User talk:Brandywine589

Brandywine589, I noticed that many of your changes to the USS Scorpion article are marked as minor; however, I don't think they should be. Basically, "minor edit" doesn't mean a "small" edit, but one which doesn't change content at all. More info at

Agree totally with the above comments. Please provide correct references, rather than POV. Also it might help if you were a registered editor, rather than the rest of us working in the dark about your contributions. Please also bear in mind that three reverted edits may result in a block. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am new at this. Will be happy to share all info and get the ref and cites to documents when my four days passes and I can apply such files and pictures. Please don't change any of my edits. My information is real. I am just cleaning up the article. It will take my a while and I will get it reorganized to make it flow a better. Thanks for your help and advice.Brandywine589 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you are "new", but you have to abide by Wikipedia conventions. If you continue to push your Point of View with unreferenced contributions you will be blocked from editing. Please be aware that three reverts is a reason that you are engaged in an edit war and will result in a block. Your edits will continue to be reverted, unless you supply references. I also suggest that before you make any other contributions, you register your user name as a editor with some info about yourself. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Will get registered. Why are you reverting the edits. I am correcting incorrect information that has no cites. I am currently looking at the section that talks about letters written by Admrials, there are no cites, but those letters were addressed to me. I am not a full time editor. Please don't revert as all you are doing is violating the rules as well. Where do I sign up as a registered editor?

Johnson, knock of undoing he changes, you have a bunch of lies in the article. There are no references. You have no clue what is real and what is imaginary on the subject. The article claims secrecy but most all of the relevant information has long ago been declassified. The article is full of b.s. about searching for the titanic is a cover story....it is a joke. Ballard got the navy in a lot of trouble over finding the Titanic with U.S. Government equipment and money. The WHOI visit was not a search it was a congressionally mandated inspection of three sites. First is Thresher off of Cape Cod, second is discarded reactor components off of New Jersey and third is Scorpion. Stop be so arrogant....the article is a lie as written and is an insult to the 99 sailors who died. There are no references nor cites in the original article, I will add all that are available.....now stop being silly.Brandywine589 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not reply to abusive comments, but am happy to help. David J Johnson (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, this article has a disclaimer at the top that it lacks credibility. The underlying information is all speculative without proper cites. Why are you choosing my paragraphs to delete, when I simply remove the information that is untrue?? Seriously, who are you to pass judgement?? There are a bunch of folks who lost family members on this boat who do not understand what you are doing by defending false prose in the article. Would you kindly put my edits back in. I am working to address the last section as I have the admiralty letters. I will add the files and add the cites, but I can't do it all at once. The article is a mess.Brandywine589 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you join the community at Wikipedia. I was pointed here, and wanted to offer some helpful tips. One thing that you should be aware of is that anything you edit at Wikipedia, can and will be edited, modified, changed, reworded or removed, relentlessly. That is the whole idea of a Wiki of any kind, and a large part of the philosophy here. Asking people to not change your edits, well, it is a waste of time.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we prefer that everything is cited to a reliable source, even though this is very difficult to do some times. Actually, our policy on verificiation (

Looking at some of your edits, you do seem pretty familiar with the topic and that is great, but you need to be very careful to not add your personal opinions. It may seem counterintuitive, but at Wikipedia, we are not interested in "the truth". We don't publish the truth nor do we change articles to tell the truth. We have zero interest in "The Truth®". What we are is a 3rd tier publisher of documented facts. This means that we don't figure out what the truth is, we limit ourselves solely to publishing facts, in summary form, that have been published in other reliable sources (as defined in

I'm not taking sides here, and frankly everyone is being a little more blunt than is required, but we are a family and that is how we communicate sometimes, so you have to roll with the punches. Of course, we don't tolerate name calling or personal attacks, but we should overlook gruffness when we can. The key to writing quality articles here is to be objective, put the passion aside when writing, and just stick to the facts that you can find and properly cite. Sometimes this is hard. Some subjects, I just avoid editing because I know I feel too passionate about, but most I just have to slow down, get input from others, and give and take a little. I'm sure you are no different. Learning to write on Wikipedia takes time. I've been doing it almost 7 years and I learn something new every day.

I suggest that you discuss the article on the talk page of the actual article itself, and allow others to participate. You should take the time to read

Dennis, thanks for the advice. It is interesting to note that the article cites books to establish criteria of fact, but the books are mere speculation. Very circular argument. But I must ask, why does editing get scrutinized in this article. Who was allowed to create the incompetent information without cites in the first place?? If there is an editor with responsibility for this article, then please come forward. Otherwise it is a circular argumentBrandywine589 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is why we don't publish the truth, we just say "this book said this". Edits like this one [1] are very problematic, as they are exactly what
  WP:OR says we can't do. You are drawing a conclusion. You can't do that, ever, at Wikipedia. If all the books are wrong, then we either publish all the wrong info, or we publish nothing. That is one of the principles of writing an encyclopedia that is the most difficult for new editors, which is why I make a striking example of it. Some stuff will be wrong in some articles, that is life. This is no different than any other encyclopedia. The place to opine about what is The Truth is not an encyclopedia, but on some other kind of website. Our job is to be neutral documenters of information that was published in other sources, and nothing else. Otherwise, we are not an encyclopedia. And no editor is responsible for this article. That isn't how it works here. We all take responsibility. I know, Wikipedia isn't what most new users think it is. Just give it time, listen to experienced users (even if you disagree with some of their ideas) and you will get up to speed on the methods we use. I promise, things will make more sense as you go along, but you have to learn the system, and it takes more than a few weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK, no problem, I will cite all the Navy data/reports/released information. Will upload the files and the photos. That should meet all the rules and get the article cleaned up. Thanks for your attention. Brandywine589 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a lot of junk in the article. However, we can just put stuff we know is true in it without, at Dennis has said, sources. It's not really that we don't what the article to be true, it's that the best way to reach that goal is to require sources. Long explanation at

verifiability. NE Ent 01:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely agree with everything Dennis has said above. Please let's take comments to article Talk page and be civil to each other. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide some of the information requested at Talk:USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)#Court_of_inquiry I (or some other editor) can get it into the preferred format. NE Ent 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandywine589! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello Brandywine589, Your edits to USS Scorpion (SSN-589) have been reversed as they contain no references or sources and appear to be personal research or POV edits, which Wikipedia cannot accept. Wikipedia relies on confirmed reliable sources/references. By all means re-add your edits, by quoting their sources. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on USS Scorpion (SSN-589). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Enough's enough. None of your additions are sourced and they're not going to stay in the article. Either discuss this on the article talk: page with some convincing reason, or this will keep getting reverted and you'll be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so full of crap it is a disservice to humanity. There is so much b.s. in there with no references it is fiction. Some of the references cited are irrelevant to the facts. Just trying to clean up this piece of crap. Why are you so 'holy' in the assumed accuracy of the prose in the present form. I added several points to let the reader understand the untruths about information contained there in. Have you read this article? It has no references to support the conjectures. My edits just highlight this.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So who is so smart as to challenge my edits? There are no references to disclose the fraud and the cover ups, it is brought out by showing there is no evidence. One editor cites Craven saying there is an explsoion, another editor writes that there is no evidence produced of an explosion. It is the fact of one persons opinion, followed by an observation of the lack of evidence.

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).

Brandywine589 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The previous authors/contributors to this article are citing fictitious sources. The edits provided are to alert the reader that there is no verifiable information to support the suppositions. There is nothing in the historical record that provides evidence. There is no foundation for people to claim that the ship had an explosion or that there was a torpedo attack. My edits are simply to point out the lack of any supporting facts to be found to support the previous writings. It is to make the article better. To show that the historical record, five decades old, holds no forensic evidence to support explosions, fire, torpedoes, enemy actions. However there is a picture provided by the Navy that shows a broken shaft. This was deleted by your editor/admin/overlord without comment. Whomever is deleting these edits is pushing a private agenda. The edits I provided are all factual.....there is no reference for evidence that does not exist. No references are provided citing support for the conjectures put forth. It is a true disgrace for the lost crew of the ship to be abused by your so called admin when the reality of the historical record is being placed in the article. Several entries where just false and I provided information stating such. PLEASE REMOVE THE BLOCK, YOU ARE INSULTING THE DEATHS OF 99 SERVICEMEN Brandywine589 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether or not your edits are "correct" and everyone else's are "wrong," you cannot go about inserting them the way that you did. You were aggressively edit warring at the article. Instead, you need to calmly discuss the issue at the talk page of the article. only (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2015 (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.

{{unblock|reason=I am quite curious as to why the editors/blockers think that there is substantive and accurate information in the original text? Who controls the truth? If I put a false reference on every line on prose, will I be proper? The previous contributors populate the article with false information providing unrelated citations of other sensationalistic authors who have published unverified and often false material. Why do you think that I am a vandal. You are pissing on the watery graves of 99 dead men who are not here to tell you about the lies in your article. [[User:Brandywine589|Brandywine589]] ([[User talk:Brandywine589#top|talk]]) 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)}}

Brandywine589 is research associates addressing the loss of USS SCORPION (SSN-589)which, was lost in 1968 with all hands. Goal is to compile the accurate record of facts in the cause of the loss . Arguments are not appreciated from non engineer or non submarine trained personnel. The matter is of complex technical import and there is not time to deal with the untrained.Brandywine589 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Andy,

Suffice it to say you are not qualified to pass judgement on edits on the article on USS Scorpion. The article is crap, sponsored by disinformation persons and is an insult to the family members who lost fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and husbands. The references available are slim and controversial, sometimes technically incompetent. Citing spam from sensational books written for profit is not a proper reference either.

It is not an editing war, it is a matter of respect for 99 dead servicemen. I would appreciate it if you would leave this alone, undo all your muddling and stop pretending this is an editing war. There are some people in the world who are very well versed on the subject and have a duty to clean up silly articles that wish for explosions, torpedoes, soviet warfare and similar garbage.

Please stop your harassment on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandywine589 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

(Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Where is the reference that there are SOSUS recordings? Where is the reference that Hamilton said the recordings are garbled? Where is the references for the 'explosion'? The problem with this article is that it is being controlled by someone who ignores the need for references/citations except to enhance a private agenda. For the record, there is no SOSUS recordings. SOSUS is just loafer gram printouts on paper medium. How does one garble the paper???

I've copied the two sections above onto this page, as you're unable to edit other pages whilst blocked.

Here's a heads-up on how Wikipedia works:

Articles are often substantially wrong. We don't have to like that, we do have to accept it; for as much as our resources prevent us fixing everything, immediately.

We don't edit to "fix" articles. We edit to "improve" them. It's the best we can do. On a really good day, we improve them enough to have fixed them. On a long, complex article that's a rare day. What we do most of all is try to stop them getting any worse.

WP values

External verification seriously restricts what we can say. It is hard to find sources that state "zebra are black and white" because the trivial is often not stated within the specialist literature. Many basic engineering terms are really hard to define for that reason. If the topic is recent, or contentious, or involves government secrecy, it becomes particularly hard.

WP is not here as a publishing platform. If you want to write a book on your view of the Scorpion loss, then write a book on it. Don't publish here first, it's not what WP is for. WP is constitutionally uninterested in "breaking news", because it's just something that can't be fitted into the WP editing model. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural stuff

Don't edit war. It's boring, it wastes people's time, it isn't going to stick and you're going to get blocked. I have seen any number of editors behave in the way you are behaving. They get indefinitely blocked and they leave. WP does not care about this. WP does not care that "inaccuracies are preserved" or that "revelations are hidden". We're busy people and we don't get paid enough. We just want the disruption gone. We simply don't care if that disruption was right. You can accuse me of being in the pay of the US Navy to hush this up, but I can tell you, the pay is rubbish.

Don't attack other editors. " Arguments are not appreciated from non engineer or non submarine trained personnel." will win you no friends. Especially not from the real engineers, who you are likely to to address as ignorant non-engineers. Some WP editors are better qualified than you might think. I know of one Nobel laureate here. I know of another who is part of the UK's equivalent of SUBSAFE, so certainly don't think they're some ignorant lubber.

"Suffice it to say you are not qualified to pass judgement on edits on the article on USS Scorpion." would fall under

This Talk page is not intended for you to use to continue to complain about the article that triggered your block. If you persist in doing it, I will revoke your access to this Talk page. If you have something new to say in an unblock request, that is your prerogative. Repetitive unblock requests, though, are considered disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased your block to two weeks from today for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]