User talk:Bov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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!  — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Please do not add wtc7 links to pages such as Collapse of the World Trade Center. Conspiracy beliefs which are held by a very small minority should stay in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Thank you. Rhobite 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if Wikipedia is divided between the word of the Bush Admin being 'the truth' and the 'view of the world' and everything else being 'conspiracy theory,' then we're headed into fascism faster than I thought. I'm a 9/11 researcher and as it turns out, there are many like me all over the world. That's why those trying to stop the exposure of the STUDY of what happened on 9/11 by labelling people with derogatory phrases ('conspiracy theorists,' i.e., commie pinko, longhair, reds, etc.) straight out of Whitehouse mouthpieces and criminals, are engaged in a losing effort, even here on Wikipedia. As the lies coming out of the fascist Administration compound daily, the work of their own small army - patriots, wannabe neocons, religious right, Left Icons, disinfo peddlers, agents and others like them - is crushed by the weight of their increasing work load to protect the government version of 'truth' as they go around trying to insert 'conspiracy theory' and 'tinfoil hat' or 'no-plane' into every place that tries to even EXAMINE the evidence. Why not join us, instead of trying to fight us? It's okay to ask questions -- that isn't against the law . . . yet. Might as well enjoy it while we can. Bov 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Alert!

The list of researchers is now being AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I'm counter-proposing that it be kept and moved to its own page. Blackcats 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Blackcats who does important editing and maintenance on the 9/11 pages.Bov 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Scholars for 9/11 Truth SkeenaR 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal alert!

I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bov: sounds like a great idea. Thanks for your feedback on what I wrote on the discussion page. Kaimiddleton 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Just A Comment

I read your profile after deleting an entry re. WP use in Iraq as a "conspiracy." I do not think blind acceptance of statements made by those in control of the status quo is a responsible approach, but branding other, unrelated, and comparably minor events conspiracies does not help your argument to be regarded as a researcher in pursuit of the truth. The statements were not contradictory, and the weapons use not illegal. Personally, I do not accept the official claims regarding WTC #7 nor the official claims regarding Flight 93. However, I do not think questioning those claims is what brands many researchers like yourself as conspiracy theorists. It is instead the search for or connection to some alternative motive or perpetrator. Quite clearly not everything on that day happened the way we are led to believe it happened, and whether or not we need to know the truth is a topic for another time (most certainly you have the right to seek that truth if it is important to you) but 9/11 researchers often try to construe their scientific results as something they are not. So flight 93 was shot down, so WTC7 was intentionally demolished, they do not implicate the government in some vast conspiracy against the American people. If you have done the research and decided that there is only one possible explanation, then fine, believe that, but it is not responsible to then make geopolitical leaps of faith and assault without evidence that ultimately terrorists were responsible. That is why many are branded conspiracy theorists. Finally, as a scientist you miss a simple, fundamental concept: it is not the American governments responsibility to inform the general public of the truth. Transparency is anything but a foundational tenet of modern government. It is instead the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and their interests at home and abroad. This is not a quantitative science of numbers and definitive rights and wrongs, but rather a gray area filled with projection and speculation. I applaud your research, but hope that those like you will remember to limit it to the field of science, lest they tread on to tenuous, unfamiliar ground to be ridiculed in the public spotlight by those waiting for them to err. (ImagoDei 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

"So flight 93 was shot down, so WTC7 was intentionally demolished, they do not implicate the government in some vast conspiracy against the American people." Vast, no, but conspiracy against the American people, yes. Indeed, if government officials - be they rogue officials or those just thinking they were doing the right thing - knew that the plane was shot down or that Building 7 was demolished, the 9/11 Commission was then either lied to or lied themselves. If the Commission lied on these issues, the entire 'report' is questionable as to its veracity. And if you ask me, producing fake reports, then, to the American public, is a conspiracy against them.

"Transparency is anything but a foundational tenet of modern government. It is instead the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and their interests at home and abroad." We pay our government to function, not to lie to us. A government does not have to lie to its people in order to function, not to mention how disrepectful and hypocritical lies are to the people of this country who are giving 'all' for it each day. Bov 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to both points: First, it does not imply a conspiracy against the American people, only that a second conspiracy may exist. The two should not be confused. The use of the term against is significant because many of the theories suggested involve the possibility of explicit acts contrary to the immediate interests of the nation and/or its citizens. My point is to rule these out as erroneous because the long term protection of United States interests cannot be in doubt. Truth is for the individual to seek if s/he wishes it. It is not yours or anyone elses duty to publicly expose truth in the name of science for a political motivation and therein lies a contradiction. You would argue against the media as the mouthpiece of a government, but science and politics do not exist in the same realm. You wish to use science to make a political statement; this while not necessarily a mistake, is not your obligation as scientist or researcher. It is also not in the tradition of the enlightment or the scientific method. You must approach your subject without predisposition or presumption. Both of these seem to dissapear with many of these theories. I also do not agree with the logic that if one statement is proven to be a lie all statements must be brought into question. This is not a contrapositive argument where one exception invalidates the entire theory. Only claims dependent upon the prior fallacious claims become subject to dispute. If you are investigating each claim as it is made, that is fine, but do not make the mistake of stating that something is incorrect on page 20 if a lie is told on page 200. Sure there is the possibility there is an error on any given page, but no more or less so because of the one on 200.

Second: Your argument is ill informed and based on naivety and hyperbole. We do not pay our government to merely function without direction or motive. We pay our government to protect our interests, our essential liberties, and most of all, the common good. That is not your best interest or my best interest, but the best interests of us all united. Governments lie to their people on a daily basis in order to function and while because it happens is not a justification, it is important to recognize this as the way of the world. Furthermore, under extraordinary circumstances it IS often necessary to lie to one's people in order to function. The ramifications of the admission of shooting down a U.S. civillian aircraft would be staggering such an event would have financial, political, and social repurcussions you may or may not have considered but that would be surely be terrible for this country in the long term. The population would not react rationally and understandingly, but then it is not their job to. It is instead the job of those that we pay to defend us to approach the situation, realize the people are dead either way, and understand that it is a simple cost benefit analysis and that they are better dead in PA than dead in D.C. While this may be something you would like to know the answer to, it is not in the public interest for it to become widely regarded fact and the Flight 93 story is much better for public consumption. It may be a lie, but that does not mean it is wrong. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness does not include truth.

I can understand personal interest/desire for knowledge, but if you are incapable of understanding the reality of these dangers and the necessity as a nation to defend itself and preserve a stable society, you only exemplify the reasons such covers are concocted and disseminated. And to those giving their all, we do far worse to them every day. Your statement appeals to emotion, not to reason. Hipocracy is a particular talent of the U.S. government (although I'm not particulalrly sure why you claim this in particular is at all hypocriful). In terms of respect, our troops know who and what they fight for, even if they aren't told, cannot understand, or are lied to about the specific motivation. Small evils are perpetraited frequently in the name of the greater good. It is only disrespectful to waste their lives recklessly. (ImagoDei 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

"Governments lie to their people on a daily basis in order to function and while because it happens is not a justification, it is important to recognize this as the way of the world."

Being told the truth is a fundamental right that we all have -- you included -- be it from families, friends, workplaces or governments. No one has the right to lie to you and be given a nod of approval. Each one of us is worthy of the truth.

"If you are incapable of understanding the reality of these dangers and the necessity as a nation to defend itself and preserve a stable society, you only exemplify the reasons such covers are concocted and disseminated."

The larger danger - far larger than the dangers of the so-called terrorists that often end up connected to the CIA - is to believe that you must accept lies told to you on a daily basis because someone else thinks they have the right to control your reality 'for your own good,' and to instead promote their own version of reality.

This is called Propaganda.

And pretty soon we have Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia . . . Thought Police, Newspeak . . .

Bov 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You respond to my weakest statement, not my strongest. If the strongest fail, the weaker should be a mere trifle. But to your points: Who gave you this fundamental right? Why is it fundamental? Why do you believe you possess this right? This is a common error. Freedom is a fundamental, natural right. Truth is not, it is a modifier. A statement about the world around us. The truth it is either true or false, correct or incorrect, and if it is not so, it is not the truth. Truth is useful in so far as it is conducive toward society building and forming stable, productive relationships. Truth is an excellent way for two unknown party's to gain eachothers trust and work together. As social animals, this is a great benefit for humanity and it forms the premise for much of our modern accomplishment. However, this does not make it a fundamental human right. We may endeavor to create relationships with others predicated on truth, and while truth is in practice very crucial to family, friend, and workplace relationships where the power structure is equivalent (or if not equal, only marginally disproportionate), it is not an expectation of government. Unfortunately, most people make the mistake you made in including government and employers in this list. Yes it is fair and responsible for them to be truthful with you, and a higher body may establish codes of conduct instructing an entity to be forthwith with you, the highest powers are under no compulsion to behave in a similar fashion unless that power is threatened by another body. The United States government as the most powerful governing body in existance, does not need this thing, truth. It propagates a myth of transparency and a facade of truth that is helpful to continued rule, but this is no natural right of its citizens it must protect. Furthermore, yes, their is an objective universe out their to which their is a physical discernable truth about the long billiards-ball chain of events that occurred on Sept. 11th. But there is not an objective discernable truth about why it happened, why decisions were made, and what in the political and human spheres influenced these events. The realm of science and the realm of government DO NOT overlap. Science is fact, cut and dry. There are rarely ever facts when dealing with fractured socialogical structures of millions of people.

Make no mistake, I did not tell you to stop looking and accept lies. I would posit there is a right to seek the truth included under the right to freedom. However, this does not mean our political system should be subverted (while somewhere in the constitution and commonly regarded as one, this is not necessarily a right you have as demonstrable through correct understanding of why those who do, walk away in the Omelas scenario). I only asked you to understand that some of these evils might be necessary evils or might have positive outcomes. More than might in fact, I would argue "probably." Tangential links to the CIA aside, you are however, hypocraful in your actions. You intend to do the same thing many governments do by attempting to assert control over the reality of others. But you are an individual or group of individuals. You are not an elected government that other individuals have chosen to shape and mold their subjective realities. You may wish to tell others the truth, but what if they do not wish to know. Religions do this, its called proselytizing, another behavior I am firmly against. The argument under free speech does not hold here given that if you shout loud enough, even if a person does not want to hear, they will be compelled to. In such a case, you would be infringing on others freedoms. Your freedoms should not supercede theirs.

Yes, propaganda is propaganda, but it is up to every one to choose for themselves what to believe. It may be irresponsible and unfair of governments to take advantage of those with inferior educations possibly incapable of making an informed decision, but truth could proove just as distructive if the people were not simultaneously well prepared. By advocating conspiracy theories you reveal yourself to those who would discredit you. I choose another path, to decide for myself what is the truth and use this knowledge to my advantage. I do not accept on face value that it is for my own good, I look into it and realize that in fact, is. Furthermore, I dont need to be responsible for the atrocities that are committed in protecting my interests and while some may argue that all that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, I would argue that evil already has won. Do not mistake this a statement of futility, just why try to shoot a tank with a BB gun, get a TOW or something.

We live in a society far morally/objectively worse than Orwell's, and the society he truly feared was not the obvious one of a socialist or fascist regime might bring, but the hazards the subtextual capitalist world would. When people have nothing, no happyness, they also have nothing to lose. When people actually have something, a color TV, a mercedes, a new toy the Smiths can't afford yet, or the illusion of freedom, they will have something to lose and being risk averse by nature, they will not risk that loss. Of course, this works for all echelons except the very most bottom, and we imprison them. Somewhat near the top, my freedom, while illusory is slightly less corporeal, but the bigger question is why we want freedom; real, true freedom. The freedom I have now, while not anything close to true freedom, feels, at the least.... satisfactory. We will and do have Oceania, et al... They are The United States, The (European) Union, The People's Republic (of China), and the Republic of India (they need a new name). An Arab state is a possibility, but only long after oil matters, and Africa and others may join us eventually. What conspiracy theorists should try to understand is that currently, the U.S. is attempting to make sure there is still a place of power itself at that table 40 years. We will be surpassed as the singular dominant power on earth, the goal is to not become marginalized with our mere 280 million citizens. We sacrifice perhaps 10 years as the sole dominant hyperpower with the hope of a stable, better world, in the future. Neocons may in actuality wish for a lot more, but the result of their strategies will be our seat at the table.

I cannot say that I truly expect you to put much stock in what I've said these past few entries, but I would hope you might take the advice like I take the findings I read of researchers by attempting to understand them, assess their validity in my mind, and incorporate some into my belief system. While their are serious flaws with Utilitarianist theories of justice, they are some of the most evolved and might help you reconcile your scientific stoicism with your human obligation to a responsible existance if you choose to be a member of society. (ImagoDei 08:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] WTC7

Bov, if I remember correctly wasn't that you who removed the picture of the WTC7 collapse because of something to do with what the picture implied regarding smoke or something? Check out the picture on this link WTC7 Collapse and Analyses. It's the same picture isn't it? Maybe it should go back there in light of recent developments on the page. Whaddya think? SkeenaR 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I removed a picture that came from the FEMA or NIST report that showed a HUGE and solid cloud next to WTC7 that they were trying to say was from the fires at WTC7, when we have no evidence that that was the case. Basically, there are some oral history statements with firefighters saying that building had a lot of damage, but although this must have happened over a stretch of 5 + hours, there are NO VIDEOS OR PHOTOGRAPHS of these described fires or the supposed damage. Fires that approach a point where they could bring a building down end up breaking all the windows, turns the metal glowing red, typically has flames shooting out continuously, etc. We have one photo with flames coming out of one floor and that's it as far as significant damage. And the damage written up in the reports doesn't match up with the images. So there is a push for people to try to say that images showing smoke must be from Bldg 7, when we have no evidence to make that inference.

I didn't see that picture on the link you have above . . . The picture is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center_Seven

It's very bizarre because the smoke ends exactly along the side of 7 and so some people think it's photoshopped. I really just don't think we can say what is producing that smoke given that the whole area was smoking and the strange nature of that smoke ending with the side of the building. Bov

Bov, sorry, I got my images mixed up. It's this one. Second from the top. SkeenaR 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense Bov, but have you checked out this picture yet? SkeenaR 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new additions to the page -- those are perfect. Bov

Bov - you recently removed a lot of firefighter testimony of severe damage to building seven along with information about laser doppler vibrometers and transits that were used to measure the building's movement along with details about how it's eventual collapse was predicted by those on site hours before it fell. Why did you eliminate this truth from the article? I've put it in twice over the past few months and people keep taking it out. I think a person should be able to come to wikipedia and find truth, not one side of an issue only. If you are a truth seeker then you will accept all truth, not just what you agree with. Rcronk 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report

I mentioned on the talk page that for each criticism we should say who is making it and where. Any thoughts on that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi; A while ago you added to Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report quite a few points under 'Omissions' and 'Inaccuracies'. I and others collected a few references on the talk page to support these. Would you like to draw from that list (and/or from elsewhere) to add references to the article to support the criticisms? If not, I could just drop them in wholesale.

A conern I have is that the article make clear that these are criticisms people have made, without appearing to endorse those criticiams as valid. Of course, arriving at the point of balanced, encyclopedic neutrality, while maintaining verifiable accuracy, is easier to describe than to do. Anyway, the article has kind of languished for a few weeks; maybe adding references will be an improvement we can all agree on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

In an extradordinary lapse of fluency, I wrote on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories something that could be read as accusing you of bigotry. That was not my meaning at all, and is of course not the case. You were condemning bigotry. I've struck out my original remarks, and added an explanation there. Please accept my apology. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Meyers

No doubt that he is anti-Semitic, but that doesn't disqualify him for listing on the page, only non-notability would do that. Thanks for pointing this out to me (it is why I try to stay away from the 9/11 pages, because this sort of stuff makes me very angry), but I am afraid I can't remove him. Perhaps you should include info on his entry saying that he supports Holocaust denial and has been accused of anti-Semitism? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi; About "Additionally, some 9/11 researchers have expressed concern that Peter Meyer's website hosts articles with Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial articles..." which someone just removed. I think it is clearly true that resarchers have expressed that concern, but you might do well to provide a link to researchers actually going on record saying "Anti-Semitism." For a charge that serious we should have iron-clad citations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look for an exact citation. Bov 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit war but those remarks on the page have no cite and use the "some feel that" weasel words. PMA 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it as an edit war -- I put out a suggestion to remove the researcher, it was debated, I backed off and agreed with the admins that there should be a mention of the fact that the researcher's work includes what some feel is antisemitic. I implemented that change. Someone then removed it because it didn't have a citation. I believe that once the issue is cited it will become clear that 'some' do feel offended by antisemitic pages mixing with 9/11 research. So not a big deal. Bov

[edit] AFD

Do you care to vote?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

Take also a look at this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild

--Striver 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

This article could use your vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11--Striver 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guild

Hi! I wonder if you are intrested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild by signing the member chart. i would also apreciate any advices you might have on improving the Guild. Thanks :) --Striver 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loose change

I added the video to the list as you suggested. Please feel free to add to the list yourself; it's for everyone's use. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). Regards, HK 06:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guild

Bov, dont you think we should creat a guild to make sure that our point of view is presented in accordance to wikipedia policies?--Striver 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd

You vote, with a big piece of argumentation, is needed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews. --Striver 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Berger? Dont forget to motivate, that is as important as voting. --Striver 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:911CommissionReport 1YearLater.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:International Inquiry Signs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:International Inquiry Signs.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clipping Off WINGs

Can you explaine why you feel WING Tv is not appropriate for this issue? They are just as good as many of the best 9-11 skeptics, their work even aplauded in some mainstream circles, and indeed, they do their best to get the message across, even protesting and giving away literature, free of charge. Yet they are constantly censored within the alternative media because certain figures within are greedy, or are plants who want to silence their well composed information so as too sell half-truths or muddy the waters with nonsense. So then... -- 69.248.43.27 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Camejopicture.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Camejopicture.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096_(block) 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not revert changes without even an edit comment

Your reverts of changes that were discussed and generally accepted on the Talk page [1] [2] could be construed as vandalism, particularly since without an edit summary we have no way of discerning your reasoning or intent. At least weigh in on the talk page or put in an edit summary. --Mmx1 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth

That's pretty interesting. I wasn't even aware of that. SkeenaR 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts on 9/11 Truth movement page

I don't see the revert you're refering to. Can you give me a diff, or a date? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the request for citation? Reply on the article talk page if you want to; there is some discussion there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] steve jones

Hi Bov. I saw the edits you made on the Jones page and thought they were good, but wanted to ask if you could clarify something. I'm not sure what this sentence means: He also suggests that non-symmetrical damage and random fires would not have led to the near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, cites published accounts of molten metal found at Ground Zero long after the collapses, and his own analyses on WTC Steel samples. - I'm not sure if this is intended to convey the idea that molten metal and his analyses are direct support for his other contention ( fires not leading to the collapse), or if this is a list of 3 unrelated things he talks about in his paper. I guess it is the ", cites" that is throwing me. If you could take a look and clarify it, I would be grateful. Levi P. 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] project

bov, since you have an interest in the 9/11 Truth Movement articles, why dont you join Wikipedia:WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement? You could help to make sure eveything keeps as it should. --Striver 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Hoffman

You have violated the three-revert rule, please do not so again or you may be blocked from editing. See WP:3RR.--Peephole 22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who has violated the rule! bov 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Pay attention, I'm asking a reference for "he is credited with the discovery of new, three-dimensional morphologies for modeling block co-polymers used in nanotechnology". And learn how to count. --Peephole 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• What are you talking about? The link is still there. --Peephole 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1) if you have evidence of nanotech, then show it or let that phrase be deleted, as I am trying to do.

• No you're reverting the page to the version of three days ago, which was a revert to the version of 14 august.--Peephole 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No significant changes had been made in the time between those. bov 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2) the citation for "the discovery of new, three-dimensional morphologies for modeling block co-polymers" is already in there.

• Please give me the citation.--Peephole 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article which talks about Hoffman's role - specifically the relevance of Hoffman's graphics -- that there would be no way to imagine the surface without a way to see it visually, hence it cannot be discovered without the graphic tool to see it. bov 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3) the reference to 911review under 'Websites designed by Hoffman' is no longer there. 911research is different from 911review which is different from wtc7 . . . but since you're reverting, I assume you wouldn't notice that detail. Those are 3 different sites.

• They're the same sites, right? And they're linked, right? Wikipedia isn't a web directory.--Peephole 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not the same sites! They are different sites. Why is that so hard to understand? bov 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

4) why did you remove all the internal links so that it is only linked to 911 truth movement? It makes no sense when he is listed on the 9/11 researchers page. What justification do you have for taking out all the other links to pages? bov 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Because they were already linked in the article itself. See the guide of layout. --Peephole 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that being already linked in the article itself can apply here if it doesn't apply to pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories, where the essay The Paranoid Style is linked multiple times all over the page and listed in references and in the see also section. bov 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I reported your breach of the 3rr. --Peephole 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, and I responded. bov 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note too that reverts count even if you are not logged in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Jones II

Bov, please stop inserting a fact tag onto the "qualified experts" sentence. The citation is at the end of the paragraph, clearly. I do not understand what the problem is. Levi P. 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion

Hi Bov,

While I thank you for asking my opinion in the matter between yourself and Peephole, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to try to render my opinion, as him and I have bumped into each other here at least once before. However, check out Wikipedia:Third opinion - it's a great place to ask for the third opinion of a neutral unaffiliated Wikipedia member. I've used it a couple times before, and think the opinions rendered were fair and impartial.

I hope this helps - if you have any other Wikipedia-type matters you need help, with don't hesitate to let me know --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SJ Criticism

Hi Bov. I think I have explained pretty clearly why a paragraph which contains no explicit criticism should not be put in the Crit. section. You don't seem to agree. What can we do to come to a compromise? Levi P. 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Levi P. We seem to disagree on the point of what qualifies as criticism and how explicit a criticism has to be to be in the criticism section. A compromise might be to delete those descriptions altogether, and then the paragraph won't need to be moved to a criticism section. bov 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we use the definition of criticism as guidance for what is and is not criticism. That is how it is usually done. If we use this criteria, your passage does not qualify. But, since you have already entreated me to "break with precedent" for no reason, am I to assume that you also think we should not use the dictionary definition of criticism? Levi P. 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Bov, i dont want him on the template either, dont let the people wanting to delete it geting their way only by sabotagin the template. Revert to your prefered version and lets keep the template. Your vote is needed, dont let them delete the template with tricks and edit dispute issues. --Striver 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Content

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Hoffman. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Peephole 23:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting irrelevant sentences you are adding which don't contribute to content. bov 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have a photo . . .

. . . of Jim Hoffman. I think the article really needs one. Suggestions? Morton devonshire 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please contribute to Straw Poll

Hi, we are having a straw poll in order to save the "9/11 Conspiracies" page from generalized disorganization. Could you please help us out by casting your vote [here]? Thanks --146.115.123.152 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Paul

Bov, it looks like a concerted effort is being made to erase yet another article relating to the 9/11 debacle. Please have a look. Ombudsman 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images and Licences

I do not have an authoritative answer for you, but I can give you some ideas.

• WP requires picures to be ideally those released totally into the public domain. Such pictures include items like Image:Searchlight-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg which I took myself and released under the licence shown. They can be made even freer, but this type of licence does fine if one is the photographer.
• Image:KGVF-plaques.jpg is an example of a third party who has released an image into the public domain. Note the summary which states how the image has been released despite having been copyright of another party.
• Image:Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg is an image with a Fair Use Rationale which is restricted to four articles

The real message here is to look carefully at the use that wull be made and to show as much evidence as possible of the release into the public domain. Probabaly the image you had permission to upload shoudl have had its permisson quoted, PLUS a Fair Use Rationale stating which article or articles it was fair to use it in.

I hope this helps soemwhat. If you remain unsure I suggest you place {{helpme}} on this page and ask the precise question you need help with of a friendly passing admin. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my latest attempt to get this image posted here - Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg - please helpme since it has speedy deletion on it. bov 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is marked for deletion because you have tagged it for non-commericial use only which makes it incompatible with the GFDL. Don't forget that other commericial sites such as Answers.com mirror Wikipedia and they need to have access to all our images as well. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial vs non-commercial use

Question: If someone wants their photos used on wikipedia for non-commercial use but doesn't care about mirror sites like answer.com, what tag does one then use for that photo? Can no non-commercial-use images be posted on wikipedia? bov 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No non-commercial-use only images can be posted on Wikipedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think you can tag 9/11 photos as Template:HistoricPhoto under Wikipedia:Fair use. If you do, please also tag them for Template:fairusereview. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[3] made on October 14, 2006 to Jim Hoffman

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't very sensible - coming back and reverting as soon as your block expires. 24h William M. Connolley 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, there is lack of effective procedures or guidelines for dealing with the type of cascading procedural maneuvers, however well intended, that exacerbate disagreements, rather than ameliorate escalating tensions. In this particular case, several editors have banded together to push what seems to be a decidedly pejorative pov, not just on this article, but on a number of related articles. The issues at hand are much broader than can be dealt with by simply harping on the 3RR guideline, since they also involve a number of other questionable procedural matters, including scorched Earth AfD tactics. Unfortunately, the broader problems here are now being compounded by seemingly overwrought attention to a specific detail, in this case the 3RR, rather than on mediation of the conflict at hand. Such focus generally tends to compound broader patterns of questionable behavior, rather than neutralizing the conflict. This is clearly a case where gang task force or mandated reporter skills and training would be helpful. Ombudsman 23:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James W. Walter

The problem I have with the links isn't even that they aren't up to the quality of the other references in the article, but that they aren't about James W. Walter, nor even about his theories specifically, just about theories that he holds along with a dozen other theorists. Can you discuss it on the article talk page? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetzer and Jones

Hi Bov, I think I understand what you're trying to do, but I think it is going to grow out of proportion (and will in any case be a temporary measure.) I want to suggest deleting the whole section. I've added a sentence in the affiliations section that says neither too much nor too little. I'm hoping I can get you to agree to that solution.--Thomas Basboll 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. If you have any pull, an public statement from Jones would be real helpful.--Thomas Basboll 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Considering the circumstances...

we could really use your calm and reasoned support on the 'September 11 2001 attacks' article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuckAndCover (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Jones and Cold Fusion

Bov, why did you delete the video link to the Cold Fusion video "Heavy Watergate"? 71.247.128.92