Talk:John Mercer Brooke

Changes to come
(work here to be continued tomorrow Oct 17, 2006 inc. detailed explanation of Brooke's deep sea sounding device and how it works.) Unsigned comment by User:MAURY, reposted from article by BusterD 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of my changes
Last eve I made substantial changes to the text of this article in order to repair numerous grammatical errors and bring the text in line with wiki conventions. This morning I discover that these changes have been reverted. I'll not get into an edit war here, but deletion of accurate sources is questionable behavior, especially when the unsourced text left behind is of such unfinished quality. I would urge the User:MAURY to recognize that this page doesn't belong to her/him, and to allow helpful edits intended to amplify editor MAURY's work. If I don't make these changes, some other editor or group of editors will soon do. That's not a threat, that's a statement of inevitability. BusterD 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was barren when I saw it and I know detailed history about John Mercer Brooke from Midshipman to Lieutenant to Commander. So, I started writing from memory. I quoted my image source on the image page where I uploaded the two images and would have again as soon as I had completed the article.


 * I do not mind help and in fact I prefer it but not before what I am working towards is polished as much I myself can get it. No offense intended but it seems as though when one starts an article it is deemed completed. That is why I placed the information on coming back to continue the article although I was not aware I could not place it where I stopped. My thoughts are headed in a specific direction -- the one direction where John Mercer Brooke should be world famous -- the story of his work with the deep sea sounding and core sampling device. Later it became the "Brooke Gun", one of many cannon, whereas I am posting on the good things he did, the best thing he did for the navy and this nation as well as the world. Not only did all nations start using his device but it lead to  the laying of the transatlantic cable in 1858 by Cyrus West Field which also changed the world for the better.

Please do not alter what I place there until I have finished. It takes things in a different direction than where I am thinking as mentioned above.

Kind regards, Maury

MAURY 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--


 * I'm glad to give you room to develop the article in exactly the way you wish, but usually this works better on the user's sandbox instead of on the live article. This has been pointed out to you several times in your talk history, but you continue to violate guidelines even when cautioned. I'll add the appropriate construction tag to the article so other users will see the page is under active construction, and perhaps offer you similar leeway. BusterD 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are so kind. It is true I have seen a couple of notes about a "users sandbox" but not TO ME that I recall. I paid little attention to the few I noticed since I did not know what it is for and I didn't want to learn all of the rules, templates, how-to, and so on and so that exist. I have only been interested in writing the articles and polishing them at the end and I "write on the fly" as it were as opposed to composing anything. I appreciate that little tag you placed on the wiki page that allowed me to finish. I have finished now but I have not tried to polish anything nor go into more detail than I already have knowing you or someone else awaits like jaws to alter what I have placed there. Do whatever you wish with the area now. I'm finished with writing articles.

Talk page guidelines

 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * No personal attacks
 * Don't bite the newcomers!

'Nuff said in the opinion of this newcomer

MAURY 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--
 * To be clear here: everyone has been polite, I at least have assumed good faith, have made no personal attacks, and as for you being a newcomer, you've got almost 600 edits over the last nine months so you no longer qualify, yet nobody has bitten you. As a non-newcomer, a user has certain responsibilities, like understanding a small something about rules and guidelines set up to avoid these kinds of unnecesary discussions. To say "nobody told me" is a pretty weak argument, and factually incorrect, because users have been telling you this on your talk pages from the beginning. The original "welcome" message posted on your talk page several times by several well-meaning users was intended to provide links to exactly the information and guidelines you claim about which not to know. One problem is that you continually blank your talk page, instead of moving talk to archive, as several users have suggested on your talkpage. If you need help setting this up, I'd be glad to assist. Please feel free to enter the wider wiki world, and please don't consider this feedback as "biting." BusterD 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to come
(work here to be continued tomorrow Oct 17, 2006 inc. detailed explanation of Brooke's deep sea sounding device and how it works.) Unsigned comment by User:MAURY, reposted from article by BusterD 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [ Articles are not supposed to be signed and that is why I did not sign what I had written but had not completed. You wrote as though I had done something wrong on purpose when I hadn't.-Maury ]


 * Yet you incorrectly posted this comment on the article page, and several previous editors have pointed this sort of error out in a helpful and friendly way. I moved the comment to the correct location, provided the appropriate signature, and notified you of your error, cautioning you of your responsibilities as a long-time user (the newbie guides are not a shield for willful ignorance, when you ignore multiple warnings, you can hardly claim ignorance as a newbie). Further, now that we've had this conversation, you can hardly cry "newbie" when the next editor gives a similar warning. BusterD 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Your use of "willful ignorance" above is a personal attack. I have not stated any such thing against you and you know that it is inflamatory in nature. You are breaking rules with all of the experience you have here.
 * "I have never placed a note on an article before this situation so therefore nobody has ever pointed any such thing out to me. I knew only that I could not place my name or alias on any article.

Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks("willful ignorance")

MAURY 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)--

=
===== If this were not on your talk page, you would have a case, but since you were warned by the very first person who placed a "welcome" message on your talk page, it appears that your memory for these things isn't as good as the pedia's. With this in mind, I would appreciate it if you would read policy more, and quote it less. BusterD 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of my changes
Last eve I made substantial changes to the text of this article in order to repair numerous grammatical errors and bring the text in line with wiki conventions.


 * [It was obvious that article was not finished if only by my statement that I would come back to complete it the next day. It seemes to me someone elsewhere would have a completed military article you could have worked on and in seeing my statement of coming back left the work as it was. Looking at the date and time it is once againb obvious the article had just started and would be completed.-Maury]

This morning I discover that these changes have been reverted.


 * [Naturally it was reverted. I had just begun on that article and you were changing it -- whoever you are. I felt I had the right to revert back to what I was working on until I was finished with it. You also cited "Sources" whereas I had not given my sources. You included one area on a USNavy area that I have never seen so I removed it since it was wrong in stating it was one of my sources. Remember, I don't know who you are or what you were up to. It could be a form of vandalism as far as I knew. In any case, that source you cited was not any source I had ever seen. Let me cite my own sources before you place some there as though I were the person who cited a source that to me was a lie.-Maury]

I'll not get into an edit war here, but deletion of accurate sources is questionable behavior,


 * [I had cited no sources. You placed ==Sources== in that article and added sources. You had no idea where my sources were coming from and if you will look back you will see what I placed as the true sources. In doing what you did with ==Sources== I deemed it not only to be false but also obviously unethical. Again, I viewed it as vandalism and rightly so when a stranger to me adds sources I had not used.-Maury]

especially when the unsourced text left behind is of such unfinished quality. I would urge the User:MAURY to recognize that this page doesn't belong to her/him, and to allow helpful edits intended to amplify editor MAURY's work. If I don't make these changes, some other editor or group of editors will soon do. That's not a threat, that's a statement of inevitability. BusterD 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [I don't care about your or anyone elses "threats" anyhow. I keep to myself and work as best as I can. I have never had anyone jump in so quick when I had just begun an article and not only change it but add false any "source" to the article I was working on. I am fully aware the page doesn't belong to me when I am finished with it but when writing it I am aiming for a specific direction and often trying to include things of the past that is not well-known or is long forgotten. The way you edited was not only erroneous in the relation of direction but was taking what I was trying to do in a different direction. Let people write the article and edit it as needed before you jump in so quick to remedy what you think is best because even you can and do make mistakes.--Maury]


 * [I assert that I AM a newcomer as far as so many things on Wikipedia are included. I am not a newcomer to writing and editing my own articles to get what I think is a polished work. Ask me a question or question as opposed to immediately accusing me of wrong doings (plural). I figured you were vandalizing what I was working on and how could I know different?--Maury]

"Be patient with newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikipedia's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikipedia editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious.

Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent. "

--

MAURY 06:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)--


 * I think my actions stand for themselves. I think your actions likewise stand for themselves.


 * [I agree and that is why I reverted my work back to the direction I wanted to go in order to finish the article and add long forgotten history, unique history of Brooke's Sounding and Core Sampling device which led to the laying of the trans-Atlantic cable. You may edit the completed work now. We all must work together to build while breaking through our individual misconceptions and mistakes without holding onto any grudges which _I never do_. That only harms the person holding onto any grudge. You did what you believe is right just as I have done while knowing nothing about you. Yes, it seemed like vandalism when I saw my work changed after I left a note of explanation.]

MAURY 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)--

--

There has been zero bad faith on my part, but you assume me to be a vandal or a biter, because I made changes to an article. Certainly a unique situ. BusterD 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Much more needed to complete this article
This article seems to have stopped short of the Civil War and ended in a state of limbo. (The secion there now about a movie is roundabout in presentation and non-encylopedic in tone.) Brooke's major contributions and insights to the CSN's naval ordnance and ironclad programs would be the natural focal points for the section. Red Harvest (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Mercer Brooke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820151159/http://www.atlantic-cable.com/ to http://www.atlantic-cable.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)