Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Toadspike [Talk] 16:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the full reason, from your block log, is "Personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions in five of the past six edits; latest is [1]". I'm not sure I would've blocked for a simple "fuck off", but the patently spurious accusation of canvassing (of people already in the thread? c'mon) is too much. Toadspike [Talk] 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for accusations of canvassing then. Do you not feel a little silly for that? You should. - Walter Ego 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse, you may be blocked from editing. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this attempt to weaponise incivility guidelines didn't overreach onto my Talk page. Walter Ego 09:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to loosen up a bit, silly billy. - Walter Ego 19:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just doing my job, silly billy. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

user has no funny bone. - Walter Ego 19:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought jokes were supposed to be funny! Your vandalism is the laziest attempts at humor I've ever seen. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See your own talk page, killjoy. - Walter Ego 19:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby: I don't really see what about their response merits marking it as "vandalism". At best it was a genuine response and at worst it was a slightly-cheesy joke, but nowhere between there is vandalism. ^EF⁵ 19:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 I've rechecked. My brain stopped reading past "My girlfriend (34) thinks I'm really hot" and considered it vandalism. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, I wish you hadn't edit warred to restore your joke, it wasn't really worth it. @Tarlby:, I wish even more strongly that you hadn't removed Roxy's post 5 times without ever offering a reason in the edit summary. Honestly, how much trouble would that have cost you? 50—60 seconds of time? If you really thought it was vandalism (really?), why not at least put "rvv" in the edit summary? More like 2 seconds, that. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't really restoring the joke as much as annoying the killjoy. Sorry. - Walter Ego 20:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the comment, so it was carelessness on my part. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like both you silly billies are over it. That's cool, and thank you both for pacific replies. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! A recent edit of yours to the page United States Institute of Peace has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. I agree that the edit you reverted should be reverted; the previous edit clearly didn't follow the current consensus on the talk page. But please explain that in your edit summary next time instead of making a joke. (Or if you really feel such a strong need to make bad jokes, maybe at least you could give a serious explanation as well?) Thank you. Cadddr (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You cheeky bastard. I thought my edsum to be adequate, and you should make love elsewhere. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 03:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxy_the_dog reported by User:MediaKyle (Result: ). Thank you. MediaKyle (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]