User talk:CB Brooklyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, CB Brooklyn! Thanks for weighing in over on the Steven E. Jones article discussion. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, CB Brooklyn, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven E. Jones

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. See WP:NPA.--MONGO 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now with this posting here [1]...I am extending your block to one week.--MONGO 09:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CB Brooklyn, please respond here rather than trying to question this issue on AN/I. I agree that there were problems with MONGO being the one to block you and censoring your objections there given the ongoing conflict between the two of you. However, you were also crossing a line in suggesting that he might be deliberately inserting biased/false information to Wikipedia as part of his job. MONGO has not acted with entirely clean hands here, but you have not either. Please take some time to calm down and try not to let the 'opposition' get to you. I have adjusted your block so that it should expire tomorrow barring further intervention. --CBD 15:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)



CBDunkerson, I hope this comment on my own talk page is not considered intervention. (I see I've been unblocked.)

I did not mean to suggest that MONGO was purposely inserting information as part of his job. The only reason I said "I would not be surprised", is because this has been going on for a while now and Wikipedia has not stopped it. What else am I to think? (Although I admit to not being familiar with Wikipedia's procedures.) Still, that comment by me is nothing compared to what MONGO's been getting away with.

(Also just noticed this btw.)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV which is why MONGO should steer clear of the 9/11 pages.


An examination of the exchanges between MONGO and myself here is a good example:

MONGO seems content with personal attacks: "who cares how many misguided folks there are".

His comments are clearly ad hominem personal attacks towards me, and many others.


The following, from this page, shows he's content with namecalling as well. I removed an external link to a namecalling site, MONGO reverts me leaving the following statement: I like this weblink...it summaries things quite well


I apologize for any insinuations on my part, but also must stress my own attempts at a NPOV.

I'm sure we all agree, from MONGO's own statements here that he is neither apologetic nor neutral:

"The POV pushers that try to add nonsense to the articles related to the 9/11 events have been told repeatedly that the vast majority of their "contributions" to those article violated numerous policies. This doesn't seem to stop them. This editor I blocked routinely reverts those that support the concensus verison and yes, conspiracy theorists is what they are...they are not researchers. Simply put, and I won't apologize for this not being more civil, I will continue to block POV pushers that disrupt the discussion pages and the articles with nonsense. Two other admins responded to the unblock request and did not unblock this editor. I then moved the early parts of this conversation from an article talk page to here for all to see. It is ludicrus to assume that I was doing anything other than to ensure that the POV pushers of nonsense know that there is a limit to the level of disruption that needs to be tolerated."


If MONGO calls this paper, which has been peer reviewed by two physicists before being accepted for publication in a book, "nonsense", obviously he is not NPOV

CB Brooklyn 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3rr

Please be aware of the Three Revert Rule, which states that you cannot revert an article to an earlier version more than three times per day. I am happy to discuss the changes I propose with you, and I do not engage in stale revert wars. There is no rush. I suggest you use the talk page of the article to convince me you are right, as opposed to reverting changes I make. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

except for vandalism, which is what you are doing. CB Brooklyn 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." I believe you will be hard-pressed to prove that in defence of a 3rr violation on your part. I strongly suggest you discuss the changes I have made that you have a problem with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I suggest you get some mental help. CB Brooklyn 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that personal attacks are banned on Wikipedia. Please review WP:NPA. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Get yourself some help. CB Brooklyn 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things - 1. I have reported your continuing personal attacks on the personal attack notice board WP:PAIN, and I noticed your most recent stale revert was not a full revert - you deleted the sentance "Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." Was this purposefull? [2]


Sorry, I do not respond to trolls. CB Brooklyn 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 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.

Prodego talk 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I do not engage in stale revert wars, I will leave the article alone untill you return as an attempt to bury the hatchet and perhaps work with you to improve the sourcing, size and flow of the relevent article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also note that many times adminstrators will unblock people if they promise to stop editing the article in question. You could do this and then we could discuss changes I would like to make on the article's talk page. Your thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Hello, CB Brooklyn, I saw this edit summary, and came to your talk page to ask you to focus on article content, not on editors, and to rememember that uncivil edit summaries are regarded particularly badly. When I arrived at this page, I scrolled down and saw that you had already been blocked for NPA violations, and that you had made various uncivil remarks on this page as well, including I suggest you get some mental help. You also seem to be in some confusion over what counts as vandalism. The reverting of simple vandalism is exempt from 3RR, but the test to determine what counts as simple vandalism is quite strict: it does not include content dispute, edits considered to be POV, removal of dispute tags, etc. Anyway, having reached the bottom of your page, I see that you have just been blocked for 3RR, and I have no wish to kick someone who is down, so I'll leave it at that. Please try, when your block has expired, to work civilly with other editors. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Ann, take a look at the edit history and also at Hipocrite behavior here.

He started reverted while in a debate, and removed links he has not touched in the past. And he did not initiate a discussion on the talk page first, as you yourself, do recommend. It's obvious Hipocrite wanted me revert three times so I'd get blocked. I consider Hipocrite a troublemaker. (As you can see here, he started the ad hominem attacks with the word "troll".)

I was blocked before by MONGO who is now is the middle of an RfC, and who has been blocked himself. And if Hipocrite does not wise up, he may find himself there too.

Read all the exchanges, Ann. You'll see Hipocrite behavior.


CB Brooklyn 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Finally, an apology

I'd also like to apologize for calling you a troll in that deleted edit in our uncivil exchange with eachoter. I apologize for assuming bad faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I am getting out of the house and away from all this crap for a while. Will be back (tonight?) at some point and can discuss things on the talk page.

CB Brooklyn 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


your use of terms like "crackpot" here is uncivil ad hominem and not worthy of response.CB Brooklyn 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the article makes him look like a crackpot, when it should not. Review, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open question to administrators

While I agree that wikiepdia needs to enforce 3rr rule (which I understand), I'd like to know why Hypocrite is being allowed to get away with the vandalism here.

Hypocrite obviously is not NPOV. And, being that he's involved in arguments here, not to mention that his removal of information was directly following an "exchange" with me, he definitely should not be editing any of this infomation at this time.

I ask that his vandalism be reverted immediately.

Also, I ask that he be instructed to refrain from using childish terms like "crackpot", as is evident here. Anyone using such a term is not NPOV.

Finally, for the future, I'd like to ask, specifically, what are the procedures for protecting pages like this from vandals who remove information like Hipocrite did? I'd like to do so without getting blocked in the future. Also I'd like to ask that my block be removed.

More importanty, as Hipocrite had not right vandalising the page in question, his damage needs to be reverted.

Thank you

CB Brooklyn 05:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I'd also like to point out something I had known, but never thought of in the context of Wikipedia. (Someone had just posted this in here, which MONGO immediately reverted):

According to worldwide polls, the minority POV is the government's version of 9/11. All major polls support this. Therefore, the government's story should be placed in the "conspiracy theory" sites, since most humans believe people within the US government were behind the attacks.


One more note... two different universities have verified findings of thermite in WTC steel. This information will soon become public knowledge.

CB Brooklyn 06:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Vandalism - While things like this could be defined as 'page blanking vandalism' that would be stretching the vandalism policy past the point it is supposed to be used. That is, Wikipedia's vandalism policy is meant to apply to edits which are intended to harm the encyclopedia. I think it is clear that Hipocrite believes removing this information is beneficial and therefor this is a content dispute rather than 'vandalism'. I realize that things have sometimes been 'stretched' the other way to mis-identify well intentioned changes as vandalism, but that is not a reason to further perpetuate the erroneous use of the term. Please don't call things 'vandalism' unless it would be clear to everyone that the user who made them was doing so to damage/discredit Wikipedia. The proper response is to discuss why you feel the material should be included (possibly working on sections one at a time) and following dispute resolution procedures if you can't get agreement.
  2. Civility - Terms like "crackpot" and "childish" certainly violate Wikipedia's civility policies and should be avoided by all.
  3. Protection - You can ask that pages be protected to stop edit warring by placing a request here.
  4. Neutral point of view - You make a good point about the article focusing on overall US opinion rather than overall world opinion. I'd suggest gathering references for that and/or placing a Template:Globalize/USA notice on the page. Note however that it is no more NPOV to say, 'Most in the USA subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the towers were brought down by Al Qaeda' than the forms you are objecting to. The simplest explanation of 'neutral point of view' is that any disputed opinion coming from Wikipedia directly, rather than Wikipedia citing that someone else holds the opinion, is a violation of NPOV. 'Hitler was evil' is not NPOV, but 'According to the WWERKLJ poll 97% of Israelis believe that Hitler was evil' is... the second cites the opinions of others (preferably with references) rather than having Wikipedia itself express the same opinion.
  5. Verifiability - If two universities release verified findings of thermite in WTC steel then that information would at that time be 'verifiable' from a reliable source unless it was still disputed by experts in the field. If it isn't disputed and can be verified then it can be stated as fact, 'There was thermite in WTC steel' (again, preferably with references). However, if it IS disputed then NPOV comes into play and it can only be presented as, 'David Finkelmeier, PhD at Wherever University, has stated that he believes there was thermite in WTC steel'... and then only if THAT can be verified.
--CBD 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


CBD, thanks for the response. Please note the following: The edit warring/vandalizism/disruption was instigated by the same person who started the insults. In the end, I was blocked, and all the most-relevant information (most of which I put in) was removed. The remover removed it calling it "conspiracy theory". This is despite the results of the Zogby poll, and that the CT term is not NPOV, and thus insulting. I believe "vandalizism" to be the 100% correct term. The vast majority of people coming to Wikipedia to see this page will be for the 9/11 related work, thus removing the information is harmful to the encyclopedia. Because of this, I believe that person (and all others who resort to the same behavior) should be banned from the 9/11 sites for vandalism, disruption, and pushing POV.

I'd also like to point out that, for a long time, many of the people (MONGO, hipocrite, mmx1, etc) use illogical reasoning that defies common sense and should not be allowed to monopolize the 9/11 related sites. This is precisely the reason why so few "Truthers" participate in wikipedia. If wikipedia calls the "fire" collapse of WTC 7 (which was NOT hit by a plane) to be the true story, despite the fact that the government's own reports never explained how fire created all those characteristics of controlled demolitions, then we might as well mark this page as fact. With all the new information coming out, the behavior of the people I mentioned borders on lunacy (at minimum). And wikipeida is allowing it, even with all the new evidence.


When combining the following points...

1 Prof Jones said a couple days ago that two universities approved his evidence of thermite on WTC steel samples

2 Because of those findings, many people will come to wikipedia to research Jones

3 The people who have "control" over these 9/11 pages use illogical reasoning

4 A former high level government insider predicts staged terror attacks accros the US and Europe to justify invading Iran


...what I would do is show this information to every sysop in wikipedia and ask if they should start taking some control themselves and start pushing NPOV.

I don't know how many people use wikipedia to research 9/11 information, but don't believe the number to be small. These 9/11 wiki sites are infested with lunatic trolls. I leave it up to the sysops to deal with the situation. Either way, I am taking a long break (possibly permanent) from wikipedia. I see no need to spend anymore time adding information if wikipedia will allow it to be removed by lunatic trolls. [3]


CB Brooklyn 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Edit summaries in which you refer to other editors as trolls will be reverted. PLease see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--MONGO 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't add "using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate." ... "In order to have thermite in these buildings in this way, to help bring the buildings down, that means that thermite had to be planted in the buildings which of course implies directly and inside job - someone had to have access into the buildings" without citing where he said this as it is a direct quote and needs to be cited. His name is also not "Professor", it is "Steven", so I changed that as well.--MONGO 07:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, comments such as in this edit summary are unacceptable..."MONGO is a troublemaker and needs to be flushed out of wikipedia"...please read our policies as I linked to you above. Again, we cannot add a quote and not provide a reference for that quote. I am removing that quote until you provide a reference from a reliable source--MONGO 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, please do not refer to polite reminders as "toilet stuff"--MONGO 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time, please do not refer to posts by others in edit summaries with edit summaries such as delete crap from toilet head, which you just did.--MONGO 07:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I reported your hostile edit summaries to AN/I. [4]--MONGO 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not make uncivil edit summaries or remove comments

Hi there, CB Brooklyn. Just because you don't get on well with MONGO, you have no excuse to repeatedly make attacks in edit summaries or anywhere else. Likewise, removing talk page posts that remind you of encyclopedia rules is misleading and frowned upon. I have blocked you for 12 hours, a very mild block considering you had already been made aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Please review them, and be aware they apply to edit summaries and everything else at Wikipedia. Further personal attacks will lead rapidly to longer blocks. -- SCZenz 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

CB Brooklyn, while I understand your frustration with the perceived bias and double standards it does not validate uncivil behaviour on your part. Try to keep your cool and not let others provoke you into trouble. You are correct that MONGO should not have been edit warring with you and acting as a 'content enforcer' on the Steven Jones article (admins have no more say over content than any other user), but again I urge you to follow civility standards and the dispute resolution procedures. I will also keep an eye on the page. --CBD 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


CBD, I am convinced now... Wikipedia is being influenced/controlled (in one way or another) by the government. This is painfully obvious at this point. A lot of people do believe this, and now I am one of them. For you to allow me to be blocked, and continue to defend and allow that troublemaker to control these pages makes it extremely obvious. In fact, it makes it crystal clear. There is no other rational explanation. Now I understand why so few 9/11 Truthers edit in wikipedia... because wikipedia practices censorship and pushes a POV with illogical reasoning. This is not encyclopedic. I will not waste anymore of my time with those loosers, or with wiki higherups. My time getting the truth out will be better spent elsewhere. Maybe I'll check back in a few weeks or months. If the trolls are gone, and if wikipedia starts pushing a true NPOV on the 9/11 pages, then I might contribute again. CB Brooklyn 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering, if you feel that the official theory requires "illogical reasoning", then why don't you explain it on Huysman's user talk page? You stopped posting there a while ago, and I want to hear what you have to say on what really happened.--71.254.53.233 07:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[5] Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


I do not take anything seriously from someone who thinks WTC 7 collapsed from fire and debris. And no one should. CB Brooklyn 18:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a bit more time to fix the citation style so it is uniform...try to open up another browser page and then you can add the references you need to the article by following citation templates...see[6]--MONGO 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

All done, and I re added the edit you had. Try to keep the formatting as it is now for any additional references.--MONGO 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is rude...it's most definitely you...you better stop using edit summaries such as you did here [7]--MONGO 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, and for the last time, do not insult others in edit summaries. Thius is your final warning...also see: WP:3RR--MONGO 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

I'll block you if I see another edit summary like this one. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill regarded at Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


you should be more concerned about MONGOs inappropriate behavior. CB Brooklyn 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


another complaint against MONGO has now been placed here. CB Brooklyn 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And for calling him a "silly little fool" here I have temporarily blocked you from editing. When you return, please be civil. If you have a disagreement, take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I would suggest you block MONGO for the rude and insulting "conspiracy theory" remark in the Steven E. Jones article, an article about a living person. As was already said, Jones work is based on physical scientific evidence. For you to continue to protect MONGO (and to be in denial yourself) shows you to be as much of a silly little fool as MONGO. And a real dumb one at that. It's possible arson with be scientifically proven very soon and I therefore won't need to edit articles in here anymore. I'm looking forward to that because you mods are really fucking stupid. CB Brooklyn 22:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Daniel.Bryant 12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/b/_/User_talk%7ECB_Brooklyn_c0e2.html"