User talk:Psychmajor902

I invite you...[edit]

To take a look at this [1].

Thank you. Randroide (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008[edit]

I've invited another administrator familiar with WP:BLP to review this site for its appropriateness under BLP. He feels that the single subsection is insignificant enough with the whole that its use as an external link in these articles is not problematic, but agrees that it should not be used as a source within articles. Since, with this opinion, there is no longer consensus that the site violates the EL policy, I have no reason to object to its use in that capacity. For specific citations or to support claims, please look for sources that meet verifiability. And please remember that building consensus on Wikipedia requires negotiation. This is the purpose of article talk pages and of notice boards like WP:BLPN, and all editors are invited to contribute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janov article[edit]

I can understand why you removed the link from the article on Janov, but I think that was at best premature. The article was informative, and the people who had problems with it were in some cases only suggesting, not insisting, that it be removed. It shouldn't matter that it happens to be pro- primal therapy - neutral articles should link to both pro- and anti- points of view. Skoojal (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added something...[edit]

to the Arthur Janov discussion section, which you may be interested in. Twerges (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

Psychmajor902, you are currently engaged in edit wars with me on two different pages. I invite you to discuss what the content of those pages should be, either here or on my talk page. I am perfectly open to reasoned argument. Skoojal (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest again that you respond to me and discuss the matter sensibly. It does not look good to endlessly edit war and refuse all invitations to discuss the dispute. Skoojal (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a casual question, Psychmajor902, can I ask how long you propose to keep this up? Do you want to edit war with me for another week? For a whole month? For a year? For the rest of your life? Skoojal (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janov[edit]

Psychmajor902, before you next decide to re-introduce that link to the Janov article, please see my latest comments on the talk page. You are clearly in the wrong on this matter.

And regarding the article on The Primal Scream, why not try something helpful such as supporting its claims with sources rather than simply mechanically re-introducing unsourced claims? Skoojal (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may be futile to point this out, but the longer you go on making these changes without trying to justify them or explaining your reasons, the bigger the fool you're making of yourself. Skoojal (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

noticeboard[edit]

Psychmajor, I have added a section to the WP:no original research noticeboard regarding your quotation. I thought you'd like to know.Twerges (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Primal Scream[edit]

Psychmajor902, I have undone your recent edit to article on the The Primal Scream. One doesn't show that something violates neutral point of view simply by asserting that it does. Please be aware how mean-minded and vindictive this kind of editing looks. See my remarks on Zonbalance's user page if you want more of an explanation for what I'm doing. Skoojal (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

I have also undone your latest edit at Primal Scream in which you have ire-introduced a number of blogs and similar unreliable sources making claims of various sorts about the theory. This is just plain unacceptable, and if you repeat this kind of editing you will be blocked. this is not your first warning about the article, and I am not the first person to issue one. Consider this a final warning. DGG (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t do it, Psychmajor902, please: Do not reintroduce again the disputed material. If an admin (as DGG is) tells you some material is innapropiate, it is time to recheck your premises and, if you still think you are right, to go to mediation. We need your contributions here, please do not get blocked. Yours Randroide (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should be aware of a recent posting on my talk page, and my reply. [2] DGG (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning You have just put it in again yesterday, the 26th and another editor quite properly removed it. If you do it again, you will be blocked to prevent repeats. DGG (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and so you did, on the 28th:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated disruptive editing after multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_want_a_block_to_be_reviewed Randroide (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of http://.DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning note discussed at User_talk:Hu12#Could_you_please_enlight_me.3F

Take it easy, Psychmajor, and...do not forget to smile :-)

Randroide (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible solution[edit]

I am prepared to unblock you, if you are willing to accept a topic ban of 2 weeks from today from all article pages dealing with Janov, primal therapy, and related topics. Talk pages would be OK. DGG (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]