User talk:Rodgarton

AfD nomination of Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science)

I have nominated Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precognition

Please do not remove academically sourced material from Wikipedia articles, as you did with my edit to the Precognition article. If you continue to do this, we will have to go to dispute resolution. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not appear to me that I removed this section; I have commented copiously upon it. Noting its disappearance, I spoke of the "spree of passing edits". Please query first before assuming a threatening posture. Rodgarton 09:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the evidence. Do you still maintain that you did not remove a paragraph of academically-sourced material from the article? Also, what's the problem with signing your posts? Is your tilde key broken? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, beseeching in addition this time that you open your ears and eyes - it did not appear to me that I removed this section, and it could blatantly not been have my intention to remove it given that I have chosen to comment so copiously upon it. If you wish to feel affronted, and a sense of injustice, fish some place else. I'm sure you lay plenty of such traps for yourself. --Rodgarton 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are apologising for an edit that you made inadvertently, then apology accepted. It certainly doesn't look like an apology, though, more like a personal attack on someone you don't know. It's not about a sense of injustice: it's that I want to be able to edit the article knowing that my addition of sourced material will not be reverted for reasons that even the person doing it can not explain. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've had your kittens. Now cross your legs and get on with the thoughtful job you claim to offer us. --Rodgarton 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand what the above comment means, or what this claim is that I'm supposed to have made. Still doesn't look like an apology. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my apology for an accidental edit of a prior contribution of the above editor to the precognition page. The disappearance of her/his contribution surprised even myself. I have quickly learned, on WP, to believe that discussing issues with culling/distorting editors who used WP to monoscopically advocate contra psi-research was quite futile, and could only be offered by meeting them at the infantile level of discussion that they themselves offered. I am ever ready to assume a more favorable opinion, and presently entertain such in regard of the above editor. --Rodgarton 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Nemonoman (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with citation, please?

I've restored the surveys section you initiated in Parapsychology which was (wrongly) removed during the recent hatchet editing by Shoemaker'sHoliday. I listed this statement as needing a citation earlier, and in light of recent edits I believe it is important to cite it. Can you help?

In both the college professor and AAAS leader studies, no significant relationship was observed between age or sex and the measured attitudes

Thanks.

PS I'm not pleased by the wholesale removal of your material, and I will be working to restore it consistent with addressing the valid criticisms that were raised -- insofar as those criticisms were valid, of course. I'd appreciate any comments on the critique here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1‎ --Nemonoman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I have noticed in several of your recent conversation that you tend to attack editors (including myself) rather than commenting on the articles. This is counter to Wikipedia's policies on civil discourse. I understand that you feel strongly about certain subjects and may feel that other editors (again including myself) have a bias that they are perpetuating on Wikipedia. For my part I do admit that I have a bias about certain issues, which is why I maintain an extensive list of dialogue boxes on my userpage, identifying my opinions on key issues that matter to me clearly. With that said it is important that an editor assume good faith on the parts of the editors they are working alongside. Although my personal editing style is bold I do edit in good faith and not to push my personal point of view necessarily. As such I do not appreciate personal attacks which claim that my edits are motivated by attempts to remove an opinion I disagree with from Wikipedia. These are not founded, not true, not appreciated and not in keeping with wikipedia policy. I have asked you on more than one occasion to adhere to WP:CIVIL and yet you persist in these personal insults. Please stop.Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This effortfully reasonable request concerns information on the development of meta-analysis: please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meta-analysis ; and also discussion of the article re J. B. Rhine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Banks_Rhine#This_article_is_awful . I do not consider that my communication on these and other issues involves a breach of the code of civility. With reference to this code, there is no transgression of "politeness", "calmness" and "reasonableness" - and no offering of the "personal," "rude," or "aggressive" - in my pointing out what appear to be the information-distortive actions of editors, and the motivations that appear to create such a dysfunction - such a critique offers a route to constructive remediation of distortions, and so with an interest in the increase of WP's general value. I trust that the above commentator is on the same page as I on this motivation. The issue the commentator raises appears to concern the dividing line between objective critique and subjective appraisal. But mind has, we conventionally trust, no direct route to matter, and articulation of the psychological conditions of our discourse is necessary to explicate what happens across this divide. --Rodgarton 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See AN/I section Rodgarton.

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Banks Rhine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note that you are already over the three revert rule, and, as such, should revert yourself. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 14:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would be pleased if the above editor were to discuss her/his edits before autonomously making them. We would thereby be spared from the press of returning the content to its prior state pending her offer of discussion. --Rodgarton 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, you can be blocked for going over the three revert rule, and you're on four. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've now gone over at Displacement (parapsychology) too, and I've reported the situation here. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The 3-revert rule was necessarily overdrawn given that merely "Edit Summary" blanking of page and bogus redirections needed to be overcome, consistent with the history of pages, while, upon each edit of mine, invitation was made to discuss whatever issue was of concern, but failed to elicit discussion.

Decline reason:

Looking at your talk page, it's clear that I'm not the first person to tell you this: the three-revert rule applies to all of us, even when we are sure that we are right. Next time, read WP:DISPUTE for other things you can do rather than edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Signature

Please add links, as is good practice, to your username signature. If you need help with this, please ask below. Verbal chat 12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remedy this as soon as possible. Verbal chat 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I've blocked you for a week per the discussion here: AN/Rodgarton. This is to give people a break from your excessively enthusiastic pursuit of your POV. I suspect a topical restriction will be the eventual outcome. It's clear to me looking at this from outside that you need a short break and so do those with whom you've been interacting. Please use the time to work out some personal strategies you could use to take content disputes less personally and to walk away when consensus goes against you. You should probably read WP:TRUTH while you're at it. You also need to understand that what you are doing amounts to a novel synthesis, which is forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block on WP is of no personal concern. I have long ago resigned from offering any substantive new knowledge on WP, suffer no loss at intended contributions being pre-emptively denied, and have permitted my prior contributions to be freely trashed, protecting only some supported in whole by others (e.g. Displacement (parapsychology)); or that were subjected to clearly specious attack. What we have here nicely evidenced by this decision is the essential juvenalism, if not infantalism, of WP: while endorsing such strategic tear downs and giggling sprees of attack, it professes an archaically legalistic approach to the representation of knowledge - something enlightened thinkers thought went out with the witch trials and the Inquisition; while offering no rationalisation apart from a sniff at style, a link to a comical article on "truth," and flippant appeal to yet another code (ignoring the cited sources) as cover for its shallowness; and then all offered by yet another anonym from her/his shadows. I do not regret that I bear no place in this play-pen of pseudo-knowledge. --Rodgarton 14:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose the supposed anonym? Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks for the personal attacks and disruption templated below. Moreschi (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Displacement (parapsychology). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal chat 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Parapsychology, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Verbal chat 12:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stalin. http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20081106/181/#more-181

Grounds to request a permanent ban? Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked upped:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

Warning

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a free user account of your own.