelles will respond at this point, and I'd encourage you to submit another unban request. I'm actually not sure if the unblock request template is the right way to do it, but I can't think of any other way to solicit the input of uninvolved, individual administrators. You could also appeal at AE or AN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would rather this stay on my Talk page, rather than be automatically archived, for the time being. - Roxy the dog 05:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

In the interests of comic relief, and because I'm just looking for an excuse to link to this, here is something utterly, well, bizarre, about not caring too much. Complete with British apparel! [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Triphala

Wholesale blanking of useful content—including well-sourced Chinese context, history, and photos of the involved fruit—was (however well meaning) WP:VANDALism. If you want to make more measured edits, go ahead but, no, don't blank a day's worth of work helpful to the WP:READERS. (If you deeply feel Chinese content isn't important to many of our readers, eh, check out WP:BIAS. Most of us are focused on English and, sure, the article should eventually focus on the Indian applications of the stuff but that doesn't mean the Chinese aspects should be removed. It's a global project for an international audience.) — LlywelynII 00:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Reverting edit on cupping therapy

Hi Roxy the dog, I explained in the edit on cupping therapy the reason for my edit. You reverted it without responding to the reason either on my talk page or in the edit history or talk page of the article.

Cupping therapy is a treatment or technique. While many of the modern arguments for its efficacy are rooted in pseudoscience, it is semantically inaccurate to call the technique itself a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience usually refers to systems of thought (e.g., astrology, homeopathy, phrenology), not to individual treatments or procedures. By analogy, cauterization is not “science” in itself, even though its underlying rationale is scientifically validated — it is simply a medical technique.

My edit did not change the article’s content or meaning. It was simply a copy edit for accuracy and clarity. To avoid getting into an edit war, I wanted to understand your reason for reverting the edit and possibly start a discussion on Talk:Cupping_therapy before I restore the edit. Thanks Chagropango (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

To say that "My edit did not change the article’s content or meaning" is totally untrue. - Roxy the dog 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Further, upon reading your comment above more carefully, you dissemble throughout, Sheesh. - Roxy the dog 15:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The article still contained a clear disclaimer about mainstream skepticism about the technique and lack of scientific consensus on efficacy in the header. This is what I meant by did not chance the structure or content of the article.

The technique itself is not semantically a pseudoscience, and the term pseudoscience is not used to describe techniques, but rather the beliefs that underly them. Is this correct or not according to your view?

I fail to see what the dissimulation is here. Chagropango (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the article further, open a section at it's Talk page. I was going to issue you a couple of contentious topic alerts, but I see somebody beat me to it at your Talk page. - Roxy the dog 06:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shag carpet

Hello Roxy the dog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shag carpet, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 13:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not abuse speedy deletion to try and get pages deleted that you have previously taken to AFD and disagree with the outcome. The page is in a poor state, yes; WP:SOFIXIT, rather than repeatedly trying to have it deleted. CoconutOctopus talk 13:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I've proposed renaming on the talk page. Have you looked at the "Meaningful content" you have been here long enough to know better. Roxy the dog 13:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Enlighten me please. Which of the two short sentences in the article is meaningful? Thanks. - Roxy the dog 13:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please re-read WP:G1. Thank you. "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." CoconutOctopus talk 13:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I repeat, as you stated, "There is meaningful content".

Please could you point it out. It'll only take you a moment to decide which sentence is meaningful. Don't avoid the question as you have just above, thanks. - Roxy the dog 13:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion G1 does not apply if the content is at all understandable, which it is. That is what it means by meaningful. CoconutOctopus talk 13:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Shitty close. I will appeal, as you seem to not care about our basic core principles. So can I go ahead in future and write nonsense articles as the words in this article have little relationship to its subject, (except where I put a pile on the carpet). Roxy the dog 13:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Further comment.

I hadn't realised that you actually removed the prod i just did. I thought that the wiki siftware had refused it. - Roxy the dog 13:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Roxy, you're recently back from a community ban so it might be wise to drop the you seem to not care about our basic core principles tack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Totally unrelated. - Roxy the dog 15:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You may want to re-read that discussion which explicitly called out your history of personal attacks and incivility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

AS I said, totally unrelated. Have I made personal attacks in this dispute? Of course not. Uncivilness, perhaps, but nothing to bring to admin attention. I have perhaps lost my temper at the stupidity of folk hearabouts, and consequently switched wikipedia off from my "totally unrelated" post above, till this one. Roxy the dog 14:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not what CSD G1 is for. Speedy deletions may only be carried out under very strict criteria which this article does not meet. You are more than welcome to take me to WP:AN and allow the community to discuss my actions, or take my close of the AFD to WP:DRV. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 15:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Roxy, maybe you'll consider some advice from me. I saw that you posted on the talkpage that "shag carpet" is a nonsense term, unlike "shagpile". I don't know, but I'm getting a hunch that this is a WP:ENGVAR thing. Here in the US, we talk about shag carpet all the time, but I've never heard of shagpile (pile, yes, but shagpile, no). In my opinion, the Octopus and the Radish are both correct. This is something where somebody ought to improve the page – a lot – but it's not a good candidate for deletion, and you really ought to accept that graciously. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say we talk about it all the time, and my wife usually slaps me when I try to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You got me! I'd say I'm laughing so hard I landed on the carpet, but I better not! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Shag carpets were a by-product of the sexual revolution of the sixties, the popularity of the pill, and the rampant casual sex that society had come to accept. Couples would use a shag carpet placed conveniently over the rather uncomfortable Axminster or wilton carpets because the shagginess would prevent carpet burns when shagging. Roxy the dog 14:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

With sourcing, that would be a great addition to the page. In fact, I can imagine some delightful DYK hooks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The article Ring strain

Is in dire need of some disambiguation I feel. Anybody? - Roxy the dog 11:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a valid term in organic chemistry. What would you disambiguate it from? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it should be about a dire injury to ones arsehole. sorry. - Roxy the dog 20:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should joke about shag carpets or bad bonds. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This is ENGVAR too, isn't it? - Roxy the dog 20:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

And the British said the Americans were revolting... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)