Tag
editI have removed the alternate account from this page. As you are aware if you are Roger Davies, then that tag needs to be added by Roger Davies. Looking at your edits, please read WP:CONSENSUS and try to discuss your edits if they have been reverted. I would also suggest that you do not edit other peoples userpages to change information without their consent. Woody (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any edits that have been reverted by another editor need to be discussed before the information is re-added. As the person arguing for the inclusion, it is your job to prove the information is accurate, relevant and in verifiable sources. Looking at an example edit this edit doesn't inspire confidence given that you say it is not included in all main sources. In that sense, it is highly likely to be a fringe theory. You need to prove that any source you cite is reliable and you haven't done that. Instead, you have messed around and vandalised other people's userpages. That, in itself, does not inspire confidence. Woody (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think if you read the source, which is available in GoogleBooks, you will be inspired in confidence that it is not a fringe theory. It comes from a man that was awarded a Knighthood for his contribution to the British MOD during the war, and he explains the reasoning in a clear scientific way. The source is there of course, unless you can't find the book in the references. I don;t think of my edits of other people's user pages as vandalism, but rather a profound philosophical commentary on their actions.--58.164.35.43 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- How can you comment or come to sweeping philosophical conclusions on Roger Davies actions if you have never interacted with him on this IP address? Given your comments and other factors, I have blocked you for block evasion. The warning to which you have become accustomed is posted below. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I had 'interacted' with Roger before, and was not impressed. He 'interacted' with me by blocking me in the first place on Buckshot's advice that I was a sockpuppet, where as I was not! He didn't so much as give it a thought before blocking me, so why should I bother 'interacting'? And you consequently you can't block me for block evasion because I was blocked wrongly in the first place! And why should I defend myself? And against whom? Buckshot06?! And, if you see that I am as you put it 'accustomed' to being blocked, is there really a point in continuing the charade? Regards? That's a strange thing to say to someone you just blocked, wouldn't you say?--124.183.247.90 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- How can you comment or come to sweeping philosophical conclusions on Roger Davies actions if you have never interacted with him on this IP address? Given your comments and other factors, I have blocked you for block evasion. The warning to which you have become accustomed is posted below. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think if you read the source, which is available in GoogleBooks, you will be inspired in confidence that it is not a fringe theory. It comes from a man that was awarded a Knighthood for his contribution to the British MOD during the war, and he explains the reasoning in a clear scientific way. The source is there of course, unless you can't find the book in the references. I don;t think of my edits of other people's user pages as vandalism, but rather a profound philosophical commentary on their actions.--58.164.35.43 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Woody (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |