Jump to content

User talk:Brothejr/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Blue Angles Crash

Thanks for your contributions to the Blue Angels crash. As a military aviator, I too have seen a video and read at least one news report that they were considering G-suits. I'll continue looking. Thanks for simply adding a fact tag, but please don't delete references. While the one on Yahoo! might not be active, there may still be ways to retrieve that information. Deleting it makes it that much more difficult to find it. I'll keep you posted. — BQZip01 — talk 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pensacola News Journal states that it was a recommendation of the safety board. Therefore, they are "considering" it, as they are always considering safety precautions. — BQZip01 — talk 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
When I made the changes, I did find the same article posted as a reference and it did not say that the Blue Angels are considering the G-Suits, but that it was recommended to them by the Navy's Judge Advocate General Manual investigation report. There is clearly a difference between considering and recommended. Since then, the Blue Angels have made no public comment that they are considering G-Suits and that would be something they would say. However, they have stated in the past and have continued to say after the crash that they do not use G-Suits because it interferes with the maneuvers they do that are more precise then the regular combat flight maneuvers. If you continue to believe that the Blue Angles are considering using G-Suits then you will need more proof/references to back your statement up. Brothejr (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

make me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sithrebel (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel I need to "make you," however if you continue to add disruptive edits, then I and/or others will continue to delete them. Brothejr (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please engage in a constructive discussion at Talk:Barack Obama and demonstrate that consensus has changed, before you revert the existing consensus version again. If you can demonstrate that consensus has changed, I will join you in supporting the change even though I disagree with it. Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the consensus has never agreed upon your edits, if anything I've seen more then one person disput them. I suggest that you please do not edit the article any more before discussing it on the Talk:Barack Obama Page. Brothejr (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinbot

It's funny how quickly the sinbot quickly signed the comments. I was putting up a comment up on a talk page, then by mistake I hit save before I signed it. When I realized my mistake I tried to go back in and sign my comment when I saw that the signbot had already done that! All I can say is that it is quick! Brothejr (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urban exploration. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Urban exploration. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not trying an edit war, and I would appreciate you not threatening me with the three revert rule, thank you. Brothejr (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, I didn't. Gary Wanderer did, in the message above mine. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Images at Urban Ex

I made some changes to urban exploration. You stated on the talk page that "Not only where two of the pictures from the same user, but it also had a picture of him within the drain.". Wikipedia's rules do not in any way discourage one user from providing multiple images for an article, so this wasn't really a valid justification, however your concerns about multiple pictures of the same location are perfectly valid and a good reason to delete one of them. As your self portrait statement was both baseless, incorrect (the subject of the photograph is not myself or one of my friends) and the other image better represented urban exploration as a whole. I swapped the positioning as it is the only picture which both clearly has an urban explorer in a place of exploration. There is more detailed justification at Talk:Urban_exploration. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Image:Urban_Explorer_Hobart.jpg for a supportive opinion other than my own. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Andy's war

Do not get involved in a revert war - that is what Andy wants. I have left a message on his talk page, asking him to discuss changes and attempt to build a consensus. That is all we can do, to be honest. I know it is frustrating when people like Andy and Kossack cannot use common sense or respond to reason, but some people are just like that. Take heart from the fact that once their smear tactics have failed and Obama is inaugurated in January (as now seems likely), they will lose interest. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

If an editer is close to 3RR please inform them on their talk page. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can do that, thanks for the suggestion/reminder.  :) Brothejr (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg

Hi, I though you may be interested in this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg and maybe adding some commets. Adam (talk) (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I can't say it's been fun, but it's still been a good challenge worth coming back for. The article's been gaining significant press coverage, so it's worth keeping in good shape, and I'd hate to see it lose the Featured status folks like User:HailFire worked so hard to achieve. Shem(talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Did you receive my e-mail I sent a while back? I'm not for sure if it's redirecting to a current address. seicer | talk | contribs 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea I did, thank again for the info! Brothejr (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg‎. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Danversroof.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Those were my first two images I had uploaded to Wikipedia. Brothejr (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Danverstunnel1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Urban exploration‎

I noted your comment on pschemp's talk page that you want to "bring in another admin as a third party". To save you the trouble, let me add my third party admin opinion that pschemp has done nothing wrong. Pschemp is perfectly within the protection policy and cannot possibly be considered an involved party to the Urban exploration‎ dispute. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, he has not backed up his statements. He just came in and said there was a edit war going on and protected it. There had never been an edit war! All we had been asking was for everyone who posted the tag and protected the article to back up their statements and provide reasoning behind what they did, and if they could not, then the tag and protection should and would be removed. None of them have. That is my argument! Brothejr (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me help you. Add POV tag, revert POV tag. Add POV tag, revert POV tag. Add POV, revert POV tag... = edit war. The discussion on the talk page showed that the dispute causing the edit war was clearly not heading in the direction of being solved on its own. pschemp | talk 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the crud, I've added in what could be seen as a compromise -- from Jeff Chapman's Inflitration. See talk:Urban exploration#Referencing Inflitration. seicer | talk | contribs 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Austin Class Transport Dock ships

I plan over time to go through each Austin-class American amphibious transport dock articles to make sure they conform to wiki style and also add any more info/ref's that could help better improve each article. Brothejr (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You're mentioned in an AN/I report I filed

It regards your 3RR notice filed against WorkerBee74. I say in my posting that I don't know if you were aware WB74 was correct, but say you might have known it. I also don't recommend that admins take any steps against you. Feel free to comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. -- Noroton (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down your language and don't violate WP:CIVIL at Talk:Barack Obama

Brothejr, please keep calm and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]. You didn't have to say this: This is a clear issue of Coat racking, Guilt by Association, Mud Slinging, People have different opinions about what is fair or unfair to add to the article. Please respect those opinions. If the opinions are just as bad and ill-motivated as you describe, then you or other editors should be able to point out the flaws without attacking the motivations of the other editors, OK? Noroton (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that was fast. It looks like you did it without me even having to post the above note. Thank you. I very much appreciate it. Noroton (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Its just people who do not want to see reason and have to find and post every negative little item that piss me off. That is not to say that there should not be any criticism on the page, but that it seems as if people go out of their way to post as many negative things about him without doing the same to the other candidate. Brothejr (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, can I ask you to also respect other people's opinions too? You seem to have a problem trying to understand the other side and have at times reverted to name calling along the lines as K4T and WB74. This is not to say I'm accusing you of anything, but that you seem to be rather inflexable in your arguments. Brothejr (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be as quick to take offence as Noroton here, since I believe the taking of offence is generally a bigger problem than the giving of it in terms of heating up a dispute. I'd admit that people take offence to my ferocious attacks, but I'd say that what I'm attacking is the arguments that are being presented on Talk pages (as opposed to any individual, including the subject of a bio), and I'm attacking them because of what it would mean for Wikipedia if those arguments were consistently followed. When it started to become clear, for example, that a user felt WP:NPOV could be compromised, I believed it necessary to forcefully challenge such thinking. I'd also own up to suspecting that the Barack Obama article has more advocates for the subject watching for real and imagined Obama-unfavourable edits to revert than the John McCain article, given that the demographics of Obama's support (young, urban, professional) probably overlap with Wikiusers a lot (in other words, I suspect scrubbing that is favourable to the article's subject is accordingly more likely than in McCain's case). For what it is worth, however, I am not a voting US citizen or even a US resident.Bdell555 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you to also respect other people's opinions too? Brothejr, since I don't see where I did that, can you point to specific comments I've made? Like Bdell555, I'm trying to focus on edits/comments/arguments rather than people. If I've disparaged you or anyone else as a person, please point out where I've done it and I'll look at it. I think I've shown I'm capable of apologizing and pulling back if someone can show me I've gone too far. Noroton (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is one comment [1] that is disparaging and can be construed as an attack by those who disagree with you:
Jaysweet, with purely evil intent on my mind, I invite you to go over Shem's contributions on Talk:Barack Obama from the past week, and I also invite you to dive into the cauldron yourself. Participate on that page and experience the joys of making a suggestion for how Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright should be treated (if at all) in the article. Watch as your ideas and your motives are scoffed at, laughed at and condemned. See how, when you bring up evidence it is ignored, when you bring up policies and guidelines, they are twisted in ways you never thought possible and when you try to reason something out you're misinterpreted in ways you never thought possible.
I'm not saying you're going out of your way to attack others like K4T and WB74, but to others that are monitoring the article, you do seem a little bit inflexible and also seem to attach onto any and every criticism of Obama. I'm not saying that you have to completely change yourself or anything, but please just take my comments on board and relax a bit. I can see you are a great editor and do care for Wikipedia and for what you stand for, but that you seem a little obsessive to me. Brothejr (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Urban exploration#External links redux. Hope to see you there :) seicer | talk | contribs 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No surprise here: WP:AN#Need some admin opinions. seicer | talk | contribs 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please do not make any more reverts before discussing them on the talk page. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you 3RR'ing me? This seems a little bit of a petty attack don't you think? Maybe you might want to back off a bit and cool down? Get a soft drink, juice, beer, whatever to relax? Brothejr (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You put me in such a happy mood. Let's have a soft drink together, don'cha think? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR?

I'm unclear on where the 3-plus reverts are in the Urban exploration article. Can you post the diff's here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be some progress since 22:39 or whenever the 3RR posting was. It might be best to let this simmer for awhile rather than having it flare up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I had been merely trying to stop the edit/revert war from progressing farther, but I agree that it would be best to let it simmer for a while. Thanks for the advice!Brothejr (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you. You could have just re-archived it yourself, would have actually been better. Would have shown I'm not the only one who is sick of petty bullshit drama plaguing that page. Thanks for the heads up though, it's appreciated! I hope our next interaction is regarding more pleasant circumstances. Thanks again, Beam 02:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's really stubborn and wants to look as bad as possible apparently. Feel free, if you feel it should be archived, to do so now. Beam 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

After the initial conflict, it seemed like agreement emerged, so I would say yes, you could close the issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll remove the tag and then we can move on. Thank you very much for your help! Brothejr (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[2] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)   Justmeherenow (  ) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided it was best if I also included myself with this notice that way all bases are covered. Brothejr (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey block

I see you also commented on the 3RR noticeboard page. Please note that I also commented at User talk:King of Hearts#Block of Scjessey. I was reluctant to comment in detail on Scjessey's talk page for fear of attracting trolls. In addition to Noroton's over-the-top AN/I complaint against me there were some other actions brought by sockpuppets and dismissed before I even noticed them. Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are insinuating that I am someone's sock, then please by all means file an complaint. Neither you nor Scjessey own the Obama article and should stop acting like you do. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Umm, okay... Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

On my talk page, you said I vadelized the Barrack Obama Article. In no way did I mean to do this. I was trying to delete vandelizem, not vandlize it. Thank you. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the things you were calling vandalism were not vandalism, but his full name. Also, your attempt to have the article deleted could also be construed as vandalism too. Finally, I did not warn you to stop vandalizing, but gave you the same general friendly warning that all Barack Obama related pages are on probation and and that more people are looking at them then any other article and that stronger rules apply. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I do not believe Barrack Obama's middle name is Huessien. Also, is there anything like a vandalism officer on Wikipedia? Please answer on my talk page. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Both he himself and his birth certificate, plus a variety of friends and reliable sources places his middle name as Hussein. As far as a vandlism officer, I guess you will have to look that up yourself. Brothejr (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I messed up

Okay. I found out Barrack's middle name is really Hussein.Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You said look it up

About the vandleism officer thing- you told me to look it up. Where is the place to do this?Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um.... best suggestion is to use the search function and type vandalism. If there is such a person as a vandalism officer, that would be probably the only way to find them. Then again, I've never heard of one. Brothejr (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Also, if you think "violent" is a better description for Ayers or Weatherman, please take another look at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Barak Obama

Your input is appreciated but violates Wikipedia's guidlines on proper useage of the Person Infobox which states birth-name should be used to reflect the persons name at birth when different from the 'name' in the infobox. The only other option is to change the name value in the infobox to reflect the name at birth, in which case the birth-name becomes irrelevant and may be excluded. This is not the case, and therefore shall be included. Please revert your change. Joe Levi 19:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelevi (talk • contribs)

My edit/revert stands. Both his birth name and info box name is the same with the only difference being that his middle name is not included in the info box. The rule mainly applies to those who have screen names, are known mainly by nick names, or by a name completely different then their birth name. For example: Clint Eastwood. It seems like you are trying to split hairs here and added his middle name everywhere you can. Brothejr (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the Wikipedia Person Infobox guidelines has anything to do with screen names or nicknames. The guidelines simply state that it's proper to include "birth_name" when "name" isn't the same as "birth_name" in the infobox. I'll make another request that you revert your edit to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines before I take further action. Joe Levi 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelevi (talk • contribs)

If that is the case, then why is Clint Eastwood's Info box Clint Eastwood and not Clinton Eastwood, his real name. Why is John McCain's info box John McCain and not John Sidney McCain III? As I said before you are splitting hairs here and pushing for something that does not need to be there. If you are so wanting to include Barack's middle name in the info box, why are you not trying to push to have John McCain's middle name in his infobox? Why not Clint Eastwood's middle or full name? I am still not going to revert the change. If you are so hard up to change this, even if other editors have told you no, then by all means go and revert it. Brothejr (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Clint Eastwood's infobox includes his birth_name. John McCain didn't have a birth_name entry, so I added one (thank you for pointing this out). Joe Levi 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelevi (talk • contribs)
Ok, now you will need to go through every BLP and make sure each and everyone has that same thing. Brothejr (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The rule you keep on citing says this for birth name: birth_name Name at birth, if different from name. This means if the person is known by someone completely different then what everyone knows them as. You are pushing Barack's Middle name. His first name is Barack and his last name is Obama. He is known as Barack Obama. Yet, you are extremely hung up over his middle name. Give it a rest. Brothejr (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant, because the infobox used in this article is not Template:Infobox Person, it's a version of Template:Infobox Officeholder, which has no such parameter as birth_name, and whose documentation doesn't say that "name" should be the full name. -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Clubjuggle T/C 20:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the warning! Brothejr (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder. I agree the edit is WP:POINTy, so I'll help keep an eye on it. I just want to make sure you don't lose count. :o) --Clubjuggle T/C 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't bully me

With your fake admin crap. I haven't been in any edit wars and you are apparently too biased to go around pretending to be an admin to shut people up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to bully you as much as just give you a warning/heads up, which any editor can do. You are coming very close to violating the 3RR rule with your constant re-adding the information to the Barack Obama Page. Brothejr (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The first time was not a revert - I changed the source since the other guy didn't like the source. I did however revert it after that since he flat out deleted it without giving a single reason why. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

The last revert was clearly protection around BLP. I am frankly stunned and very saddened by that addition. Can't wait til Nov 4. --guyzero | talk 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see it getting worse as we get closer tot he election. But yea, I can't wait till after the election. Brothejr (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion!

I just saw the AN/I report you made on 300wackerdrive. Just a heads up, I'm not an admin. I'm just another editor. I like to think my arguments are solid and my understanding of policies and content guidelines is strong, all of which makes me a good contributor to Wikipedia. I haven't applied for adminship, and I'm not sure I would be qualified, but thank you for the peremptory promotion anyway. :) --GoodDamon 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I always thought you were an admin.  :) Brothejr (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama...

"It seems like we don't need to be watching it as much as we had to before."

I hope you are right. I first started monitoring Barack Obama when I noticed it was getting a lot of racist vandalism. I never intended to get involved in the deeper political aspects, since I didn't know much about the US political system and I don't have the right to vote (I'm a British citizen). I'm no stranger to controversial articles (I used to spend a lot of time patrolling Atheism, for example) so I wasn't overwhelmed by the "battle", but I was sucked into it by the shocking lack of neutrality of agenda-based editors. All I've ever been interested in is neutrality, but the election has so polarized people that it made everyone hypersensitive to even the smallest edits. The attacks on Obama, ACORN, and even Bill Ayers have been, at times, ugly and disgusting. I hope editors like Noroton and WorkerBee will look back on what happened over the last few weeks and feel shame for what they did, particularly because their attacks often extended to editors. Anyway, I'm not going anywhere - my watchlist will remain the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

IP editor

I'm just bored enough tonight that I'm enjoying the ping-pong match with that troll. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Plutonium section restructure

Please explain why the structure of that section needs to be revised. It currently goes through the history of plutonium use in more or less chronological order. What order would you suggest? --mav (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the whole section, even retitled, the section is still not clear. The first paragraph very briefly talks about the Manhattan project in three sentences. The second paragraph very briefly describes how plutonium is produced, stopping at plutonium nitrate. Then the section does a 180 focus shift in the third paragraph and talks about how plutonium was used in the test bomb. It then jumps to the bombs dropped on Japan. The section then does another shift to the cold war and finally about dismantling of the weapons. First off the section just skips and jumps haphazardly all over the rather lengthy history here.
My suggestion would be to break up the section into better historical/chronological sections and then do a lengthy rewrite as each topic covered deserves a longer section devoted on it. Some more suggestions would be:
  • For example take a look at the Manhattan Project article and see how it was written. Maybe using some of the refs from there, you can write a coherent section on the plutonium side of the Manhattan Project.
  • Then take a look at the Hanford Site article and it's sub article: B Reactor for more information on how plutonium was produced and how to write a section on it's production.
  • For the test section there is a whole article written on it here: Trinity test. The same thing goes for the atomic bomb droppings in this article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  • For the cold war paragraph, you can get much more detailed information from here Nuclear weapon and Cold War.
  • The last paragraph is not so bad, but it really glosses over a whole areas of what's being done to the plutonium from nuclear weapons (I.E. being reprocessed and used as MOX fuel for commercial reactors.)
  • Finally that medical experimentation section seems to have been just tagged on there. It needs to be melded into a more comprehensive section, removed, or have the main article added to the see also list.
While the main portion of the article is devoted to the element, yet the history of the element must truly delve into this history to give the reader a better impression as what it took to make the element and use the element. These are my suggestions, but unless that section is seriously rewritten, then the tag should not be removed. Brothejr (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Your points are an excellent suggestion for creating an history of plutonium article. But the history section in the plutonium article is already a bit long for an FA element article. So I don't think a substantial expansion is appropriate. Instead, I'll focus on a modest expansion and better organization and writing. I'll also try to better incorporate the human experimentation part (somebody else added that section - I tried to reduce its size and improve it, but yeah, it could still be better). Thanks for your suggestions for improvement. :) --mav (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem! If these sections were rewritten a bit, the article could be moved up from an A article to the Featured List article and maybe even to a Featured Article!  :) Brothejr (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

In the future when you have a problem with my edits please take it up at the appropriate venue. Your edit summary should have been "I have already" not "you have already" I am aware of the article probation, the bold header at the top of the talk page was my first clue, your repetitive warnings were the second clue. From now on when you feel I am edit warring please report me to WP:AN3, because I am aware of the article probation and familiar with the three revert rule. I still don't understand how I edit warred all by myself, but that's how it works around here I suppose. Let alone the fact the other user was slinging personal attacks at me and edit warring with me on my own talk page, you be sure and ignore that though. If 2 reverts is edit warring then 2 reverts is edit warring, there should be no double standard. You do not have to respond to this, just in the future when you have a problem with me I'd rather you take it to the appropriate venue. Landon1980 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I am going to reply. Simply put, I originally did not see an article probation warning on your talk page and went to write one to bring you aware of it. Secondly, I also was letting you know that at times the 3RR can be brought down to 1RR by an admin if they so choose. Thirdly, your editing with Scjessey did look like edit warring and I was giving you a friendly heads up to cool off a bit by another editor. Also, it always takes two to tango and while Scjessey may have been slinging personal attacks at you, you are/were most likely slinging something back at him whether he started it or not. So please calm down, relax, and not bite off the heads of those giving you friendly advice/heads up. Brothejr (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a diff of the personal attacks on my part. So now you know, next time take it to the appropriate place. There is not a policy or guideline I have not read, so in the future when you think I'm in the wrong just just assume that I know better. I'm not biting your head off, I'm simply telling you I don't need your advice. If I'm doing something wrong report me for it, it's that simple. I get tired of other editors acting like I'm some ignorant fool. I have been around long enough to know what article probation is/what it means, and so on. Why is it the other editor got no "friendly heads up" from you? Landon1980 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want people to respond to you like they do, then don't respond negatively back. If you are tired of people acting the way they do with you, then maybe you need to relax a bit. Don't worry whether Scjessey got a warning or not. Don't worry if you received a template warning. Don't respond back by telling someone to provide a diff and take it up in the appropriate venue. If you look into my brand new archive, you see that at least once, if not twice someone has told me not to edit war and I backed off and also responded nicely to it. When I did that the situation was diffused. Try it sometimes and not bite back. As I said it was a friendly reminder with nothing sinister behind it. (As I always say, people need to relax a bit and not take everything that is said to them as serious as they may think, then everything might get a little bit better!). Brothejr (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie and positive attitude. If you will look at the talk page of that article I was very civil with Scjessey. Of course I'm going to ask for a diff when you claim I did something I honestly feel I didn't do. I just wanted to know which edit you were referring to. So many people of been rude with me the last month or so that I guess I get the wrong idea when someone actually does mean well. Nearly always when dealing with Obama related articles I'm singled out of the bunch by the opposing side. As long as you are in the little group that formed over the past few months you can do and say what you wish with no consequences, and if someone disagrees with the wolf pack they are labeled "tin foil" hat wearing, idiotic, pov pushers. I get sick of it at times, there is a major double standard in place. Thanks again though for the cookie. What pissed me off was how you only reminded me not to edit war and not the other party. I have issued several 3RR warnings and I always try and be fair about it. One cannot edit war alone, if it's a two party edit war both participants should be warned if one is. Point being if they are equal participants (both at 2 reverts) you should not single anyone out to warn. Landon1980 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy reminder

Note that the arbitration page header states "Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move." Thus it would be helpful for you to undo your recent removal of a stray comment from your section. These things can escalate rapidly out of control, so it's best to leave such comments for the clerks to undo despite the momentary frustration that they may bring. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reminder.  :) Brothejr (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Barack Obama

"On January 20, 2009, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand sent a congratulation message to Barack Obama"<<< Why did you delete it? Explain to me ,please. --People's Alliance for Democracy (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple, we do not include every little congratulations that Barack Obama has received due to the fact that he has received hundreds from a variety of world leaders all notable in their own name. Plus, it did not have a direct impact on the man's life and does not need to be included in that summary style biography. If you still feel it should be included, then bring it up on the talk page. Brothejr (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama question

I don't necessarily object to this deletion, but did you do it because it isn't sourced, or because you see it as contentious (would it be contentious if it was sourced?), or because it doesn't belong in the lead? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that all of the above are correct. My main reasons were that the paragraph was very contentious as everyone who went there felt that this issue or that issue should be in that paragraph. Looking at the paragraph, there was no reason for it being there in the first place. None of the stuff in that paragraph was an achievement of Barack Obama. Added to that, the stances in that paragraph could conceivably change at any time. Finally, nothing in that paragraph had been sourced and even if they were sourced, it still would have been inappropriate to have it in the lead. There is a whole section in the article discussing some of his stances, plus a whole sub article that also discusses everything in length. Brothejr (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I undid that deletion. You can see my reasons and give a response at the discussion here: Talk:Barack Obama#LEAD. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama economic section

Please explain how this paragraph was original research. I'm familiar with the policy.--chaser (away) - talk 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why I need to explain to you when I made it plain in the summary? Quickly, it still smacks of WP:OR, trivia, it seems to be trying to predict the future, and so on and so on. Plus, the original creator never once brought it up on the talk page, but yet told others to bring it up for them. Finally, that article is written in summary style, which means things first go into the daughter article before they are added to the main. Then, if they are added to the daughter article, it has be confirmed as something important enough to be included in the main article. Does that make things simpler for you? Brothejr (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been too busy to respond, but the issue has been usurped by events (signing the stimulus). I didn't need things made simpler. I disagree with you and wanted an explanation instead of dueling edit summaries. Reasonable people can respectfully disagree.--chaser (away) - talk 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe next time, bring it up on the talk page first before just objectively adding what you want to the article. At the time it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Brothejr (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologie

im very sorry about any inconvenience i have caused within the George Orwell page. I was just incredibly keen on sharing my views on the genious of George Orwell with other wikipedia members. I apologize once again, spingoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spingoo (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem. :) I'm glad you liked the book, but Wikipedia is not the place to post what you thought of it. Brothejr (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brat

WTF is up with Bratz angel14? I'm thinking of moaning at WP:ANI about this growing menace. What do you think? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The editor seems to run in and change something little, mostly with pictures. I'd say it was disruption, but if it is, it is mainly small stuff. Brothejr (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, what the heck, I'd say the editor merits a mention on AN/I. Brothejr (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama article

Just a heads up - I think you're at 3RR formally on the Obama page. You should double-check. I know you've been reverting problem edits but I haven't gotten clarification yet at AN/I what their outlook is on article patrol. Don't hand the mob a procedural weapon against you. Wikidemon (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I won't do any more for now. What'cha think about this addition: [3]? Brothejr (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that you are reverting edits on the Obama article without due discussion due to your personal bias. Sniper Fox (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, sorry, no bias here. The only people who think I have a bias are those who have a bias of their own. Brothejr (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No bias? Ha. Let's take a look at your logic for a second. At one point on the Obama talk page, you tell a user (Byetebear) - in response to his proposal to expand the Wright information - that he "[is] going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up." Then, when the sources are acquired, you respond "there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion." My question to you, Brotherjr: Why did you tell him to go get the sources if you already knew that you were going to contest expanding the portion on Wright anyway? Why didn't you just be up front about it? The answer, of course, is that you're EXTREMELY biased and are never, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to consent to expanding the Wright connection to reflect the actual, accurate connection between the two (and the significant amount of time that was devoted to it by the mainstream media) that a truly non-biased article would reflect. Fellow Wikipedians beware. This guy OOZES of bias.Jm131284 (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, please refer to my comment above. Brothejr (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going to seem absurd to you, because it's inconsequential and will affect absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things (though that might be the case for everything we do, I guess), but, I'd appreciate it if you didn't archive my section on the Barack Obama talkpage as WP:SOAP, as it's not. I actually would have rather it not been archived at all so quickly, as I thought the point was valid that other main entries include mention of fringe theories -- or did, as I made a couple of minor edits making them compare appropriately to the Obama article. You're right, the discussion as to whether or not they should be edited is a matter for their talk pages, and perhaps my suggestion violated the idea that Wikipedia talk pages aren't a forum. So too might my accusations of hypocrisy and censorship been a bit out of line, which I would have cared to qualify or repeal had the discussion not disappeared so quickly.

One final note, though, as for the preceding discussion on your talk page: you are biased. Saying no bias here,' is quite unperceptive. No one is without bias. Bias is an irremovable aspect of subjective perception, and of social interaction, and is thus pervasive to human existence. An important milestone I reached in my education was the ability to acknowledge this and strive to work through it, but knowing I must always work with it. Obviously, bias gets thrown around as a negative buzzword, especially by those especially susceptible to their own. Don't get caught up in that, too.

Thanks --Dan Lowe 08:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Lowe (talk • contribs)

What you said was considered a Rant per WP:SOAP. It was not about content as far as improving the article, but about the bias with Wikipedia, editors, etc. Please take the time to not only read that portion of the policy, but the whole policy and you will understand. Also, please do not come back to my page to rant again, thanks. Brothejr (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There's not a single mention of 'ranting' anywhere on WP:SOAP or WP:Talk page, nor were my comments there or here rants anyway, so stop crying zealotry to weaken the value of other editor's statements. The conclusion about Wikipedia's integrity notwithstanding, saying that fringe material should be covered uniformly in that article and other specific articles (and yes, perhaps not covered at all) does not fit into any aspect of WP:SOAP, and having it be collapsed and archived on those grounds effectively brushes it off as if it does. I'm not ranting by saying this, either. But, I'll leave you alone now. Thanks. -Dan Lowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm calling it what it is. Now please stop coming to my talk page to complain as it is not going to change anything. Brothejr (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Number of times some form of the word "critic" appears in the George W. Bush article: 30. Number of times some form of the word "critic" appears in the Barack Obama II article: 4. One possible interpretation of this fact would be that different content standards/policies are being applied to these two articles. JRG-Drummer (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the two pages is like comparing apples to bananas. Sadly, that type of argument is not going to prove anything. One thing you must remember, was that GW served eight years as president. Barack Obama has only been president only fifty days now. Give it time, there will be more stuff to be put in his main article. Plus everything people are running around yapping that should be in the article are just campaign stunts with little merit to them. Nuff said. Brothejr (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RVT addition

RVT addition of WND attack article? Whad does RVT mean? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.95.114 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RVT = revert. I hope that helps.  :) Brothejr (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Actually, I wasn't asking for a support vote, though I appreciate it - I was asking for justification to the nay-sayers for me to renege on my promise to stop editing political articles for awhile. On the other hand, if the RfA fails (which it will), does it matter? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was mainly just making a comment. Personally, I plan on not commenting due to what I said about heated comments. I would only say something if it looked like cooler heads had not prevailed. I never saw any public promise on your part to stay away and personally I would never make that promise due to the earlier mentioned fact about hotheads. I think the only way/reason for you to comment is a reason that you yourself come up with and are happy with. I could cite all sorts of stuff that would cause me to join in and comment, but that would be just me. I think the only person who can truly make that judgment, would be you. Now as far as the RfA, I want to say is don't give up and it may work out. Brothejr (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I said there that I was going to stay away from political articles for awhile, so I reckon I should. Maybe not because they want me to (so they can push their own POV's) but for my own mental health. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Talk:Barack Obama, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Learn to type ;) SMP0328. (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehehehe!!!! Thanks I will next time.  :) Brothejr (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Even here you had to make a corrective edit. The preview button is your friend. SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I must chant that to myself: The preview button is my friend, the preview button is my friend, the preview button is my friend!!! :P Hey it worked! Brothejr (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It did! You added that comment in one shot. SMP0328. (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama Political Positions

I patterned the introduction off Nancy Pelosi's section. If a political figure warrants a "political positions" page, he is definitely partisan. If you care, reword the sentences, but leave the appellation. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is done on one page (Which it shouldn't have), it does not mean it should be done here too. Plus that was a pretty sneaky way of working it in. Also, if you are that much interested in pointing out that Obama is thew "most" liberal person out there, then are you also doing the same thing with the conservatives. If not, then that says something. Brothejr (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Obama's a liberal! What a news flash! That story in a moment. Right now, another breaking story: The Pope is, in fact, Catholic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehehe, well I figured it would be easier to write it as neutral as I could and remove the partisan bits. Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My Real Life Job

Sadly, the job I am currently working at has taken a much more busily upturn and so I may not be commenting or watching Wikipedia as much. Plus, it also makes a good excuse for a short wikiholiday too! So if you leave me a message I will try to respond when I can. Brothejr (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour Bridge

Your removal of photos from this article (which was a relief) has been partially reverted by the owner of the pics. It would be nice if you could contribute to the debate. It's an ongoing problem, so I might seek a wider audience (eg, RFC). thanks --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New Question

Why can't a section be online in the sake of better organization and spawning more content?

  1. (cur) (prev) 18:02, 30 March 2009 Brothejr (talk | contribs) m (139,196 bytes) (→Presidency)
  2. (cur) (prev) 18:01, 30 March 2009 Brothejr (talk | contribs) (139,195 bytes) (→Presidency: Cleaned up section and removed one line sections.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenke (talk • contribs)
The thing is that there was not enough information to justify a separate section for each. If you feel that there should be separate sections for each, please discuss it on the talk page. Brothejr (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama race category in his article

Many of the references you site might refer to Obama as African American, but they are technically wrong, because he is biracial - half black and half white 50/50. I think people in writing his article and all the other articles want a 100% African American to be president, so they gloss over that he is half white as well. J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very old argument that has been brought up many and many times on the talk pages. Yet, we follow that the sources call him. Now if you read the next section below the intro and follow the link to his early life you will see we do delve into his bi-racial heritage. However, the majority of the sources call him African American, so we call him African American. Nuff said. Brothejr (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Directory Project

ODP is not a 'honeypot', as you called it, but is suggested (in the Wikipedia guidelines for external links) to be used to avoid long external links sections. Flatterworld (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

However, if you look at those links, you will notice that the majority of the links do not add anything to the article and is just a directory of other exploring web sites. Wikipedia is not here to advertise any web sites, nor should we include honey pot directories that do the same too. Brothejr (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
a directory of other exploring web sites Which is the point of why the guidelines suggest including it. I give up suggesting you read the guidelines - you've clearly made up your mind to keep your mind firmly closed. Whatever. Flatterworld (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's quite obvious that you never looked at the links within that link, never tried to understand the subject of the article, and just simply wanted to add as many links to Wikipedia as you can. It's also obvious that you only latched onto the one line in that policy to back up your addition, while ignoring the rest of the policy and a couple other policies too. Please don't tell me that I've closed my mind. At least I try to understand the subject of the article before I try to add something to it. Brothejr (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Tea Party protests. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for letting me know. i didn't know that before! Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RR

For those thinking of commenting why I put the WP:RR link into a edit description, I meant to put WP:OR but must have had a disconnect between my brain and hands or the ghost in my hotel room made me do it! Brothejr (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect

My apologies. I thought you had deleted my request for a [who?] citation. I misread the difs. Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, when I read the diff even I thought I had made a mistake. With all the vandalism that had occurred after your change, I decided the best thing to do was to roll it back to the change you had done. Brothejr (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

original research?

About your comment on JFK. I doubt that seeing a known movement in a mainstream (Zapruder) film is original research. Its only common sense. I probably rewrite that sentence as this is a common point i JFK´s discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.191.37 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Even more. Have u seen the zapruder film? You dont see that move and how JFK dies? Is good to construct before destruct.--80.25.191.37 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to debate the issues, prove theses, etc. Everything that is posted into the encyclopedia must be backed up by reliable sources and be verifiable. Brothejr (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index38.htm <-- This web is used in wikipedia as source and supports the point. Any more objections?--80.25.191.37 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that is not a reliable source and is considered a first party or a paper written directly by the author, published on the internet, and thus cannot not be considered reliable. If it had been printed in a journal that has an established editorial board, then that would be a different story. Yet, that is just a paper that was thrown up on the internet and thus cannot be backed up. There is no way around this. Brothejr (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but u seem to forget the basic guidelines of wikipedia and you refuses to answer me. Trying to hide the zapruder film facts and an education common source in wikipedia is suspicious. I will translate this nosense to the jfk discussion. Let the truth arise. --80.25.191.37 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not here to prove or disprove anything and we do not report anything that is not in reliable third party sources. We are also not here to hide or expose anything. I am quite aware of the guidelines of wikipedia and what I have been saying is inline with them. Please do not comment on this page again if you continue to rant on about the JFK conspiracy, thank you. Brothejr (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure. If i say -the sun rises everyday-, you will ask for a reliable source?--80.25.191.37 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not here to debate semantics. Debating this further and making accusations/implications is not productive. Please do not discuss this any further on my talk page. Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

your edits

can you please explain why you edited this page The_Jerusalem_KollelWaky02 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This begs the question of why do I need to answer? If you have a specific question, please ask. However, to expedite this: I was on vandalism patrol and some of those links posted looked like spam. Nuff said. Also, please post new messages at the bottom of the talk page please. Brothejr (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

please forgive me as i am a new poster, i was trying to post links that have a description of said job or link is this something that is encouraged? Waky02 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, why not take a moment to read Wikipedia's WP:LINK policy, then add pertaining links that better explain the topic at the bottom of the page in an external link section. Brothejr (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, take a moment to read the external link policy too. Brothejr (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


thank you i have scanned the WP:LINKand external link articles, and i believe that the links in question are links that both shed light on the mission of said article and it's successes. i will however move those links to a external link section Waky02 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being abrupt up there as I was in a bad mood. (Note to self: never edit or comment in bad moods!) Brothejr (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing study

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth Place Inclusion

This topic was "archived" because it became a forum. I took MY own time to clean it up so it can be discussed, and now you are trying to sweep it under the rug. That is not going to happen. In the talk section I have *clearly* and *concisely* (as concise as possible with everything involved here) presented the facts of both sides of this case. These facts have NOT been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt. Until someone shows me where these facts are incorrect, and DISCUSSES it, not just pulling the Stasi Secret Police method of hushing it away somewhere by saying "I'm archiving this"... I've said it multiple times, I AM PLAYING BY WIKIPEDIA'S RULES, and yet you seem unwilling to discuss this on the TALK page, per Wikipedia guidelines. You claim it has been discussed and is moot, I have just shown that these facts have NOT been disproven, and that they are legitimate concerns from an average, unbiased person. Calling everyone involved a "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" or whatever else is doing nobody any good. --Barwick (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I closed and archived it for the same Reasons as DJ Clayworth. Editing out others comments and re-hashing the argument is not what Wikipedia is all about. There was no consensus to re-hash the argument and there was no reliable sources to back it up. Leave it be. Brothejr (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
So because some folks came on and said idiotic comments about "lefties", you closed it, and that's supposed to have resolved the items in dispute? No, we removed the idiots comments, and got back to the facts at hand. --Barwick (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that the argument was going no where, including your edits, and was closed and archived. There was no new information introduced there and there was no reliable sources to back up your claims. This continual to bring the section back and re-argue the facts is simply disruptive editing (I.E. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT). Brothejr (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It was going nowhere because *nobody* was responding to the facts I presented, or responding to the claims that were made based on those facts. That doesn't mean the argument has no merit, it means the opposing viewpoint so far has not presented a defense. --Barwick (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I must remind you that my talk page is not the place to argue the facts, argue the case, or argue just about anything. I completely back up what DJ Clayworth was saying and still says. The issue is closed, please leave it be. Brothejr (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Factual Information on Barack Hussein Obama II

Thank you for your message. I would strongly suggest that you do some serious fact checking on the recent situation with the Kapio'lani Medical Center refusing to authenticate that Obama was born there. WND has covered this extensively and one of their articles is up at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100590 in this regard. You can also check with Kapio'lani for their side of the story. There is no "edit war" - just a quest for having the truth up. You are all about the truth, aren't you?

Maxframe (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, though WND is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. Also, your argument relies upon synthesis and original research none of which is allowed on Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to debate or re-argue this issue. Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, please note comments go on people's talk page and not the personal page per WP:TALK. Brothejr (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WND.com is a HIGHLY RELIABLE SOURCE and has become much more reliable than the mainstream media which has done nothing to report true information on the matter of Barack Obama and his eligibily to be president under Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. WND.com gets an A+ on its investigative and truthful reporting of this issue which can be easily verified. Dr. Orly Taitz also gets an A+ on her research and exposition of the truth in this matter and she has highly detailed information in her Cook and Keyes lawsuits which are a matter of public record and which should as a matter of public record be fully reported on here. To attempt to discredit any source such as WND.com as an "unreliable source" is BEYOND ABSURD when they are reporting the VERIFIABLE TRUTH. These are not issues being "debated" - there are issues here which are evidentiary and factual in nature which NEED TO BE STATED AND REPORTED ACCORDINGLY. If WikiPedia is to retain any credibilty on this it is time to stop the nonsense and start dealing with the ACTUAL FACTS ON THIS MATTER and stop the ridiculous coloration which is geared against the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxframe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maxframe ANI

I've started an ANI about Maxframe at WP:ANI#User Maxframe's conduct. Just letting you know in case you want to add anything. [mad pierrot][t c] 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LRO

A nice bit of nostalgia for those of us who remember the day they landed on the Moon, 40 years and 3 days ago. And no doubt a vexing turn of events for those who think Apollo never happened. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When I saw those shots that showed the tracks the astronauts made on the moon, I had to go back and watch the landing/moon vids one more time. Hopefully I'll be around when we go back to the moon. Brothejr (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Established editors

You seriously mistake the intention here. The irony is that some years ago I proposed giving some standing to those with academic credentials, on the lines of Citizendium. This was naturally howled down. I exited in haste and thought about it for a year or two, and came up with a more 'community' friendly view. Here, you don't have to have any external credentials but you do have to have made a commitment to the Wikipedia way of working for some time. This means that effectively anyone can be an established editor. But without academic credentials, which are mechanical, how do you make the judgment that someone has been editing Wikipedia in a totally impartial way?

In any case, Wikipedia is not a social experiment in a rigidly conceived egalitarianism, but a project to build a reference work. Without expert editors, who we are rapidly losing, how will we do this? The social sciences and humanities parts of Wikipedia are a wreck. Do you seriously propose allowing the project to collapse on account of this extreme conception of equality? Peter Damian (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it's not that we are loosing "experts" its that we are losing those "experts" who are begging for attention. You would be surprised the amount of editors on Wikipedia who create great articles, but don't call attention to themselves and don't care to be called "experts." Mainly this argument boils down to the fact that some people who see themselves as "experts" whether they are or not, want more recognition for their work and more privileges. The other thing is that there are many editors out there who are very knowledgeable on the subject, but don't have a fancy degree. None of either type of editor needed some representative group to represent them. (Also on a side note: in a print encyclopedia these so called "experts" who may submit articles to the encyclopedia would still have their articles reviewed by editors and treated the same as every other writer who submits articles to them.)
The other portion of this debate, is that the "experts" need to follow the rules and policies here too. This means citing/referencing their work, coming up with reliable sources to back up their statements, and generally working peacefully with others. From my experience those clamming around calling themselves "experts" does not like to do any of those things. Their attitudes are "I'm an Expert. I know what I am talking about and I don't need to explain it to you." That is the true problem here in Wikipedia: editors who want a class system and more privileges over other editors. Brothejr (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
"There are many editors out there who are very knowledgeable on the subject, but don't have a fancy degree". My specialist subject is philosophy. All the editors who have 'fancy degrees' in this subject in despair at the state of the subject in Wikipedia. I wouldn't be doing this if there weren't a serious problem. Do you support progress in this area or not? Do you support the project or not? Peter Damian (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My comment to those with the "fancy degrees" and are in despair: stop whining and actually help the project. It isn't about how many featured articles you have written. It is not about how many degrees or what degree you have. It is not about what organizations you have formed or want to form. It is only about rolling up your sleeves and getting dirty to help the project. The majority of editors in this Wikipedia truly want to help it. It is just that they don't have egos to bruise, they are not worried over what degree they have, and they are not worried if they are an "expert" in the area.
I support progress and the project, just not what you are doing because it is straight egos and elitism no matter how you say it. In a project like this, you are so worried about being recognized for all the featured articles you wrote (Which there is a high chance that a couple editors helped you get to that featured article status!), and your fancy philosophy degree, that you have completely forgotten the big picture. That picture is simple: team work with other editors. Try it some time. Forget the fancy degree and simply work on articles, clean up other articles, be a mentor, help others, fight vandalism, and so on. That is what it is to be a Wikipedia and to help better the project, not some fancy group that is going to block vote on whatever they want and exclude the majority of the editors. Brothejr (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you! Yes it is about teamwork, and good neutrally minded editors supporting one another. That's what it is all about. I hope you will join us.Peter Damian (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, I'd rather not join your group. I don't need to be a part of any group to help Wikipedia. Brothejr (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiplytimewasting

Sorry for deleting your recent short and sensible response to nitwittery at Talk:Barack Obama, but you were responding to yet another sock of Multiplyperfect aka Gordon Blue aka lots of other names, who you may or may not think writes like some character dreamt up by wonkette.com but who either way is indefinitely blocked as a puppeteer/puppet/timewaster. And socks of the blocked may not post. (Though no doubt he'll soon be back, with yet another throwaway account.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's all right. I completely understand :) Brothejr (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cant discuss it.

Because you have refusded to discuss it Nice try at wikilawyering.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, we're waiting for you to discuss it. Instead, you just rush in and change it to the way you would like against consensus. The only one who is wikilawyering or whatever is you. Brothejr (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. You can´t be intentionally acting this God cursed stupid.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing to this argument is that if you were assuming good faith, you would not have been quickly rushing in to insert/revert what you disagree with. If you were assuming good faith, you instead would be discussing it completely with the other editors without even thinking of changing something without a clear consensus for it. As of right now few editors agree with you and all you have done is continually re-inserted the changes you want even though various editors have reverted your changes. Now if you are assuming good faith, you will calmly, gentlemanly, discuss the issue/changes with the other editors without accusing anyone of having bad intentions, POV bias, etc, and if consensus is still against your changes, accept it. That is assuming good faith. Brothejr (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Which you haven´t done. You reverted me without discussion, rolled up the discussion inappropriately without commenting, made an indirect edit warring charge via template, and still have not said why you object to labeling a blog a blog. I eagerly await your response.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok lets see here: 1) First off you did not discuss any of your changes before making them. Also, if someone reverts your changes then it is your responsibility to discuss it and wait for a consensus for your changes. (I.E. WP:BRD) 2) I closed that discussion because it was degenerating into a tit for tat with no conceivable resolution, so per WP:NOTFORUM and the probation the article was under, I closed it. 3) The edit warring message was just that an edit warring message. As I mentioned in the message, the article is under probation and this edit warring could be considered less then 3RR's. It was a heads up. 4) Finally, as I stated in the edit summary the addition was of a POV nature. (I.E. labeling the author of that quote a "leftist" or any derivation there of.) I suggest you take a moment to read WP:BRD. Brothejr (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
While I have quoted Policy, you have come with some essay. Policy trumps essays. Please don´t rely on them for justification.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about what trumps what and I was suggesting you take a moment to read it. It seems as though you don't really want to discuss anything do you? Brothejr (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That´s pretty funny: Please see my third post to this page. I also saw where you recently said you disrupted the project to make a point in regards to all this. Continue and you will likely see yourself blocked or banned.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, I never said I would, nor would I ever say or want to disrupt this this project to make a point. I have no idea where you are coming from with regards to being "blocked or banned." However, one such as yourself who has been making accusations, weird questions, assumptions of bad faith, etc, might yourself take heed the warning about being blocked or banned. Brothejr (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your concession at the page. I hope that we can start fresh and put the former unpleasantness behind us, and not just because of your edit. The good faith will be returned, and some have even found me reasonable after such bumps. Cheers--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't confuse agreements with concessions. We agreed that the three birther uses that I removed were inappropriately used. The rest on the article are just fine as they are referenced. Also, please do not use the agreement to cover other things we did not talk about and are currently still discussing. Heck, you still have not answered my question on that quote. Brothejr (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Which question specifically? My message was before someone removed the quote, but after it had been incorporated into the article. I am gratified that we agreed on a point then. That is even better than a concesssion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Then we are we are agreed. Brothejr (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA

I'm guessing you meant to say "tendentious" editing. In any case, I was fairly amazed that Saturn got away with getting Tarc blocked for what is obviously defense against POV-pushing. This stuff just never seems to end. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks for catching that. I tangoed with him a couple days ago over the term Birthers. He started with a generalized statement that we should not use the term birthers. When challenged, he danced around the issue and said that any source that uses the term Birthers must be an op-ed or a blog. It wasn't until another editor pointed out three specific spots that we were able to really discuss anything. I don't think he will stop and his friends are trying to back him up as much as possible. You notice that on the AN/I? Brothejr (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What I noticed specifically, and pointed out in the ANI discussion about Tarc, is that Saturn was talking about how Tarc was opposing information about "this movement". That's a politically-charged comment and makes it obvious he's engaged in POV-pushing. Wikipedia is not about promoting political movements and fringe theories. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. Hopefully, more people will begin to see this and help out. Brothejr (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I reiterated my statement just above, on the ANI page, at the end of the Tarc block section. I'm not sure anyone's listening to me anymore, though. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA grammar

Did you mean "ingenious", or "disingenuous"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

*looks up two inches* Oh. Sorry. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, no problem. While I try as hard as I can, I always miss something and I am always thankful for people catching my spelling/grammar mistakes.  :) Brothejr (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You could be another Norm Crosby. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I could very well be without ever knowing it! Brothejr (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to imitate his act. He was/is pretty good at it. The one joke of his that stuck with me somehow was when he was telling a Bible story and referring to "uncircumscribed gentiles". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
True he is hard to imitate. The one who I thought was similar was Robin Williams. While he didn't substitute as many words like Norm, he was just as quick witted. Both great guys to watch. Brothejr (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

I found another link to a copy of the same article:

[4] http://www.dc50tv.com/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,4165671.story Obama madrassa myth debunked By Kim Barker Tribune foreign correspondent March 25, 2007

Under what circumstances would you allow documenting that Obama was registered as a muslim, and went with this stepfather to the mosque? Could you help me out?

Simple, the source says nothing about Obama being "registered as a muslim." The source has to exactly say that with no ambiguity, synthesis, or original research. There is no reliable source that says he was a muslim and to say that because he went with a parent to a temple equals him being muslim is synthesis and original research. For example: I went with a relative to a baptist church, yet I am not a Baptist? Does going with that relative to the Baptist church make me a Baptist? No it does not. Nor does it mean I was raised in a baptist family or by baptist values. Brothejr (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Also please note: when trying to add something like this long extended discussion and use of other refrences to back up what one ref is saying is much preferred. Finally, while the article says he was listed as a muslim on a paper, does not mean he was a muslim. It is kind of like saying you were listed as one thing by your parents, yet you never practiced, learned, or even wanted to be that. Finnaly, we need to take into account what Obama says, as it is him we are discussing. If he says he was never a muslim, then we need to report it like that. That article says while his parent(s) listed him as a muslim, the sources/friends in the articles say he never practiced or was interested in becoming a muslim. Brothejr (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit: also please sign your posts thank you. Brothejr (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ghost adventures

there's been a signifacant removal of info by a logged-off user with an IP address. can you help revert it without undoing the most recent changes?

The best way to re-add information the IP editor removed without undoing the changes you have done is by using the article's history page. What you would need to do is compare the history before the IP editor started editing to the last edit before the editor was reverted. That should show you the changes the IP editor had done. I am unsure which information the IP editor had removed that you are looking for. However, if you use the history function I am sure you will find the information you were thinking off and can re-add it back to the article. When I came there I just saw a huge removal of information that had not been explained and did not improve the article but instead downgraded it to a stub article. I hope this helps. If you need more help, don't hesitate to ask. Just in case, I did also include a link to the Help:Page history help page which should answer your questions as how to use the page history. (Also, be sure to sign your posts by typing four ~ at the end of your comment, thanks! :) ) Brothejr (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

revert on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Hi, Not sure why you reverted my edit. The words "Conspiracy theories" that begin the article should not be bolded, per the manual of style, since they are not the actual title of the article. Any objection to me restoring this edit? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of rushing in and un-bolding it per the policy, it would have been better and easier to change it to the title per policy. That would have made a hellva more sense then just un-bolding it. Simply put, if you're willing to expend the energy to un-bold then maybe you could also expend the energy to correct the beginning per the MOS by putting the title in the intro and then bolding it. That would have made much more sense then just un-bolding it. If you don't want to do it, then leave the intro alone. I reverted it per that reason and that quickly citing a policy while not trying to improve the article is not a good reason for doing that. Brothejr (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I give this to myself in acknowledgment of coming close to the 3RR rule. Brothejr (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of warning yourself, why not just not do it in the first place? I blocked you for 24 hours to stop the edit war and keep that article from needing to , but I'd very much like to just see you improve how you handle content conflicts. I'm happy to lift the block early if there can be some indication that you can figure out a better way to deal with this stuff. :) kmccoy (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
When I reverted and warned myself, I took it to the talk page with the intention of keeping it there. However, user:Jrtayloriv continued to revert the lead of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to reassert the Taliban comment over another criticism that was reflective of the majority of criticisms of Obama and the prize. His excuse continually had been that there were more sources for the Taliban comment and thus deserved to be in the lead more then the other even though this would have given more weight to a minority opinion. I also want to note that the Taliban comment is in the article and is quoted completely. Brothejr (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Regarding the removal of hospital.com from the psychiatric hospital page

I would just like to be made clear as to why you would label our link addition as vandalism? In no way did the link "threaten" the integrity of the wikimedia brand, to be frank it offered a much more credible resource then that which is found from the external links of that page. Please Clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.12.5 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As The warning message made clear, Wikipedia does not promote other web sites and also uses no-follow tags which means adding your link to the web site will in no way help your web search score. Finally, that link was barely related to the subject of the article and not appropriate for the article or any other wiki article, thus it's spam. Brothejr (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party move/editing

Hi again Brothejr, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks!--Happysomeone (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The ObamaCare Nickname

Hi Brothejr:

The article has been reverted. I can't work toward consensus if editors don't discuss their edits on the talk page. I have no problem with you editing first and then talking about it. Many Thanks. Todd.st (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

accusation

Are you accusing me in any way of any COI regarding Charles Koch? Thank you most kindly, and plese restore the material wherein your edit summary certainly appears to make that unsustainable and simply wrong accusation. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I base my summary on your edit patterns and also based on news reports that the Koch brothers had hired a PR firm to edit their Wikipedia articles to remove any and all negative information. The information that they gave more to a charity and not to the GOP means little in the entire context. If you feel that information should be there, then you will need to justify why it is important to include. Thanks. Brothejr (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? My "edit patterns" show absolutely nothing of the kind. Are you asserting once and for all that I am paid by Koch? Collect (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

assume good faith

my comments are sourced from the left and right, be careful not to run afoul of the 5 pillars friend, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "five pillars." But let me give you a helpful hint: your POV is showing. Most of your sources are from the right, you are quick to say that a GOP president, not known for his transparency, is more transparent then the current president, and are trying to assume you have support for additions that you don't have in reality. Plus, you're comment about "socialist commentator" smacks also of having a deep POV due to the fact if you were trying to be neutral, you would never have added the word socialist. Finally: I've seen people like you come and go. You see the article on Obama as slanted to left, a puff piece, written by Obama's campaign, and many many more comments from Conservatives. This is mainly due to the fact that the article, and conversely the world, doesn't reflect your views on the man. So you have shown up to "correct" a problem and slowly change the article to reflect your views and criticisms.
The issue you bring up is not a pressing issue, is not one that needs to be added now. It's one that can wait a couple years or more for a more historical view point. The only reason you are bringing it up is for political/electoral reasons.
Finally, one of the reason's I'm semi-retired is I'm tired of playing games with POV pushers like you. You can get offended, you can threaten me, intimidate me, or whatever. At this point I don't care. I am simply going to come right out and say what needs to be said. You're trying to push you POV into the article. If you weren't, you wouldn't be ignoring other peoples comments, attempting to run a tally of supporters, and arbitrarily assuming that you have support. From what I read, you don't as most people in that conversation disagree with you in as far as needing to include it now or saying his administration is the least transparent. If you attempt to try and introduce the material into the article before there is a consensus of editor, I will remove it. Simply put. Don't try to play games here. I'm too tired to care. Brothejr (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
sorry to hear you are pooped, how you feel better soon! i have sources from both sides, you have presented none. i appreciate your input, but must weight you opinions against those of the group, as of now, you are still in the minority. wikion! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brothejr/Archive_1&oldid=1136203472"