User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 9

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit wrring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I was not going to template the regulars, but you asked for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen No probs with the template, but are you going to stop adding crap about wallpaper to an article about fabric? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We can change the title and subject. The terms are interrelated and in this context they are interchangeable. The sources make that clear.

You are way over your allotment of edit warring. This has become a mess; and you are (at least partly) to blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog, User:Dream Focus suggested on my talk page a name change for the article (Bolt (measurement), which would get us past this kerfuffle. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. We've been through this. a bolt is not a measurement, it's a chunk of fabric. Did you look at the pic on the link I posted? How is one of them a measurement? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I doubt very much I'd be found guilty of edit-warring if it came to court, (NOTE for Pedants - Joke, not threat) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to fix the problem. Not fix the blame. You seem to have an inability or unwillingness to bury controversies that ultimately aren't that important. You don't know how to seize on the opportunity of working this through. But you have choices, and I respect your intensity, while disagreeing with your methods. We can do this the long hard way, but it isn't the direction I want to go.

Editing this article does not have to be a

zero sum game

.

I guess there was no harm in asking. I'll take it back to the article talk page.

Let me know if you change your mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a first thing in the morning off the wall suggestion, but do we have an article called

Roll (fabric)? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF

05:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir, We have some unfinished business at Fabric inspection. You made some promises but never came back. Or you can allow me to restore

Esteemed Rajiv, Sir, was this to do with your poor refs? I'll look. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sir, but it is a simple representation. ThanksRV (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Esteemed Rajiv sir, your excellency sir, I have fixed your faulty page formatting. I have responded at that page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly. Thanks for giving a shit about enwiki despite the arseholes, of which there are a good few. We've lost a few valuable editors recently to burnout and I would be incredibly saddened if we lost you too.

Hope your winter period is treating you well, all things considered.

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this note, I do appreciate it, and other supportive comments you have made toward me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mostly I enjoy your snark on my watchlist :P -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 16:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Roxy the dog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Is a terrible film. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Will the sender of that mail note that I have responded to their mail. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a

I actually didn't see that I'd removed a CN tag too. I just reverted the POV edit bit. The tag isn't needed anyway, tis well covered in the body text. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand completely why you would have lost patience, but responding here is just provoking him. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice, which I fully understand, but I ask a little leeway here on my own TP? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

if they insist on posting here, the urge to respond can be very great. But would you like me to ask them not to do so? I'm concerned that they are so much less experienced in this sort of thing. It isn't really fair. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a need to respond here, I will, despite the chilling effect I feel. His commenting here is no problem, his

WP:CIR is. Take the example below. What should I do about that, given his other comments to me at more or less the exact same time on his TP? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF

07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You just posted a comment of RS's talk page, blaming them for writing an article on the sort of subject I had explicitly urged them to do. It's an article in need of improvement, but nonetheless a positive contribution to WP. I very rarely do this, but as an admin I am placing a partial block that will prevent you from posting on RV's talk page for the next week. If necessary , I will give a similar block in the other direction. This is not an interaction ban in general , with respect to article talk pages, but I strongly urge you not to follow them there, because I will extend it as necessary. (and there I was, feeling very pleased last night that I had resolved a dispute in the way I like, by persuasion alone. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought you said responding here. + + + Looks up there, points + + + Oh, you did. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A trouting with frozen fish?[25] Bah. Feel free to use a fish-hitting template with stunning effect: User:Darwinbish/Stockfish. Just type {{subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}} darwin bish 15:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Krunch! Wham! Biff! Urkkk! You're way beyond getting boys next time.

This is so tempting. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it (Oscar Wilde). I'm afraid Darwinbish tends to assume everybody is a "she". At least all power users such as yourself! Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

I was wondering about that. What clever software did DB use to get the gender correct? Also, power user?-Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog ​ Please accept the peace proposal from my side. I will not argue with you. Kindly be civil. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop what? All I'm doing is improving the project. I shall continue to do so. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, You reverted my edit on Shiatsu in which I replaced "good" with "scientific" to keep true to the source. I would like to know your reasoning for this decision as "return to last good" isn't an explanation. Thank you. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a matter for the article talk page. Ask your question there. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to see you blocked; please don't give someone a stick to beat you with. You're whittling a point on it for them... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

... and they get away with it? I dont normally bother when "personally attacked" but honestly, my spider suit is worn out. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on Roxy - they called you biased, you called them a plonker, I asked you both to stop, then you basically repeated what you said - all I did was revert you, it's not like anybody isn't getting away with it.

Consider this entirely hypothetical situation. One person is making personal attacks on a talk page, and another person is being all cool about it. Easy decision to block, right? Now imagine they're both making personal attacks, you ask them to stop and they don't, and then you have to trawl through the edit history to work out who started it, consider whether there have been warnings, weigh up the offensiveness of each attack, etc. It gets muddy. And you don't want mud on your spider suit, they're a bugger to wash. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have wasted your time though. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about that - I'm pretty good at wasting my own time, I ought to be marking maths work! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that the source I cited "does not back up the claim made in the article." Well, here is a SCREENSHOT that shows the source says the exact same thing I posted to the article, with a slight rewording. In fact, I had to change it because I initially quoted the article DIRECTLY. What game are you trying to play here, exactly?

The screenshot

I'm playing the game of improving the project. Have you tried the game of signing your posts? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted a link to a DIRECT SCREENSHOT that shows that the cited source backs up the (uncontroversial) claim made in the article. Your revision is lazy, you didn't read any of the cited work, and you're not improving the project by removing content under false pretenses, even when a screenshot is provided to you. But you got me with that zinger about signing my post, congratulations. Let others edit articles, please! How about some cooperation or at least basic etiquette!

Edsanville (talk

) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have responded at the article. I will not respond further here. You should open a section at the article Talk page. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Arcturus (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave you some time ago. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

... phoned me at 4:45 yesterday afternoon, (a Sunday), and by 5:30 I had had my first shot of the Astra Zeneca Vaccine. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 04:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I hear that one of the side effects is that you start combing your hair like Boris....

Also see:[26] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising when lockdown has meant all the barbers are closed, is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Beep! Confirmed! But jokes aside, congrats, —PaleoNeonate – 08:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lest we forget, THE TRUTH is out there... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

[27] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a selfie? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Roxy,

I deleted a citation of a Mr. David Gorski whose statement is based on a blog entry. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources this is not a reliable source for a medicine related article. Note that Mr. Gorskis blog entry partially is based on another blog entry "accurate summation of the Feldenkrais method", which is based on a another bloggers anecdotic experience. http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk36.html

Concerning the quote of quackwatch: Mentioning something in a list, without any citations of scientific studies is not really hitting the high quality standards of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

So, why did you restore these entries? They lack of any citation of a reliable scientific source.

Best regards,

Erik

ErikSchaf (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit[28] was reverted for not being neutral. I would have reverted it myself if Roxy had not beaten me to it.

Use of blogs by

WP:BLOG

: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

There is no good medical evidence that the

Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits. --Guy Macon (talk

) 14:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(

talk

) 14:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Erik, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with my colleagues here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s nice to see Betteridge’s law being followed. Brunton (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes.

Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk

) 01:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, very kind of you. Erm ... What anniversary am I celebrating !! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you expect me to see something obvious? But srsly, thx. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not gonna revert your edit because I don't wanna start an edit war, but you can pretty much see on the talk page that I called for a third opinion, and that Aliveness Cascade (talk · contribs) and me agreed on this change vs Hipal (talk · contribs).

I personally think Hipal's POV is not neutral, since he went again ad hominem attacks at first sight and has pretty much taken

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Consensus again, as the consensus you cite does not seem to exist. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And strike out all your accusations made against me, which make it appear you are taking this personal and are unable to work cooperatively with other editors. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"Hang on!! Is this about a script that can automatically write sarcastic edsums? YES PLEASE" You want a script to do that? I'm sure you can be far more creative and adventurous doing it manually. If you use a script, you'll just end up sounding like

YES PLEASE, Only for emergency use late at night when I've had too much catnip and cannot be bothered. It seems like such a wonderful idea. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Catnip? Do you have a secret you wish to share, Roxy the dog?? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be an ecumenical matter. Brunton (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Really fighting the urge to drop trees (well, images of trees) on a bunch of user talk pages. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the fuss. video-Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

At my age, it was a hard concept to get around. I actually told an acquaintance, before they said openly they had this problem, that I thought the problem was in the head and not the plumbing. So, for those of us of a certain age, it's been a learning experience. And for those with this problem, the endless mockery and belittlement is a torment. They did not ask to be this way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do anything. Just don't make me listen to Hawaiian guitar! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Say, can you give me some insight into what was happening there? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I posted the following to Roger's Talk page

"Note for reviewing Admin. Nowhere in all this has it been noted that Roger, having driven a Coach and Horses through talk page ettiquette, has also removed at least two entries to the discussion that I had made, messed with my signature at least once, and still has not even disturbed a pixel at WP:TPG. Hence my WP:CIR suggestion. Can we ensure that he stops banjaxing about with his stupid templates, that he still believes he is was placing according to guidelines. Get him to demonstrate some basic understanding of using Talk pages properly in terms of indentation, signing, templates, deleting peoples posts and in making the point economically." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. (You've been cooped up too long. ) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha. I had an eight page letter from Matt the Minister the other day giving guidelines on what extremely vulnerable people should do next. Eight. Closely typed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No one takes the time to write anymore. A dying art. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A little late maybe: "I can't write", "I can't read", "I watch TV".[29] But unfortunately the full quote I was looking for isn't there: "I can't write." (true in his case, reply:) "Who can nowadays! Who has the time!" —PaleoNeonate – 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanket#(Dubious)_Etymology_from_Thomas_Blanket_/_Blanquette_-_needs_review?

Geddit? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 18:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the Sycamore, have you tree evolved into a tree? Bishonen the Japanese Cherry | tålk 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC).

This was a response to somebody who wanted to be called tree, and the eeng sanction. I suppose going back to grumpy is better. Thank you for these pics Bish, and while the sycamore is lovely, may I say that the japanese cherry is appropriately beautiful. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tree know the back history of the Eeng sanction (which indeed tree lifted treeself). Bishonen the Japanese Cherry | tålk 12:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

If anytree wants to call treeself "tree", then tre rest of trus are treequired to call trem "tree", even if treewe think this is silltree and the treesult is somewhat wooden. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man, that Emmanuel Macron is stunningly handsome! Bishonen the Japanese Troll | tålk 20:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

Is that the french speaker whose wife slept with Mick Jagger? Or am I confuseling him with another tree? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's funny. Some people think tree am french and call tree "Gee Masson", but tree am of British descent, tree was raised speaking the Queens English, and tree name rhymes with "Sea Bacon" (which tree would have for breakfast with some scrambled

sea jelly with some sea apples and sea cucumbers on the side). --Guy Macon (talk

) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats the last pronounciation for a tree Tree've ever have thought of. Tree've been saying it in tree head wrong for years. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Note - the below topic was deleted from GBFans talk page)

Removing that Prod. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing what PROD? ~ GB fan 10:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The one that I placed. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The last PROD I removed was 22 hours ago and it wasn't placed by you? So again what article are you talking about so I can understand what you think I did wrong? ~ GB fan 10:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

According to my alerts, you deprodded it 26 mins ago. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me what article you are talking about? ~ GB fan 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Dick move diff -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the problem I removed a speedy deletion tag that you placed that is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. If you want your speedy deletion requests to go be deleted nominate them for valid reasons. ~ GB fan 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you a Project Arsehole member? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you ever going to acknowledge that you were wrong in all your assertions against me in regards to this article and AFD? ~ GB fan 10:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not!!! Are you a member? I haven't looked. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well there is only one person who made any Dick moves in this whole business, You. ~ GB fan 11:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

... and yet we now have another crappy stub, of wonderful provenance, to add to our collection. Well done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better to blame me for that article being kept at AFD because I didn't delete it for an invalid speedy deletion reason, fine. I don't take responsibility but it is fine for you to blame me. ~ GB fan 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Good. Do you want the last word on this? I'll let you have it? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Good advice (for both of you!):

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, nice to see you take on an activist role at Wikipedia. But unfortunately to everyone's disappointment, I am not a paid promotional person or anything, the info which you keep changing back to is outdated, and I am an aspiring student busy with college applications wanting to get into an MBA college here in India. So if you want readers to get the correct info on Wikipedia, please allow the changes to remain. I even cited the sources so that it is clear that the changes are not misleading. Anyone with time on their hands can check if the information provided is correct or not. I merely tried to update the page. Please go through publicly available articles and allow the proper information to be readily available at everyone's fingertips. Anyway, thank you for going through all this trouble to read my message. And sorry for any etiquette blunder I may have committed. Because I am new to Wikipedia and do not really know this stuff that much. Thanks. Housofx (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC) User talk:Housofx

Even if you are not being paid to edit, your edits are still unacceptable as they are almost entirely promotional. See

WP:PROMOTION. --Guy Macon (talk

) 14:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, please forgive me for my edits at TCM. I am not a troll, and I will immediately discard all of my dad's TCM from the closet and tell him to stop taking huang lian su for diarrhea and physically stop him from going to buy it in the future. I hope you can be nicer to me in the future. I really didn't mean to anger you. Félix An (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind most marine mammals, but Sea Lions? I can do without Sea Lions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading matter for visitors, published today. "Drink Me" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Per

Not a proper Acronym. The Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour l'Entretien des TEXtiles uses the first three letters of the last word. Thanks for discussing though, but I believe you are wrong. We really should discuss this at the article talk page, where others will see. I will move this discussion there. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Roxy the dog,

I reverted to my version of "Zamzam water" due to the article not conforming to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. When I said 2-0, that was because another user agreed with me on this issue. I considered it as part of a vote. There was no opposition to my complaint, so I went ahead with reverting it. If you want such a large vote to happen (which I'm assuming), then you should find people to take part in this consensus. If there is no action within one or two weeks, I will need to go ahead with my version. This complaint was brought to light on April 15. Once again, I will reiterate that the current version of the article is misinformation. Thanks for your time.

Xpërt3 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.RV (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Cellulosic fibres, Nylon, all MMFs and synthetics are all from natural sources

You are mistaken here [[30]]. Natural fibers are obtained from natural sources such as plants, animals, or minerals without any chemical process.But Kindly MMF (

RV, Looking at the revision history of Natural fiber, it looks like you posted wrong information twice, Roxy reverted your bad edits twice, and finally you posted the correct information. That wasn't edit warring. It was fixing your screwup. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Respected Sir That was a short description, not a definition. Have you seen his ALL? Is he right? Though we produce everything from natural sources, ALL are not from plants, animals, and minerals. We get ONLY natural fibers from these sources. The human-made fibers are obtained after synthesizing petroleum products. His ALL is Hell. And i fixed that. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not mistaken, you are, as usual. It runs through all your editing. Do you know Dunning and Kruger at all? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog What was mistaken is explained. I know one thing that for you, your ego and your prejudices are bigger than Wikipedia and its projects. Let's finish our business on Staple (textiles). I will not allow you to run away from the talk page where you are an expert (to escape). And do you know Dog training? I am busy in the same, and I shall make you a good one (You will discuss the things on the talk page first). Mind you RV (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be both. It could be that Roxy's ego is bigger than Wikipedia AND that you don't understand what makes a fiber a "natural fiber". The two are not mutually exclusive. See Dunning–Kruger effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

correct it accordingly. Kindly advise. Warm regards RV (talk

) 04:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)