Hello, I'm Roxy! Welcome to my talk page. Got a question or comment about my editing? Say it here! Remember to practicegood etiquette. Start a new topic

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics ascontentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them Sheshouldnot be givenalerts for those areas.

Hello, RoxySaunders, andwelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free tomake test edits in the sandbox
• and check out theTask Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name ontalk pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see ourhelp pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me onmy talk page or place{{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!RegentsPark(comment)22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the other user is so heavy about the climate of my city if he first used an unrealiable site and also unsourced data.

I have tried to explain why is he wrong (the data was there from 2015 by the way) and I have also added useful information about the climate of Elche made by theUniversidad Miguel Hernández which is the university of the city of Elche. I don't know why he wanted to change that data and I kindly explained why he shouldn't.

I have also received bad mood messages and he called me dumb in one of the edit summaries, I just don't understand why he changed 5 year old data and he just reverts any data he doesn't like, even if I kindly explain why that data is actually closer to reality as Elche doesn't have any long term recording station. He should be more kind when editing, insults are not necessary. --31.4.227.63 (talk)03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advices. I have also replied in Elche's talk page. --31.4.227.63 (talk)12:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Refdesk Barnstar For your decisive yet compassionate (and yet still procedural) response to someone reaching out on the science reference desk for help with drug addiction on Jan 9, 2021, you deserve this.DRosenbach(Talk

Interesting deletion nom. At the company website there are descriptions of clinical trials, but as best I could discover, only one actually published in a science journal. (And I neglected to check if that one is considered a 'predatory' journal.). Curious to see how this ends.David notMD (talk)19:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAeroPress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCold brew. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)06:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made toTransparent (TV series): you may already know about them, but you might findWikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards thesandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to avandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.Firestar464 (talk)04:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sawthis edit, as I'm watching the debate develop. So you know; pings don't work unless they are done in a post that includes a signature being made at the same time (see the third paragraph ofHelp:Notifications). I found this out the hard way too :) --Hammersoft (talk)03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I see, thanks for the tip!RoxySaunders (talk ·contribs)03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft:, not only that, but it has to be on a new line. If you tack it on to the previous comment with no newline between, it won't ping either. Now you've got the full story, I think...Mathglot (talk)04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good call; thanks for that. There's something else that could be said about this in that article, if we found the right reference to back it up. It's about the concept ofmarkedness, which is about how until someone names a group or population divergent from what is seen as some larger "norm" (trans+gender,homo+sexual,inter+sex), there's no need to have a name for the larger majority group, because "they're just everybody" (aren't they?). Some time later, theunmarked term gets coined when it is needed, usually so scholarly publications don't have to awkwardly keep using the negative ("not homosexual", etc.). This *always* happens after the minority group term is coined first; thuscis+gender,hetero+sexual,endo+sex; and so on. I don't have time to do this right now, but I'm pretty sure you can find something about it if you poke around, and based on your edits, I trust you'll get it right, so if you're interested, it's all yours. If not, happy editing! Cheers,Mathglot (talk)04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what the term sherd means. Shard is not a term generally used in archaeology to refer to pottery. I will be requesting the assistance of the Arbitration Committee if you revert this article again.

2A02:1810:B406:D600:148C:20CE:49A9:DEEF (talk)07:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your terrific edits toConversion Therapy92.10.13.209 (talk)18:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just accused me of adding original research and not sticking to sources for my edit - even though I obeyed the guidelines and our changes were accepted by multiple others, including yourself. For some bizarre reason they reverted my edit rather than the most recent one. I'd recommend watching the page.92.10.13.209 (talk)04:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!@92.10.13.209: It's natural forWP:BOLD edits to get reverted like this. I'd recommend opening a discussion atTalk:Conversion therapy and gainconsensus for the best possible phrasing of the lede. I personally think that includinghomosexual or bisexual is made redundant by my recent addition ofLGBT earlier in that sentence, and I basically agree with you that it's not the most inclusive turn of phrase—I'd very slightly prefernon-heterosexual. Keep in mind that I'm only anautoconfirmed editor; my approval doesn't carry any special weight to override other editors' consensus or theWP:BRD cycle.

Mathglot(ping) is certainly editing in good faith, but the reference toWP:STICKTOSOURCE in their edit summary admittedly confused me—what source? The older sources tend to just say "homosexual", and the more recent ones (cognizant of the fact that terminology is often changing) don't attempt to encapsulate every possible form of non-heterosexual orientation. I don't think there's a realWP:OR concern with the insertion or removal ofhomosexual or bisexual here.Regards,RoxySaunders🏳️‍⚧️ (talk·contribs)05:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; it crossed my messages at the article talk page, and at92.10.13.209's UTP. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)05:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started atTalk:Conversion therapy. I thought I'd let you know this since you have thoughts on the article and expanded upon one of my edits multiple times. Although, you have no obligation to ofc. And thank you for being so nice to me92.10.13.209 (talk)06:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ahem, sorry about that, I don't think I really read what you wrote, or paid sufficient attention to what was being discussed. Plus, I'm a little overly sensitive at the moment I think, also I was probably a bittired drunk when I replied the first time. So, yeah, mea maxamissima culpa, sorry again... Tewdar 17:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar: I happily confess to being A Bit Weird, but admit your removed comment caught me off-guard and hurt my self-esteem a little. Thank you for changing it, mea culpa very much accepted.RoxySaunders🏳️‍⚧️ (talk·contribs)17:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I woke up at around 7am, looked at my reply, and realized I had actually written a load of auld bollocks, as my Dad would have said. Please ignore it and I hope my grovelling apology goes some way towards repairing any damage to your self-esteem. All the best, Tewdar 17:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring tothis message aboutthis diff.

Sorry about that; there's a long and boring technical explanation, but since the stupid December 2019 encryption protocol update, I've only been able to view or edit Wikipedia from home using a somewhat indirect method which is unfortunately not fully Unicode compliant. Often I create a new section at the end, and then delete the section header, to avoid problems, but I was having problems with that yesterday when I added the "euphemism treadmill" pointer, because the Wikimedia software recently threw in an extra wrinkle (with respect to my personal setup) into the process of creating a new section on a page. I didn't figure out how to handle this extra step until today...— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnonMoos (talk •contribs)23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it was something like that.RoxySaunders🏳️‍⚧️ (talk·contribs)17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing your name attached to some really great work. Thanks, and keep it up!Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was wondering if you'd be up for doing another definitions subpage? While we see it less often, we do occasionally get comments atTalk:Trans man about how the definition is wrong, similar to those atTalk:Trans woman. And unfortunately we have one such comment now that would be more straightforward to address with such a definitions subpage.Sideswipe9th (talk)23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: That might be worth a go, although I'd wager that nearly every source given atTalk:Trans woman/Definitions also provides a suitable equivalent for trans men, so I'm not sure it's necessary to have two separate pages. If the goal is to reduce repeated discussions, I think we'd get more mileage out of adding an FAQ, which basically says that the current lede reflects a long-standing consensus atTalk:Trans woman. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)01:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get the oversight (blanked section); we all make mistakes. Butthis? What's going on—another oversight? If so, no worries; has alreadybeen undone by Adakiko. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I intended to perform all of my actions in that revert. My initial slip-up removed the section heading for “Terms related to” (not describing”) transgender people, the section “TERF” and “chaser” belong to. The resulting bodytext (where TERF was erroneously listed under terms “describing” transgender people) caused you (and nowAdakiko) to move it into general slang. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)14:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps to sober you up from yourpower drunk!Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​Delicious, thank you. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)17:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refactoring at the ROGD Rfc, in particular, moving long, threaded discussions in response to !votes from the Survey section to the Discussion section. I know such refactoring can be tricky, and I appreciate the effort you expended in carrying it out, which I believe significantly improved clarity and comprehensibility of the Rfc as a whole. I not infrequently add "Survey" and "Discussion" subheaders to Rfc's when it looks like the !votes might get encumbered by too much discussion; I was late to the game here, and it ended up the way you saw. (Even with the subheaders, it happens to an extent, anyway.) In any case, thanks again, and any time you see an Rfc that looks like it might be heading that way, I'd certainly encourage you to add subheaders, in the hope that it might help keep things better organized from early on, and save refactoring later. Cheers,Mathglot (talk)20:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered over toTalk:Transphobia, and read through the staleTalk:Transphobia § Criticism discussion, started by ananonymous OP back in October, and joined by others, full of bad faith, soapbox opinion, and worse. The more I read, the more annoyed I became. This was clearly rampantWP:NOTFORUM territory, and had I been around at the time, I would have collapsed it, and been tempted to delete it (but perWP:BITE, I would at least have resisted that temptation). However, one editor specifically invoked "chilling effect", which would've probably made me pause and perhaps not collapsed it. And my Gedankenexperiment about my own probable reaction made me even more annoyed (first at myself, then more at them), as I realized the chilling effect their invocation ofchilling effect would've had on the proper use ofapproved tools like collapse for dealing with off-topic threads. And yet, there'sWP:BITE, and I wouldn't want to give them the opportunity to say, "See, there ya go; I've been canceled. Again." which would be B.S., but I also wouldn't want to give them any excuse to wallow in their imagined victimhood. So, I was stewing for a bit on how to effectively deal with such a situation.

I came up with an idea, and wanted to run it by you (and byDanielRigal who was also involved and may have thoughts about it). What if we simply moved the discussion over to the OP's user talk page, leaving just the original section header, and a{{Moved discussion to}} template? Alternatively, move the whole thread to the OP's User talk page, keeping a copy of only the section header and OP's initial comment in place at the article TP, embedded in a closed discussion box using{{archive top |status=closed |result=Moved to [[User talk:WokeVictim#Transphobia criticism]]}}? That keeps the not-forum thread off the article TP where it doesn't belong, spares other editors the time and trouble of reading the off-topic bleating at the article TP (while still leading them to the OP's thread if needed), and keeps the OP's discussion at their UTP where they can rant or expound all they want (within reason; not including PA, etc.)? Or do you have a better approach? Thanks,Mathglot (talk)04:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I can see this being a good maneuver in certain cases, primarily for disputes that are mostly focused on editor behavior and not on content. However,UTPs are still not an acceptable place forPOLEMIC. Whereas collapsing/deleting off-topic soapboxing (DENY) accurately communicates to the soapboxer that this is not the place for that (NOTAFORUM), relocating a disruptive discussion into a user's talk-page sends them the unintended message that "Actually, unproductive grandstanding isfine, so long as you only do it in Usertalk space".

I consider the possibility of transphobes feeling vindicated about theirFREESPEECH being censored by the evil Wikipedia cabal to be substantially less important than the ability for productive, good-faith contributors to build an encyclopedia without sifting through pages of self-righteous dogwhistling. If a thread/comment seems unlikely to produce useful consensus, and very likely to attract further disruption, then a neutral party collapsing/reverting it is the kindest possible outcome for everyone (as it strongly encourages participants, including the vandal, to not waste any more time on it). When performed judiciously and in accordance withWP:TPO, this is notWP:BITEing any more than reverting an edit in article-space or rejecting an article draft. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)06:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One possible downside of moving the discussion to User Talk is that it moves it into a space where the OP has a degree of ownership and is more able to "hold court" over any other participants, creating a degree of power imbalance. (Whether anybody wants to attend that court is another matter.) That's not to say that there might not be occasions when it could work but I don't think it is a generally applicable approach. A broader problem here is that it is hard to tell when somebody is acting in good faith and calibrate a response appropriately. Sometimes we get people who genuinely believe that their contributions are helpful, even when it is obvious to us that they are not, and sometimes we get people who aredeliberately being exhausting and trying to suck all the air out of the room. Often, you can't tell which you are dealing with from the initial interaction because the best indication of the latter is subsequent repetitive kvetching about "free speech", "censorship" etc. So, I agree with RoxySaunders. Roll stuff up if it is not helpful. (Remove it completely if it is abusive.) It can always be unrolled, or discussion restarted on a better basis, if people disagree. If the OP is being intentionally disruptive or otherwise acting in bad faith then warn them. If the OP is a new user plausibly acting in mistaken good faith then make sure they got a welcome message and maybe drop them a polite note about NOTFORUM. Finally, I don't think there is any point in worrying too much about giving them an excuse to wallow in their imagined victimhood because the kvetchers are going to do that anyway, whatever we do. So long as be are not giving them alegitimate excuse for complaint, I think we are OK.DanielRigal (talk)14:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roxy andDanielRigal; really good responses, both. I think you (pl.) have hit the nail on the head with these clear-headed responses about what is really important here, and I'm going to quit worrying about 'wallowing' etc., and inform my future actions in similar situations based on this. Good work, and thanks again!Mathglot (talk)02:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Good editing onTERF. I get it, but I cannot find a reference/citation that backs up the quoted "*", other than quotes that are copied from Wikipedia itself. (circular quotes)

Have you followed the footnote listed in the quote? It does not lead to the germane or cited source. It is also paywalled.

Here is your edit & rationale and since this article is under one-revert per 24 hours discretionary sanctions, I am not going to kick that in. Let's discuss!

Also, the acronym TERF is now a word in the parlance asterf so I'd like to work that into the prose and lead. Can you help me figure that out?

In conclusion, where is the quoted citation you see?

By the way,Mathglot can vouch for my good faith, motives, and integrity. They are awesome folk! Hoping they chime in here too, as they are a major editor to this article, the topic, and the wikis. My name is Wayne, IRL.

We all learn from each other. I am an honest ally, and always learning. Cheers!{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWikiWayne: Hello! Worry not, I have full faith in your good intentions. I attend one of those prissy liberal arts colleges, so I have access to TSQ through my library. From p. 255, 258 ofRadical Inclusion (DOI link):

Viv Smythe (Williams 2014a): “It was not meant to be insulting. It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems with whom we engaged who weretrans*-positive/neutral, because we had several years of history of engaging productively/substantively with non-TERF RadFems.”

That footnote points to:

Williams, Cristan. 2014a. “TERF: What It Means and Where It Came From.” TransAdvocate, March 15.www.transadvocate.com/terf-what-it-means-and-where-it-came-from_n_13066.htm.

Following that link, the quote appearssic erat scriptum in the 6th paragraph of the original interview. While Williams' side of the interview exclusively usestrans, Smythe consistently usestrans*, indicating it was an intentional choice on her part.

The use oftrans* was touched on ina discussion a few months ago about whether or not it should have a Wiktionary link, so it's fairly fresh on my mind. I've gone ahead andadded a reference to that interview, which should hopefully clear things up for users who can't access that source. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)03:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete my comment from the talk page of the NB article?Sardaka (talk)12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did.Judith Butler’s pronouns areoff-topic for that page, and (barring any other rationale) your personal disregard or dislike for their gender identity looked like simplesoapboxing. Whatever discussion proceeded from your comment would likely have been moot, as the only possible answer is thatMOS:GENDERID very clearly applies. Therefore, to avoid other editors having their energy wasted, Iremoved and answered on your talk page instead.

At the time I was not aware that Butler accepts she/her pronouns (but prefersthey), so I might have responded to your message more harshly than I otherwise would have (misgenderingWP:BLP subjects is a no-no). I’m sorry. However I do still stand by its removal. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)18:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a more conciliatory tone, but I would draw your attention to the following passage in Talk page guidelines:"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed bySardaka (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)]". In short, discuss before deleting. A bit of simple discussion in this case would have avoided a lot of angst.Sardaka (talk)09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please move your comment atWP:AE to a new subsection, "Statement by RoxySaunders", copying the formatting used on that page. Preface your comment with a ping to the user you are replying to. There is a strict bureaucracy on that page.Johnuniq (talk)23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my mistake. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)23:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoxySaunders :) I'm looking for people to interviewhere. Feel free to pass if you're not interested.Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a message I left atUser talk:Scorpions1325 § Regarding boats, bands, and bugs, with respect tothis revert. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝)04:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of a personal attack because the administrator who nominated the page for deletion was affiliated with that WikiProject. I should haveWP:AGF and asked you first.Scorpions1325 (talk)12:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, just wanted to thank you for your insightful commentary on the Sophie talk page. I echoed your sentiments exactly, and I'm grateful to see your dissenting perspective among a sea of "agrees." You rock!Violetstork (talk)19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trans rights :3

Lados75 (talk)17:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,Thanks for your comments. After reading them and briefly going over the 2022 RM (which I hadn't fully read as it didn't cross my mind that the discussion of incongruence vs dysphoria could have been in it, I just assumed it was merely about the move away from the older transsexual title), I very much agree with your alternative title proposal.I have withdrawn the RM to potentially re-raise it with your alternative title proposal instead.

So I wanted to touch base with you first on whether you yourself actually want to raise it since it was your title proposal to begin with and I'd fully support it?Raladic (talk)04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to; I don't feel like spawning an RM myself, and don't have a huge beef with the current title but I do like my proposal better. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)04:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, it's getting late here, so I might do that tomorrow as I should go to bed now :)Raladic (talk)04:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for your scintillating conversations with a tendentious transphobe. Well done.

FPTI (talk)14:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being being civil and informative with 'differing' views on the trans topics' talk pages! :3Indigobeam ♥ ​She/They06:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:SoftBank 1997 Pile of Poop.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-abstract/84/1/56/7277361Polygnotus (talk)16:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus, I'm not sure what this is about. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)16:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage says:This user thinks dogs should vote.Polygnotus (talk)16:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Hahah. Thanks for sending it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)16:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part ofGlobal reminder bot to let you know that yourWP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 16:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything.To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself tom:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk)19:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was shortening the articleAuthorship of Frankenstein, and after cutting out all the drivel and unsourced words, you have contributed >50.0% of the words. So, I was wondering if you would like to nom or co-nom it for a GA, as it should probably take a day or two of editing to make it GA quality?DWF91 (talk)16:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I'll take a look but I probably don't have the patience with that topic to do so. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)17:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't edit more of it, then you can be the co-nom, it will not feel write to me to get a GA alone by writing so much less than the biggest contributor.DWF91 (talk)17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not come to people's talk pages and lie about changes they have made and accuse them of violating wikipedia policy for something they never did. Thank you. Make no further edits on my talk page. If you wish to talk to me do it here or on the article talk page.Ergzay (talk)21:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ergzay, I'm happy to talk here instead. Sorry for any confusion, I'm referring tothis edit to Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)23:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I did not make any changes changing the pronouns of a person a BLP page is about.Ergzay (talk)23:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Ergzay Oh, I see. When I said "BLP", I just meant "living person"—i.e. someone affected by theWP:BLP policy. It applies toall information about living persons on any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. I apologize for my ambiguous choice of words, and understand completely why you accused me of lying.

Anyways, now that that's cleared up, the thing you did, I would recommend against doing it again. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much point in trying to engage here. The vandalism was extreme and can only be deliberate. I've given them a final warning. Coupled with the unacceptable personal attacks I'm surprised that they have not already been blocked indefinitely.DanielRigal (talk)00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my previous comments I made on your talk page. They were made in a fit of anger over recent content I'd watched interviewing the father recounting his life's story and distress. After a night's sleep I've calmed down some. What I said was out of line and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia discussion. For reference in case you see the other comments, I've made this same comment on three different talk pages.Ergzay (talk)10:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you're feeling more level-headed. Even coming from a place of strong emotion, your actions were not acceptable. Yesterday was theInternational Transgender Day of Visibility, in case you weren't aware. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk •stalk) 6:47 am, Today (UTC−4)

No I was not aware and have never heard of such a day. Boy what a choice of day to make such a comment... Sigh...Ergzay (talk)11:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]