User talk:Brooklyn Eagle

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Brooklyn Eagle! I am Off2riorob and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

greetings[edit]

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talkpage, please feel free to ask me for any assistance or any questions you may have as regards editing, if am happy to help or at least point you in the right direction, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as per your comment .. you just type the four tildes and the wiki programming does the rest.. ~~~~ .. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to RMS Titanic, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dolphin (t) 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brooklyn Eagle. You have new messages at Dolphin51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sugar makes everything better[edit]

Nobody should have to wait two months for a reply. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting so long. Thanks for getting my attention again to get this issue addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

please be careful in word choice[edit]

Hello, please be very selective in the language you use when addressing other editors. Many articles inspire a great deal of passion, but we need to be careful to maintain a high level of civility and avoid saying things like "grow a pair" and "you make my blood boil." (Of course, we're only human, so that happens!) Anyway, just a polite note/request. DocumentError (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message DocumentError. I appreciate the civility of your tone, and will respect your request to moderate my own language. I realise it would be unfair to ask you to read this whole sorry saga but would point out that, if you were to do so, you'd find that my initial interaction with Chris Troutman was polite. This was despite the fact that he tried to suggest I'd published original research in the Thomas More article, an accusation which is totally without foundation. (Incidentally, it was this accusation, rather than any passions inspired by the article itself, that prompted our disagreement.) It was only after many months of his refusal to withdraw that accusation that my frustration began to boil over. As you know, the charge of original research is one of the most serious accusations you can level at another Wikipedia editor, so perhaps you can understand my desire to have the remark withdrawn. I have a background in libel law and can assure you that in the real world such an accusation would unquestionably be defamatory (it meets the two key criteria for a libel - it is both untrue and damaging to the subject's reputation). I realise that Wikipedia doesn't abide by such laws, and in many ways I'm glad it doesn't, but surely that places an obligation on us to self-censor, and to withdraw remarks that are shown to be untrue? When a fellow editor point blank refuses to withdraw - or even acknowledge having made - a remark that is totally without foundation, it leads to intense frustration. Like I say, I will heed your wise advice to keep those frustrations in check (frustrations that, incidentally, have never surfaced before in all the time I've been on this site) but how would you suggest one go about seeking a retraction of a charge that is demonstrably wrong? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading this ANI discussion, and it is clear that Chris Troutman has told you to stay off their talk page, which you responded to in what is a clear personal attack. I doubt that, given your frequency of editing, a block will do much good, though your message is insulting enough to warrant a block, and posting it after they told you to stay away is a blockable offense also: users have a right to ask that, and while you may not like that, it may be unjustified, it may be exaggerated, but you have no choice but to accept it. More may come out of this ANI discussion, but this one is easy: do not post on Troutman's page, unless it is a notification you are required to give, like of an ANI thread, deletion nomination, or something like that. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn Eagle, thank you for your very polite response. I understand what you mean when you note that the situation is probably more complex than it appears on its face. It's very rare that an editor with a history of very good-intentioned edits, such as yourself, would say something otherwise inflammatory simply out of the blue; these situations typically tend to accumulate and fester and become so complicated and convoluted that it just becomes easier to blame the most recent transgression and close the book. In zeroing in on your last comment, this is undoubtedly what I did and I absolutely empathize with the frustration that creates. Unless Drmies believes it would be WP:CANVASSING for you to do so - which I don't think it is - I invite you to ping me in the future if you feel your interaction with CT or anyone else is heading south. I have no history, or even any interest, in the articles in question and it can sometimes help diffuse or stabilize a situation to have a neutral set of eyes involved in a heated interaction, or one that is likely to become heated. I am more than happy to avail myself for that purpose. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again DocumentError. I'm grateful not only for the time and effort you've put into reviewing this matter, but also the extra lengths you've gone to to see both sides of the issue. You clearly "get" what's going on here.

I will certainly take you up on your offer to help out should a similar situation arise in future. I very much hope I won't need to, and don't expect to (as I said previously, I've never had a problem with a fellow Wikipedian before), but either way I very much appreciate your deft handling of the matter and the balm you've poured on a painful saga. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Drmies. I've dealt with some of the issues you raise in my reply to DocumentError, above, which I hope you'll take a moment to read. In a nutshell, I take on board the valid points that both you and DocumentError make but would very much appreciate it if you could take into consideration the events that led to my disagreement with Chris. He accused me of trying to publish original research, an accusation that is demonstrably untrue and that I regard as grossly offensive. If you read the correspondence, you'll find that for many months I was extremely polite in asking for this remark (which, as I say, would be defamatory in the real world) to be withdrawn. Chris has point blank refused to do so (apart from one absurd exchange in which he acknowledged the obvious reality that I hadn't published any original research but denied having accused me of same, a "retraction" so inflammatory and downright illogical that, if it were attempted in a libel action, would probably have the effect of incurring even greater damages). As I said to DocumentError, I realise (and in many ways am glad) that correspondence between Wikipedia editors is not subject to the same libel laws as the outside world, but surely that doesn't mean we can invent malicious untruths with impunity?

Finally, although I accept what you say about not indulging in personal attacks, I'd like to point out that, before responding aggressively to Chris's accusation (which, like I say, was only at a very late stage in the discussion), I took into consideration that he has a very long history of doing the same to others. I realise that two wrongs don't make a right but I did think (and in this I acknowledge that I was mistaken) that he would have a rather thicker skin, given the litany of insults he has dished out over the years (including to me).

But I offer that merely as context, not as a defence. I accept that such aggression is counterproductive. The main point I'd like you to consider is that Chris has made an accusation that is serious, untrue and offensive, and as of now has not only not withdrawn it but stated that he stands over it. I'd be curious to hear how that can possibly be an acceptable state of affairs. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Eagle, from what I saw they apologized for that months ago. Wikipedia is not the place to carry grudges, not over something that happened last December. Look, somebody called me some names today; next week I'll have forgotten all about it (maybe...). So, in the timeless words of Anna (or her sister), "let it go". Drmies (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your prompt reply Drmies. But you're mistaken on this one. There was no apology, nor any withdrawal, nor even an acknowledgement that the accusation had been made. Indeed, Chris's most recent contribution to the discussion was to affirm that he stands over what he said. Which is kind of the whole point. If there had been an apology, this would of course have been over months ago. As it happens, I wasn't even looking for an apology (welcome though that would be). I simply wanted the accusation to be withdrawn, for the simple reason that it's untrue. Surely that's reasonable? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Eagle, you got this and that's probably all you're going to get. For the rest, if this is still a content matter, the article talk page is the best place to take it, but you'll have to keep your cool there. :) Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks for your reply Drmies. As I said to DocumentError, I'm aware that it would be asking a lot for you to wade through such a long and convoluted disagreement. And I get the point you're making - in the post you refer to it does indeed look like Chris is showing some contrition. But if you re-read it you see that his apology is not for his false accusation but rather for taking a while to get back to me, which is a bit like Richard Nixon apologising for bad grammar. And although he appears to rescind his accusation (albeit with the irritating caveat "if you felt I claimed you were writing original research" - as if there were any doubt), this "retraction" is rendered ludicrous by the fact that, at the same moment, he was posting here that "at no point have I accused you of publishing original research". More recently, he's said that he stands by everything he's written.

Like I said, it's a convoluted business, and he's a slippery customer (I trust that's a sufficiently mild description, it's certainly the mildest I can think of) but the bottom line is that he hasn't apologised for or withdrawn or even acknowledged his accusation. I hear what you're saying, though, which is essentially that he's entitled to make stuff up about me and that the obligation is on me to turn the other cheek. (That is what you're saying, right? That he can accuse me of original research and is absolutely not obliged to withdraw that. I'm not disputing what you say - I have no idea what Wikipedia's rules in this regard are and am more than happy to take your word for it - I just want to make sure I've understood you correctly.) It's just a pity that, in this respect, Wikipedia isn't just a bit more like the real world, because if Chris were to step out from behind his keyboard and try a stunt like that he'd quickly discover the error of his ways. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

query[edit]

I need to ask since you are hung up on the same section as another old editor... are you related to editor Liquid foundation? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange, paranoid question. The short answer is no. What are you trying to suggest? That I'm colluding with this individual? That he or she and I are the same person under different names? If you've got an accusation to make, come out and say it. Don't hide behind innuendo. Anyway, like I say, I've never heard of that editor. Since your rationale seems to be that he/she and I both think there's a problem with the paragraph you're so determined to defend, let me offer another explanation that doesn't seem to have occurred to you. One that's less paranoid but more logical, namely that there actually is a problem with the paragraph. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is/was a concern. I thought it best to ask here rather than on the article talk page. You answered no and I take you at your word. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Brooklyn Eagle. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Brooklyn Eagle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Brooklyn Eagle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]