User talk:Roryridleyduff

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Roryridleyduff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to an article does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Beloved Freak 10:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Persuasion

Hello, I have removed some of the information you added to Pretty Persuasion because it appears to be original research, ie. your own opinion not backed up by reliable sources. --Beloved Freak 10:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about yourself

Hello. You seem to be citing your own writing and adding text about your own work a lot. That is not really good, specially when it is something controversial. Specifically, Wikipedia should we written from a neutral point of view, not from the writers point of view. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Cailil ^talk 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the above comment by Apoc2400 and this notice please read Wikipedia:Suggestions_for_COI_compliance for further information--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Rory

There is absolutely no evidence that Rory Ridley-Duff has acted in anything but the interests of informing the public, and that done according to Wikipedia policy.

It seems a very reasonable conclusion that User:Roryridleyduff is indeed the lecturer he claims to be. A full list of his quality contributions to Wikipedia to this date are linked below. He has phrased his contributions from the NPOV, as one would expect from a professional academic, and he has cited a range of the best sources available on each of the topics he has contributed to. Additionally, Rory's contributions address systematic biases that Wikipedia typically fails to identify and address without assistance from contributors with wide exposure to the best literature. There is no conflict of interest involved with Rory citing his own doctoral dissertation: it is available free of charge at his own web-site, and he is an established academic already. We need not suppose the rather bizarre motive that a citation at Wiki could provide any advantage in academic discourse and appointment, and certainly no financial advantage.

Rory is an expert in co-operative enterprise, recognized as such by his peers. His contributions at Wiki are welcome, not on the basis of his expertise however, but on the basis of his good faith. To date we have no reason to doubt that, and his use of his real name is a pledge that we never shall. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16/03/09	2	Talk:Men's rights
16/03/09	16	Men's rights
21/01/09	1	User talk:Apoc2400
21/01/09	1	User:Roryridleyduff
12/01/09	22	Cooperative
11/01/09	6	Cooperative
11/01/09	3	Talk:Worker cooperative
10/01/09	9	Seduction
09/01/09	35	Intimacy
28/12/08	13	Worker cooperative
28/12/08	2	Flirting
28/12/08	7	Dating (activity)
28/12/08	29	Courtship
28/12/08	1	Seduction
27/12/08	12	Employee ownership
06/12/08	15	Corporate governance
06/12/08	11	Discrimination
01/12/08	5	Rationality

PS Administrative note. I have good reason to suppose that Rory's "deleted contributions" may demonstrate systematic bias against the reliably sourced and neutral contributions he has been providing. I am aware of that being the case in at least one article, which is how I discovered Rory's account. Under the circumstances, it would aid the transparency of our management of systematic bias for Rory's deleted contributions to date to be available for public scrutiny. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to September 11 attacks appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11 attacks. 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. If that proves 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. Hut 8.5 18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Zoo Fari 18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note on my talkpage regarding the 9/11 article. However, I would like to point out that, as the user above me posted, you have now reverted 3 times, and a further reversion will likely lead to a short block. Moreover, the edits that you are attempting to insert (primarily the use of the word "alleged" go against consensus. They have been discussed numerous times (as you can see in the archives) and soundly rejected. Furthermore, I'd like to draw your attention to an arbitration case which dealt with edits to this subject matter - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions. Please note that continued violations of relevant policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc.) will also result in a block. Thanks you. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:14, 21 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) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that SineBot is a computer program and not a human editor? Hut 8.5 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Your additions violated Wikipedia policy. Whilst Wikipedia does maintain a neutral point of view, this is not taken to mean that fringe perspectives should be included for balance (see the "undue weight" section). For instance, the article on Earth does not say that the Earth is "allegedly" round, because flat-earth theories have virtually no support. The account of September 11 as presented in the article is supported by essentially the entire mainstream media and academia, and conspiracy theories have little if any support, and there is plenty of mainstream opinion that contradicts them. Discussion of conspiracy theories is therefore relegated to a brief mention in the "aftermath" section. To call the Journal of 9/11 Studies a peer-reviewed academic journal is highly misleading, as the "review" is in fact carried out by groups of fellow conspiracy theorists. The sources you cited do not meet the standard of Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

If you still think this material should be included, you should go to Talk:September 11 attacks, post a justification for adding it, and try to get a consensus of editors. Repeatedly editing the article to put the material there is considered disruptive and could get you blocked. Hut 8.5 19:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should take your concerns to the article talk page as I suggested above. My user talk page isn't an appropriate place for this discussion. Hut 8.5 19:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this discussion should be taken to the talk page of the article, though I would caution you that you're not bringing up any new points. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing how quickly these people attempt to spread rejected POV. Tread lightly Mr. Duff, as the ground you are currently stumbling down is paved with those who continued to break the rules of Wikipedia and were subsequently barred from editing. You should take note of their accomplishments, or lack there of. Their POV pushing has been reverted time and time again. Are you truly prepared to throw away your ability to edit so frivolously and pointlessly? --Tarage (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor, spew your copy/paste dribble elsewhere, and not on my talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage, your invective here is such derogatory treatment of copyrighted contributions by a real-named editor, that you not only breach Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, but also place the Foundation in breach of international copyright laws. I recommend you strike comments that the Foundation is duty-bound to remove on Dr Riddley-Duff's request.

On the other hand, both Hut and Chris appear to provide courteous constructive criticism and good advice. In current implementation, Wikipedia will sometimes make errors in content, and show infelicity in style, due to majority verdicts being enforced. (I trust we may be able to change that sooner rather than later.) However, in the mean time, Rory may be spared some angst if he can document his perspective, reliably sourced and rhetorically winning as possible, but then leave things be. Hut and Chris are right on the money.

But what Wikipedia does not condone is empty provocation like yours above, Tarage. If you don't correct yourself, someone else will. Enough said? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about no. If you have a problem with me, take it up with me on my talk page. This editor has shown a clear lack of understanding of all of Wikipedia, regardless if they are a 'real-named editor' or not. I will not provide a 'real-named editor' with any more courtesy than I would anyone else who edits with disregard for anyone or anything else. This editor is clearly trying to push POV, and resorting to long winded copy-paste statements that do nothing but waste the reader's time. A simple look at his edits prove this point. No strikeout shall occur. --Tarage (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me, Tarage, that you show real named editors the same discourtesy you have shown to psuedonymous ones. I have no problem with you, Tarage. I'm simply attempting to spare Dr Ridley-Duff the difficult task of maintaining graciousness in the face of your awful posts. Enough has been said, I trust the thread is now closed, but that is Dr Ridley-Duff's or the next poster's choice really. Cheers all, Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked, you have. I think that sums everything up about who is right and who is wrong here. If you think 'real named' editors deserve any more respect than any other editor, you're insane. Crawl back in your hole. --Tarage (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tarage, you have just provided documentary evidence that proves those blocks continue to produce defamation as at 6 September 2009. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs at Wiki, which might just be the way it ought to be. I'd leave those issues to others if I were you. I'm off ... back to my "hole". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

I appreciate what you are doing for the truth on the 9/11 attacks discussion page. I made a comment there. I had fought for the truth there myself, and finally gave up. I was all alone, and no one cared. All I achieved after much time, energy and frustration spent on the issue, was a brief mention of "conspiracy theories" on the page. Pathetic.

Peace, and don't let them get you down!Neurolanis (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review requests

Dear Dr Ridley Duff,

I'd appreciate your feedback at some point in regard to a couple of articles I'm working on. Unlike the sadly sometimes vexing nature of supplying text yourself, I'd be asking you to critique my text and offer me recommendations for improvements. I hope I'd be a receptive and appreciative beneficiary of your time.

I think a number of old hands at this project content themselves with reviewing, there's an abundance of fresh blood keen to write something, and for the best of the young blood, when the student is willing the master appears. Reviewing is the process that makes the magic happen.

I'll not be starting until at least a couple of weeks have elapsed. Please feel free to either drop a note on my talk page, or to email me.

Regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of FairShares Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FairShares Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FairShares Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi! You are edit warring over at the September 11 attacks article. Your source is a YouTube clip and is not considered a WP:RS. Apparently you have edit warred some years ago on this same article so you should know that this is not allowed. I suggest you take your conspiracy theory discussion to the article talkpage. Three reverts is not an entitlement.--MONGO 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at September 11 attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Alex Bakharev (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Completely Unjustified Blocking of a Legitimate Edit Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Alex Bakharev is an uninvolved administrator and you were blatantly edit warring, breaking WP:3RR. Do not edit war even though you believe you are right. Talk page use, contradicting what you state below, is a must. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 29 September 2015 (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.

Alex Bakharev is abusing his editorial power by blocking the questioning of a claim made on the basis of a CBS News source over the findings of a scientific conference. My edit is made in good faith on the basis of extensive viewing of peer-reviewed contributions to the latest debate aboutscientifically grounded knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

A user called Jonathan ask me to take a perfectly reasonable to the 'talk' page. This is not necessary because the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia are absolutely clear about the basis of good judgement. Any peer-reviewed finding of scientific research will automatically outrank a journalistic source (CBS News) in terms of credibility and impartiality. The comment that there is a lack of scientific support for conspiracy theories in this articles is based on a CBS News report that links to a popular magazine (there is no peer-reviewed research to underpin the claim in the article). My edit - which accurately reports the level of concern in a scientific community about 9/11 issues - is fully supported by scientific review of peer-reviewed research. It comes from proceedings of a conference held at a unviersity, with the proceedings viewable via a YouTube video as well as a book. YouTube is questioned as a legitimate source. As the video is the video of conference procedings, and all the peer-reviewed papers presented are transparently available for public review, it is a reference of the highest integrity to support the claim. It is an absolute outrage that editors reverse an edit backed by multiple scientific papers that have been peer-review twice, and substitute the original reference based on a CBS News reference (which has no scientific credibility at all).

For your information, here are the scientific credentials of the conference panel. It includes a Supreme Court Justice and three Emeritus Professors (educated at Harvard in some cases). As this makes clear, all claims are evidence-based and subject to rigorous peer-review for a second time.

"Over the four days of the Toronto Hearings, noted authors and scientific experts presented the best evidence gathered in the previous decade to a panel of distinguished individuals whose opinion on the strength of the evidence should carry considerable weight in the public sphere. The four panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Much of the evidence these panelists heard and questioned during the Toronto Hearings is presented in the opening chapters of this report. Following the evidence, each panelist has presented his findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed on the article talk page. Edit warring, however, is not justified. Jonathunder (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

Please sign your posts with four tildes like this :~~~~ Thank you.--MONGO 08:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have failed to sign your contributions - in spite of being asked on numerous occasions. You have been advised that your conspiracy theories are not valid, until you supply reliable and confirmed professional sources, rather than fringe meetings. Also Wikipedia editors have no interest whatsoever in the poly in which you work, it has no relevance to any "contributions" you may make. If you continue to edit war you make find yourself facing a longer edit block. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill - I login so why must I 'sign' things as well. I sign when I can remember, but do not always remember. On the substantive issues, you ignore the factual information I have provided. I have not advanced any conspiracy theories, so stop saying that I have. I have challenged the use of a CNN / Popular Mechanics source to make a claim about the lack academic consensus while you ignore that there are professional associations and academic conferences in which there is a consensus. A conference run as a quasi-judicial hearing hosted by three Emeritus Professors and a Supreme Court Justice is not 'fringe meeting' as you claim.

Lastly, I do not work for a 'poly' - my institution has been a university since 1992. You may disrespect Readers and Professors all you like, but people of standing and credibility do respect these positions as ones that are earned only for research excellence. Block me all you like - I will not deviate from using credible sources over the unreliable journalistic ones that you defend. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 17:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Roryridleyduff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]