User talk:Bov

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)[reply]

9/11

I'm new to Wikipedia and hope I'm not violating protocols, but it seems that my book was omitted from the origins of the 9/11 Truth Movement history. The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror published by Adventures Unlimited Press in September 2002 was favorably reviewed on the one-year anniversary by the Villiage Voice. My reading for the book was covered by the Washington Post. In the book I advance the offensive-defensive theory of terrorism and describe the event as an indirect defensive attack. I've stayed with the movement, quietly collaborating with 9/11CitizensWatch, as well as covering the 9/11 Commission hearings for Paranoia and reviewing Hopsicker's Terrorland. Would anyone care to edit me in? If I can give you more information I'm at lenbracken@hotmail.com.````

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

"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)[reply]

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))[reply]

"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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

AFD

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yet another AFD

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

rfc

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:911CommissionReport 1YearLater.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:911CommissionReport 1YearLater.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{Non-free fair use in|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. Rory0 96_(block) 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikitruth

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jim Hoffman

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

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

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. --Sloane (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The link is still there. --Sloane (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Sloane (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.--Sloane (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Sloane (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Because they were already linked in the article itself. See the guide of layout. --Sloane (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh and I reported your breach of the 3rr. --Sloane (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

3rd Opinion

Hi Bov,

While I thank you for asking my opinion in the matter between yourself and Sloane (talk), 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for helping me with the template. I'm glad that you are showing interest in the template itself, rather that remove it from the articles. As per the Template_talk:911tm page, I was already debating upon leaving Jeff Rense out of this. I haven't really made it to the films and books part yet. Why remove the st911 link? It looks like during the time I've been writing this the links have been restored. I propose that we meet on the [[Template_talk:911tm] page to discuss and come to agreement on what should be included and what should be left out of the template. Umeboshi 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sloane (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do you have a photo . . .

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Jones and Cold Fusion

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

Third opinion

Wikipedia:Third opinion is only used for receiving third opinions. When disputes have more than two editors involved, they should not be listed on WP:3O. I suggest you pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Regards, KazakhPol 02:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point

Hi Bov; Please do not edit to make a point. I don't think your addition to Jeff Rense to the 9/11 template [4] was a sincere effort to improve the encyclopedia. As a result of your edit, and my inattention, a minor conspiracy theorist was linked from our main 9/11 page for several days. This does nothing for your movement, and diminishes the credibility of our encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are busy removing a template 911ct

please instead discuss this on the relvant talk pages for the articles concerned. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still conducting this template removal, and additionally not leaving edit summaries when you do so. Any consensus so far is against you. Far more productive if you wish the template not to be deployed would be to build a consensus. Please stop your removal actions unless and until the consensus goes in favour of its removal. Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this of interest -- Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template removal obsession really needs to stop. It is getting to the point when it is WP:POINT borderline. If you can build a consensus not to have it then fine. But if not then I suggest that you simply work with it, and ensure that it contains all other relevant articles. The problem you face is that, so far, the consensus is for the template, and your persistent removal of it could even start to be considered vandalism by an uncharitable editor. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the consensus you have from the same people trying to label everyone who questions the 9/11 attacks as a "conspiracy theorist"? Unfortunately the new template does this also, even more so than the last, which is one reason I oppose it. People who have spent their lives doing scientific research should not be reduced to "conspiracy theorist" because they question the attacks. You further that branding on here by going along with it. It would be best if I could work with you on the template, but I am also opposed to having more than one template, so I'm not sure that could work. If you want to get rid of the other one, that's fine by me, and I would gladly try to work with you on this one. My first suggestion would be to get rid of the title.bov 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to the template talk page and discuss it there. That is the best place to do it. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get over there when I get a chance, but for now, Hoffman's page needs to be clear of templates. If you read his work, a lot of his writing debunks the same links you are posting with the template, so it is not appropriate for it to then act as a 'nav tool' on his page. He does support exposing the cover-up, but not through hoaxes and baseless claims . . . using science, instead. bov 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reach a consensus. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reach a consensus . . . with those who fight me to delete links to Hoffman's websites and insert "conspiracy theorist" over and over again to deride and try to humiliate professional researchers? Also, I have an actual research job, unlike these people who are on here 24/7 posting labels. bov 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with those against you and those for you. Wikipedia works by consensus, and it tends to turn as a community on those who do not work the same way. So, if you want to get your pointg across and your voice heard it is excellent advice to build and reach a consensus. Wikipedia is about "we" never about "I".

I have created a heading in the template talk page for you to propose your thoughts. I would very much like to see you there. I have stated there the design considerations. That is primarly so you and others can refer to any that have been misapplied. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now really reached and stepped over the WP:POINT line. There is no-one else arguimng in favour of your actions at Template talk:911ct and you are thus against the consensus so far. Please consider your actions and stop removing and damaging this template. Fiddle Faddle 09:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bov, I think certain items do not belong and its time for a rewrite or a general review. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Template:911ct

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Template:911ct]], are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Removal of characters in a wikkilink you disapprove of is blatant vandalism Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your removals and additions of the template are issues about which reasonable men could disagree. In other cases I think you are trying to make a point rather than constructively improve the encyclopedia. Please don't do that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

911ct

Please don't put this template on innapproprate articles. For example, you placed it in the Popular culture, American Airlines Flight 11 and 7 World Trade Center (among others) articles. It was removed but it's WP:Point. None of these have anything to do with conspiracy theories. Thanks. RxS 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Silverstein

Excellent editing job. You should make more constructive edits on 9/11 articles, rather than removing obvious conspiracy theory references. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was constructive. I've added a lot to that page, previously. I added more to it this time so don't try to reframe it as my only removing or not being "constructive" when that isn't true. bov 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content Steven E. Jones

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. RxS 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{911ct}} template

Again: please stop adding this template inappropriately to random articles like Ground zero and The Pentagon. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You are not being constructive. Thank you. Weregerbil 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your war over template 911tm and 911ct

With the various idiosyncratic edits you have made, both to add the 911ct template to articles where it has no conceivable business and to remove both templates from articles where they have relevance, together with both the lack in many cases of edit summary and your use of anonymous IP based addresses (which I agree you declare on your user page) this is looking increasingly like editing to make a point, which is disruptive.

Despite numerous polite requests you have not refrained from this behaviour. Despite being asked many times to join to reach a consensus over matters like this you have rarely joined in with such activities, and have continued the behaviour. It is now time to ask you, finally, to stop the war, and to allow correct consensus to prevail, whether that consensus is in agreement with your views or with other people's views.

Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing carefully, especially this section. Many more hours of people's time can be wasted over this, but, should you disregard this polite message then the process is already at the end of item 3, there. It follows logically that someone will request item 4. Fiddle Faddle 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of my time to have to endless delete the template which has been explained on Jim Hoffman's page. Why should it be endlessly reinserted on his page when he REFUTES the information on the template? I don't see you explaining why there is no other template on wikipedia which can be said to be placing LINKS TO INFORMATION ON A BIO PAGE WHICH THAT INDIVIDUAL WORKS TO EXPOSE AS FLAWED, HOAXES, AND REFUTED. That's the real Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Complete disrespect for an individual's bio page. bov 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not shout. I sense your frustration, but that is no reaosn to use capital letters.

Consider this section which says Hoffman produced a section entitled 'Proving Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers.'[1] In his presentation, Hoffman offers five "features" and then five "proofs" of demolition along with some pointed graphics. "He shows beyond question, I think, that all three Buildings were taken down by different methods of controlled demolition," according to Paul, who added "The Twin Towers were exploded as no buildings have been before or since and about seven hours later World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded in a classic, conventional demolition."

To me this looks as though he supports the hypothesis. Please see Duck test, and realise that, unless I an many others have misinterpreted this section, when I will withdraw with apologies, the man looks like a conspiracy or CDH pusher. So my message to you still stands.

Additionally you are removing the template wherever you see it from any article, not just Hoffman. Shouting about one article does not validate your actions on the others. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he supports the demolition hypothesis (not a "conspiracy," but a hypothesis for the method of destruction of the buildings). But much of the content the templates link to, films like Loose Change, In Plane Site, etc contain a number of hoaxes and significant errors which Hoffman works to expose, not to promote.

Here's an analogy. Say you had a bio page. If I said that because you were a Christian you therefore supported the evangelicals, and then put a template for Christians on wikipedia on your bio page which mixed you in with the 700 Club and Billy Graham, you might object. If I then responded that because you were a Christian, that meant I had the right to put them there, you would still object. Especially worse is if you'd written articles exposing the absurdities espoused by the 700 Club but were then to have them in a template on your bio page. Yet for me -- a non-Christian (making a template about Christians, this is the analogous situation to those on wikipedia who do not endorse nor care about the theories but are insistent on making templates about them), I would continue to assert that your differences were too minor to make a case about, and wouldn't understand why it bothered you. Then I would say that you'd have to get consensus to get me to stop putting the template on your bio page which mixed evangelical extremists and profiteering tv programs with moderate people like yourself. Do you get it? bov 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I get it or not is wholly immaterial. What is material is that you make sufficient well ordered argument to convince the wikipedia community. Your argument is persuasive, but it has not convinced me. That is fine because I am one person only. I am not wholly sure why you have brough a religion into the discussion, but it serves reasonably well as an example.

However you have not addressed your edits to remove the template wherever you find or found it, nor those to add it where it had absolutely no business to be. Those are wholly inappropriate and a far more clear cut case than Hoffman (where I accept that you have a case to make).

The template has a perfectly valid talk page. Using it to make your point is the most productive thing, I think. Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check WP:3RR on Jim Hoffman

Even though we disagree I would not wish you to be blocked for an accident. Unless I am miscounting, I think you have made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. I'm sure this was an oversight if so. You can correct this in this manner Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're miscounting. Although I disagree with Bov's point of view, he skipped a day. There are only 2 additional reverts in the 24 hours preceding his most recent revert, totalling 3. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have miscounted. It is easy to do so, and I wanted to be certain that, if I was right, which I am not, no blocks happened because of an accident. Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating to me how fanatical people on here are about things like a template appearing on a single page . . . just think of the years before the template existed . . . there was no template at all! This must mortify you to imagine that there was no navigation template with the title "Conspiracy Theories" for any of the 9/11 alternative theory pages. bov 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over 911tm and 911ct templates

Bov, several people have now contacted you regarding your insistence on adding/deleting these templates from various articles. I note that over the last 20 edits to mainspace by you, 18 of those were either removing (17) or adding (1) these templates. During the same interval, you engaged in discussion regarding the issue only on the Jim Hoffman talk page. Outside of that, you are making no attempt at discussing this matter. Your edits are, in every case, being reverted.

While you are not in violation of WP:3RR, your editing pattern on this issue has been disruptive and is not acceptable behavior. If you continue in this manner, you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Work towards consensus, and do not edit war. Your efforts to include or remove the template are achieving nothing since you are not working towards consensus. Instead, your edits are being undone virtually on sight by several editors. This is not constructive, and is disruptive to Wikipedia. --Durin 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is right there on the template talk page so asserting I haven't attempted constructive avenues is simply false. Take the locked and divisive "conspiracy theory" template off Hoffman's page. Take it off the Demolitions page, which has virtually no instances of that phrase on there and thus is not relevant. I've tried to discuss this but the promoters of the template -- those whose primary goal is to associate anyone questioning 9/11 with the badge of "conspiracy theory," are unwilling to give an inch. These are not unreasonable requests I am making and are supported amongst other editors, not to mention Hoffman himself, for the many reasons I have already explained over and over. bov

Thank you for pointing that out. I've reviewed [5] and see those contributions. However, what you are doing still constitutes an edit war. The discussion that you have contributed to is still ongoing and has not achieved consensus. Regardless, the discussion at Template talk:911ct is largely about the content of the template, not about where that template is used. You continue to edit war over whether this template should be used in various articles. I have reverted your re-removal of the template and am hereby issuing you a final warning; if you continue to edit war in this manner without engaging in a consensus building mechanism (and allowing time for such to conclude) regarding the appropriateness of such a template on the respective pages from which you are removing it, you will be blocked. --Durin 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Hoffman and he will be contacting wikipedia himself, directly, regarding the issue of the template on his page with information which he clearly refutes. I have discussed this at length here and on my own page in discussion with individuals as well as on the template page and in the deletion discussions. How many discussions does it take? The rule should be that BIO pages should have a "do no damage" bottom line, not protect the templates above BIO pages. The issue is not that I need to sit around and wait for Arthur Rubin to make a response 2 weeks later or else I am edit warring, the issue why someone's BIO page should be allowed to be vandalized with a template whose issues they refute. bov 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the edit warring is completely unacceptable behavior and leads to nothing positive. Surely you can see this from your own editing; your reverts are being undone at every pass. You can disagree with someone, even vociferously. That does not give you leave to engage in edit warring in an attempt to have your way. A number of people disagree with your stance. What you are opposing is not vandalism, but a different point of view than your own. That's what consensus building is for; to work through problems such as this (and this is far, far from being the first time editors have disagreed on something). You must engage in these processes. If you do not agree with the consensus arises from those processes, you do not have live to attempt to force Wikipedia towards your own point of view. If you feel the consensus building efforts are fruitless and/or result in poor decisions, you can then take the matter up via a request for mediation, since I believe there's already been attempts via an RfC. If that still does result in a positive outcome for the betterment of the project, then a arbitration request can be filed. That is how our dispute resolution processes work here. Relentless point of view warring is most definitely NOT the way to resolve this as doing so will resolve nothing. If you need assistance stepping through the dispute resolution process, I am happy to help. However, my warning stands; continued edit warring over this will result in a block. --Durin 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you failed to heed my warnings and continued to edit war over template removals [6][7][8][9][10], I have blocked you. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired. However, if you return to continue this edit war without achieving consensus on your actions another temporary, longer block will be applied. --Durin 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you returned to edit warring [11] without any attempt to gain consensus upon the expiry of your last block, I have placed another longer block on you. This behavior is completely unacceptable. If you continue in this manner without gaining consensus and insisting on, as you put it "Because there is an ongoing edit war to assign loud pejorative labels of "conspiracy theorist" -- like yellow stars -- to anyone questioning government versions of the events of 9/11, I have to make the same edits over and over again", your blocks will continue to get longer. --Durin 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands

An editor has nominated 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, again

You will stop edit warring as you did here, here, and here. While not technically in violation of WP:3RR, you are aware of our policies on this subject and that this is not acceptable behavior. You have been blocked before for edit warring. Do not continue edit warring or you will be blocked again. I am happy to help guide you in how to properly resolve this, but edit warring is not the way to go. --Durin 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr on Template:911ct and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. John Reaves (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Reaves (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

There are no reasons given about how my edits are warring - I have started about 3 discussions in the past several days and those reverting my edits are not responding to the requests for discussion.

Decline reason:

You've had plenty of warnings to stop edit warring over these issues until there is consensus for the change, and have continued to disregard them. Take some time to cool down, dispute resolution is a better idea than edit wars." — Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

bov 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo RfC

FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Camejopicture.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Camejopicture.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:911guilt.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:911guilt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input

We could really use your input/discussion here: [[12]] - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Reynolds

I'm suprised at you. Including a link which discredits a 9/11 activist.

There may be hope for you yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not an activist, he's a "former" Bush Admin official. bov 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>So that explains it. You don't care if otherwise credible people who distrust the OCT are discredited, you only want the otherwise incredible people who propose (marginally) credible theories. </sarcasm>

Seriously, I do appreciate your adding material which discredits some 9/11 conspiracy theorists, even if you only do so for the ones you think deserve to be discredited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought re proposal for deletion: Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

Hello, There has been a proposal for WP:Articles for Deletion for the Giuliani Controversies article. This is a most valuable article, which deserves preservation. Hope you can weigh in on it. Dogru144 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South WTC Collapse image

Aman Zafar email information for image of South Tower

From: "Aman Zafar" <amanzafar@amanzafar.com>
To: "Bov"
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:57:47 +0000
Subject: Re: question about using a couple of photographs

Sure go ahead...as long as I am not responsible and it is for non-profit. Please note that I have recently (few weeks back) updated the pics with higher resolutions versions. So there may have been some change in order.

Original Message
From: "Bov"
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2006 07:25 PM
To: 'Aman Zafar'
Subject: Re: question about using a couple of photographs

Hi, I wrote to you awhile back about using a couple of images for use on wikipedia.org, but I have found that wikipedia needs me to send you specific information about their policy for images before they will accept the images. I think this sentence about the license they use is probably the most important -

"This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work."

So following are the specifics and the overview -

I am specifically seeking your permission to use the image which is 3rd down on this page, where the North tower is smoking and the South Tower is collapsing:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp12.html

I would like to include your image in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.

You can read this license in full at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL

This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

We choose the GFDL because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.

We also accept licensing under other free-content licenses like some Creative Commons licenses - see http://creativecommons.org for this.

With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website.

We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome,_newcomers

Thank you for your time. "Bov"

bov (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of collapse events image.

in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_removed_image_of_the_collapse_events you said "Similarly, the hoax B7 image with the smoke should be taken off or qualified in some way -- it is now the only image on the page and this is wrong." I am not clear on exactly what you meant but I found that interesting enough to do some research. It turns out that the photo in question (since it is the only one on the page at the moment) is confirmed by he same person that made the photographs that you want included. He is not the one that took the photo in question since the camera angle is different. The person that took the wikipedia photo was probably someone in a boat. Photos are near at the bottom of the page http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/ they are just before "Night shots a couple of days afterwards to show the smoke over lower Manhattan"

I just want to be accurate. Tony0937 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "confirmed by." Yes there is smoke, but various people attribute the smoke to various sources depending on their viewpoint. The fact is we don't know the source of the smoke, but the image misleadingly assumes that we do.

bov 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that the photos are taken by two independent sources showing the same thing.

They show that very little smoke was comming out of at least two sides of the building. Also the color of the smoke is very black indicating that it is oxegen starved. This does not in any way help to prove that the fire could have caused the symmetrical destruction of the building. From looking at the airial photots from the 23th if there is any asymmetry at all it seems (to me) to be on the side away from the side of the smoke (and the damage from debris from WTC1). See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg and Warning HUGE document: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg Tony0937 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. And thanks for the fixed link. bov 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were editing on a misspelled page double

You were editing on a misspelled page double created by the wikiuser who moved all of the material. I was not responsible. Your additions may have been moved to Black sites. See Talk:CIA. Trav (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth NPOV Removal

Please do not remove the NPOV tag from articles as you did 9/11 truth movement. Just because you believe they "make the page longer" isn’t grounds for removal of the tag. If you don't agree with it then mention it on the discussion page.Cdynas (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Since you we're a named party to the case, and there's been some back and forth between you on an IP and logged-in, and other editors, I thought you'd be interested in this --Haemo (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC):[reply]

In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.

Edit restriction

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#9.2F11_general_sanctions you are limited to one rv per week per page (includes your IPs) and warned not to log out to avoid sanctions. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. :)

I have only read your user page, but we seem to have a similar approach, striving for (scientific) neutrality. One of the most baffling things about the 11/9 (I'm Dutch) discussion is how much people rely on the US government for information. Normally, that would not be strange. But when it is the role of that government itself that is questioned, then it's a very odd source for information. Rather like relying completely on government information when investigating human rights issues in China, for example.

I don't have the time to delve into this more since I am busy with other issues. Like nuclear energy, another hot topic that is so complicated that people let their opinion be formed by wether it fits their left/right wing status, rather than by facts. Because they understandably can't understand them. But then they shouldn't have an opinion. And maybe that's the major problem, that people think they should have an opinion about everything. And possibly that's a negative side-effect of democracy. But then that's a dangerous thing to say because less subtle people might not understand the subtlety that even the best option always has its flaws.

Anyway, enough subtleties for now. I wish I had more time to spend on Wikipedia, but I've encountered so much stubbornness in the past that I have sort of thrown in the towel. I am now using my powers as a web page editor for a radio station, so I can write stuff without seeing it deleted instantly. :) Amrad (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Don't think I didn't see you remove the image from the article to have it deleted. You have made your intentions well known. I see you've had trouble with revert warring in 9/11 articles before.. doesn't surprise me one bit. You play a very dirty game. Had I not been away for most of the month, you probably would've been blocked. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

I see no reason why Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#9/11 general sanctions not be still in effect, limiting you to 1 revert per week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Nancy Pelosi appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911tm

Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Regards to edit

The discussion I was referring to can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center . It made it clear Bentham was not a reliable source. Soxwon (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Thanks for pointing that out, The Environmentalist is not a WP:RS. Cheers!

Arbitration enforcement

I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours as a result violating your WP:ARB9/11 Arbitration Enforcement restriction.[13] If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

This is to inform you that, per the result of a September 11 conspiracy theories Arbitration Enforcement request,[14] you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the events of 9.11, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages. The ban is of indefinite duration. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours as a result violating your WP:ARB9/11 Arbitration Enforcement topic ban. [15][16] If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September_11_conspiracy theories?

See: Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Although I do not support the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will not lead a review of this arbitration, I think that a review maybe warranted, and I am floating the idea, with all parties who may have been unfairly censored. Ikip (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your repeated break of the 9/11 topic ban imposed above. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 09:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended it to indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Tiptoety ^talk 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forrest Hill (politician)

The article Forrest Hill (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dubious notability. Certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lincolnite (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]