User talk:CB Brooklyn

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:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

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)

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.

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)

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)