Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 3 September 2019

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Frère Jacques

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit to this article. Can you please explain why? I made two changes to the article: (1) removed the parenthetical comment from the phrase "also known in English as Brother John (although Charles and its short version Jack, is correct)"; and (2) explained, elsewhere in the article, that Jacques is the French version of James or Jacob.

As to (1), I believe this change should absolutely be restored. The Charles/Jack parenthetical is an awkward phrasing, it is confusing, and it is wrong. It reads like Jack is "short" for Charles, rather than John. Worse, the name Charles has no relationship at all to Jacques or John, so it makes no sense to say it "is correct," especially because there is no English version of the song called "Brother Charles" or "Brother Jack." And there is no cited reference stating otherwise, or giving any indication as to why Charles might be correct, because it is not.

As to (2), I acknowledge this is more debatable. But since the article compares the French/English forms for frere/friar/brother, and since someone had already (wrongly) addressed the friar's name, I thought it made sense to correct the naming issue and give a little more detail. It's true that I did not cite a source, and if that's the issue, it is easily fixed. But for what it's worth, the articles for each of those three names all cite their common origin in the Hebrew Jacob and its Greek/Latin translations. I don't believe there is any serious dispute about the (Jacobus, Jacques, Jacob, Jacomus, James) family of names.

Please let me know your thoughts. I believe it is bad form for me to revert your reversion, but I continue to think my edits made the article better. --EightYearBreak (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacque is French for Jack. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a good citation for that? Here is what the Misplaced Pages article on Jacques says, under the heading "as a given name":

Jacques is the French equivalent of James, ultimately originating from the name Jacob.

Jacques is derived from the Late Latin Iacobus, from the Greek Ἰακώβος (Septuagintal Greek Ἰακώβ), from the Hebrew name Jacob יַעֲקֹב. (See Jacob.) James is derived from Iacomus, a variant of Iacobus.

As a first name, Jacques is often phonetically converted to English as Jacob, Jake (from Jacob), or Jack. Jack, from Jankin, is usually a diminutive of John but can also be used as a short form for many names derived from Jacob like Jacques. For example, in French "Jacky" is commonly used as a nickname for Jacques, in Dutch "Jack" is a pet form of Jacob or Jacobus along with the other nicknames "Sjaak", "Sjaakie" and "Jaak". In Swedish, it is "Jacke" for Jacob or Jakob and in German it is "Jackel" or "Jockel" for Jakob.

So the best equivalents would be James or Jacob; Jack might be OK; and Charles (which is what is also in the Frere Jacques article) has no basis at all, unless you have some contrary information. If so, I hope you will share it. --EightYearBreak (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Civility

I fully understand that you think CST is quackery and medical fraud and such. Having said that, I suggest that you just discuss content and not the editors consisten with Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you. KFvdL (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should lead by example? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

if I have been addressing you on the talk page instead of the content, please let me know so I properly can apologize. KFvdL (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears you are a bit of a white night. How about hospitals being the 3rd leading cause of preventable death?BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry. I didn't understand what you meant. I was just testing my activities on wikipedia. Raiyan Ibrahim (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Hi, I saw that my edit was reverted, and as I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages editing I wanted to reach out and ask for clarification on the specific reasoning that you felt that this should be reverted? What is the distinction in your mind between this source, and a similar source that you would consider to be reputable by the guidelines provided by Misplaced Pages for source reliability? (which I've just read through to better understand Misplaced Pages's take on this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A crowd sourced website does not meet WP:MEDRS. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The platform in question has both user-generated content (a forum) and administration-generated content (a blog), and it's clear when you look at the source that it is not user-generated/crowd-sourced, but an article that has been produced by the administration of the site. I have reverted your edit, based on the fact that your reasoning for removing it does not conform with referenced guidelines in WP:MEDRS, as the source is provably not "crowd-sourced". Joel McLeod (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I have fixed the page. You need to understand WP:MEDRS or your experience here at Misplaced Pages will not be a pleasant one. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I have left a welcome note, and a reading suggestion on your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification on what the issue is, Roxy. The reasoning you provided initially was that the source was "crowd sourced", so forgive me for addressing the concern that you gave me directly with refutation. Now I am of the understanding that your reasoning for editing is because the nature the topic is medically-based, which requires enhanced prudence when sourcing compared to other material. So that my experience here at Wikpedia will be as far from unpleasant as possible, with minimal friction, would you be able to confirm that the reasoning for you edit is actually not relating to "crowd sourcing", but to greater strenuity when sourcing for medical topics (with reference to WP:MEDRS a number of times)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel McLeod (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not vandalism

How is it vandalism to cite google scholar? Your own user page claims that wikipedia is biased to scholarly sources.BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just given you a final warning. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to give a reason for your edits.BelieberInTheAfterlife (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Incivility

Wot up dog? Please kindly refrain from subtly implying that I am an idiot on my talkpage. The word is an archayic medical term which was replaced by the term "severe mental retardation". Neither of which are very nice. I know you get away with a lot on here, but I'm pretty sure that using offensive derogatory terms in this way is a breach of WP:civility and if you do it again I will have to report it on the WP:ANI. I also want to say that if you ever need someone to talk to or a shoulder to cry on I am here for you. With love and empathyEssayist1 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But you were the one that used the word, and I was making a determined effort not to be as you put it, incivil. When you are no longer a newbie, and have some wikichops, then you'll understand WP:NPA. good luck. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Got Fibro? These guys don't care

There is a research study that clearly documents Fibro in people. The science is sound. Rather than helpfully edit the line so that it doesn't fail some arbitrary set of rules....let's just remove it!

Oh and research trials? FORGET ABOUT IT.

These Wiki editors clearly don't care about the health of people and clearly are interested in spreading decades old ideas about PSYCHOSCHEMATIC sources of pain and suffering. Yeah...all these millions of Americans are MAKING IT ALL UP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.188.34.107 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP, nice to see you. What on earth are you on about? It may help communicating if you try to make some sense, instead of incoherant ranting about your problem. Read WP:MEDRS at the same time. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Category Consumer Fraud on Homeopathy

Hello Mr. Roxy, I'm looking for the discussion on the Homeopathy talk page where it was established that the use of Category Consumer Fraud was appropriate and can't find it. I actually looked for it before doing my edit and what I did find was the FAQ that I included in my edit summary. And now I looked some more, still can't find it. BTW, while I do agree, personally, that homeopathy is quackery and, in many cases, fraudulent, I came to the conclusion (based on that FAQ page) that the category isn't appropriate. If could be so kind to point to me where this was discussed, I would much appreciate it. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That link has nothing to do with homeopathy, it is about FAQs Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I had placed things the wrong way around. Sorry about that. Fixed it now. Either way, the link was right on my edit summary, which you should have considered before reverting. And you didn't answer my question. VdSV9•♫ 13:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t read your edsum. Content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It does, and I'm not trying to discuss content, I am going from the assumption that you claim this has already been discussed, and asking you where this discussion happened. In your edit summary, you wrote Return established cat. I interpreted this as meaning that there had been some prior discussion where this had been, well, established. So, going back to my initial comment here, I'm asking you to show me where it was established. Or is my interpretation of your edit summary wrong? If so, can you clarify, please? VdSV9•♫ 14:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The words "Health fraud" are contained in the article. Article content discussion belongs at the article talk page, where other interested editors can see any discussions. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that the words "health fraud" are contained in the article, that's not what I asked. Look, I don't like to assume things, but it really looks like you're avoiding my question. Take your time, but please answer. What did you mean by "established cat"? Where has this been established in the discussion history of the article? Or are you claiming that since these words are contained in the article this means the category in "established"? If so, that's not a valid argument. Are you aware of the past discussions that resulted in the FAQ I mentioned earlier? Are you taking this into account? I really think we're on the same side here where science is concerned, but I'm looking for a resolution based on WP policy and past discussions, and I don't feel like your answers so far have been very satisfying.VdSV9•♫ 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@VdSV9: This editor edit warred on cupping therapy over that category too. He only stopped when I threatened to report him. Roxy, as I've told you before, this editing pattern is disruptive. Show sources and discuss content, please. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Worried about why my content

Hello Mr. Roxy. I've added a description about artesunate on 11:12, 18 August 2019. The content I added was with citation. Could you please tell me why my revision is innaccurate, thanks. the content is :

 invented by Liu Xu in 1977.

your reference doesn’t support your edit. She didn’t invent artesunate. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Li, Guoqiao author. Artemisinin-based and other antimalarials : detailed account of studies by Chinese scientists who discovered and developed them. ISBN 9780128132111. OCLC 1016908376. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Hi, in page 20 of this book, Chapter C: Artesunate, it shows the inventor of artesunate is Liu Xu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Then the book is wrong. She did not "invent" Artesunate Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you made me confused. Liu Xu is the inventor of Artesunate actually, he had received several prize due to his invention and, of course, the National Invention Patent. Or you means I need use another word, like synthesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenetlmh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the word "invent" does not mean what you think it means, perhaps the word "discover" is what you want? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

CMTBard

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The Vineyard Beverly Hills

Roxy, I have left a comment on the talk page of this article for you to respond to. Textorus (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, I have posted this dispute for review at Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Textorus (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, a Third Opinion has been posted on the talk page of this article, which supports my edit. I have also posted a question for you on that talk page. Textorus (talk)

Your link above is not helpful at all. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not helpful" but my request for a third opinion was removed from the Active Disagreements list by @Work permit:, per standard procedure, after he responded on the talk page of the TVBH article. You can see this on the "View History" tab of the Third Opinion page. Textorus (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to link to the 3O request itself, rather than some policy page which wasn't helpful. I know what a third opinion is, but it's moot now anyway. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's what I just told you, Roxy. I did indeed link to the location of the request itself, which was only one line - which you can view via the article history over there. But apparently, by the time you followed my link, Work permit had already deleted the request, as is their standard practice once a request has been fulfilled. And now let's have an end of all this and go our separate ways. Textorus (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

ROXY - What on earth is wrong with you? You just reverted me AGAIN. After you just got through saying on the talk page of TVBH that you "accepted the outcome" of the WP:3O comments, and on this talk page here, you said "the point is moot now." This is ridiculous, and your action just contradicted your own words. I'm going to bed now but for sure I will be going to Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

..and the page has now been protected against your editwarring. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Platform restriction

Hi Roxy, RE adding the link UFTmachine.com, you declined the link due to "works best on Chrome and Safari". This is old text and it does work on most browsers now including Firefox. So, I will remove this text. Thanks. VideoCTO (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Which text will you be removing VideoCTO?. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed all references to browser support limitations. It was in two areas, now removed. VideoCTO (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are talking about, what text have you removed, can you provide a diff? You do not appear to have removed any text? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, I was speaking about my editing of the UFTmachine.com website. I removed the out of date offending text from this site. So there is no diff to provide. FYI, the suggested text for inclusion in the "External links" section is: Learn about and simulate six of nature's fundamental constants. For STEM students and physics enthusiasts." Hope this clears up any confusion... VideoCTO (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:VideoCTO and uftmachine.com spam --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted short description.

Hi Roxy, I have no problem with a sort description being improved, but deleting does not help get them done. If you know a better short description for fiber, please add it to the article. It does not have to be perfect, just better. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm afraid that the wiki style of short description doesn't work very well for "fibre" in that a fibre cannot be adequately defined in the short description format required by wikipedia. The closest you can reasonably get is describing a substance "very significantly longer than it is wide"; but a stalk of wheat fits, as does a blade of grass. neither are fibres. I believe it better to have no description at all rather than an inadequate one that is wrong, particularly as the article itself isn't that bad. If we can find a reasonable short descrip

G. Edward Griffin

Hello! I see you reverted my edit in the intro. I did so because the claim of falsehood requires a citation or some kind of source. Can you provide one? I’m happy to look at the source! Thanks. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC) PS I hope your dog’s health has improved. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

the sources are in the article and the lead, even though they aren’t necessary in the lead. The real Roxy died three year ago, she was wonderful, thank you for asking. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Why did you remove my edits on the Osteopathy page without explanation? Golan1911 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Rayon

Hello Roxy, you just reverted my edit on rayon, explaining that the source is unreliable being a blog.
I sincerely thank you for your vigilance.
Misplaced Pages policies can accept blog references in a number of circumstances (Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Blogs_as_sources). I think such circumstances apply in this case:

• it is hosted by wordpress and it is called blog, yes, but it is run by a reputable entity, the Moroccan artisans association Anou. They have their own website The Anou
• they are supported by the British Council The Anou Residency
• the text shows that they have done serious research
• it has not been contested by anyone, and there is no other reference arguing the contrary, except for shops with vested interests

I hope you find that these credentials are enough to include the referenced edit, it is relevant to a lot of people. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I did some work with the British Council in Rabat many years ago. Cactus rayon is something I've never heard of however, and sourcing it to a blog is certainly not acceptable. It is also totally undue for the lead, even if you could find a reliable source. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

well, it is not "cactus rayon". They are selling standard cellulose rayon imported from different places, but they are labelling it "cactus silk" pretending it is made by hand by Berber women. It is a clear case of mislabelling, and it fits perfectly in the corresponding existing section of the article called precisely "mislabelling". If you think this is undue, you should eliminate the whole "mislabelling" section.

As for the source, I insist, wikipedia policies do allow blogs as references in certain circumstances, so the debate is not whether blogs are acceptable, the debate is whether those circumstances apply. If you disagree with wikipedia policies you should try to change the policy, not just enforce your own idea.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to learn to indent your posts on Talk pages when responding to somebody, using colons. I have done it for you this time. As regards your proposal to use a blog for sourcing, my answer is no, according to our P&G. Please make any further comments at the Rayon Talk page, so that other interested editors can see discussion related to the article. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Describing the qualifications of Stamets

Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)