Misplaced Pages

User talk:Brothejr: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:00, 15 February 2009 edit71.114.8.82 (talk) Why don't you go FUCK yourself deliting nigger? Fuck you and your lies!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:32, 24 November 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,778 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Brothejr/Archive 1) (bot 
(239 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Retired}}
{{talkheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(48h)
|archive = User talk:Brothejr/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Brothejr/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
Line 10: Line 12:


Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too. Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too.
{{archives}}


== ] ==
== Secret Barnstar Award. ==


You undid several edits in one click, and in the process you re-introduced several errors that I had corrected. For example, Richard Nixon did not support the individual mandate, but Charles Grassley did. I had corrected that, but you've restored the error. Likewise the Acts are definitely controversial: most states are suing to have them overturned and most voters disapprove of them, so that is noteworthy. The article was very POV and some of my edits were to add balance. The article needs much careful and diligent work, but clicking "undo" does not measure up to the level of care and diligence required. Please revert your reversion and reconsider which edits you think should be changed.] (]) 18:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
| rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
| style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''You Found Me!'''
|-
| style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This user has found ]'s Secret Page! Who will be next? Can you find my ]? <small>''Ver. 2.5''</small>
|}


== For those thinking of commenting here ==
I found the secret link, can you?


I am retired. Don't bother to comment here I don't care. I don't feel like dealing with those trying to push their POV's into articles. I am way to burned out to deal with the BS anymore. ] (]) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


== Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit ==
== 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. --] (]) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at ].
::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. ] (]) 12:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.
== Obama question ==


<small>Delivered by ] on behalf of ] at 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC).</small>
I don't necessarily object to , 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. ] (]) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Delivery requested by ] and approved by ]. -->
: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. ] (]) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


== Obama economic section == == New Party revert ==
There is no dispute about the statement that I added. No one has contested it in talk. Even the Obama campaign agrees it is true. Furthermore, I do believe there is consensus for that much in talk, because I made the statement there, and several editors responded to the general discussion, but not to my statement. Therefore, I am asking you to self revert your revert. Additionally, I notice your statement about not caring. But who is pushing here? Please ask yourself that. Notice that Wikidemon has been following the article, has a different POV than I do, and did not revert my edit. Thank you.] (]) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
Please explain how was ]. I'm familiar with the policy.--] - ] 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 ], 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? ] (]) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
==Apologie==
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692040667 -->

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 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's no problem. :) I'm glad you liked the book, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to post what you thought of it. ] (]) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Why don't you go FUCK yourself deleting nigger? Fuck you and your lies! ==

Latest revision as of 03:32, 24 November 2015

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
This is Brothejr's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2

Before you plan on typing a comment here please note: I am not an admin but a plain editor. I am not so versed in Wiki guidelines and rules that I can spit them out in a moments notice, but I can easily look them up. Most conversations/articles I tend to be quiet and let people edit away as long as the edits are constructive. However, I will step in when someone vandalizes an article, reverts against consensus, pushes a POV, or in any other way has a personal agenda. Please note that is my main goal. There are only a couple articles that I participate and the rest I monitor.

Thank you very much.

Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too.

Health care reform in the United States

You undid several edits in one click, and in the process you re-introduced several errors that I had corrected. For example, Richard Nixon did not support the individual mandate, but Charles Grassley did. I had corrected that, but you've restored the error. Likewise the Acts are definitely controversial: most states are suing to have them overturned and most voters disapprove of them, so that is noteworthy. The article was very POV and some of my edits were to add balance. The article needs much careful and diligent work, but clicking "undo" does not measure up to the level of care and diligence required. Please revert your reversion and reconsider which edits you think should be changed.TVC 15 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For those thinking of commenting here

I am retired. Don't bother to comment here I don't care. I don't feel like dealing with those trying to push their POV's into articles. I am way to burned out to deal with the BS anymore. Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Misplaced Pages talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

New Party revert

There is no dispute about the statement that I added. No one has contested it in talk. Even the Obama campaign agrees it is true. Furthermore, I do believe there is consensus for that much in talk, because I made the statement there, and several editors responded to the general discussion, but not to my statement. Therefore, I am asking you to self revert your revert. Additionally, I notice your statement about not caring. But who is pushing here? Please ask yourself that. Notice that Wikidemon has been following the article, has a different POV than I do, and did not revert my edit. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)