Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:53, 22 September 2008

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 person 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 am also very much happy to gossip with you too.

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 —  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 —  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.". Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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. --— Realist (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. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Misplaced Pages's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Brothejr, thanks for contributing your opinion. You said you favored option 3, but you put your vote in the section for those who prefer something more specific. Could you please clarify your position a bit more by moving your vote to the Option 3 section or maybe add a bit to your comment? I think it would help a lot. Sorry if I put that together in a confusing way. Much appreciated! Noroton (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Brothejr, I disagree with your choice to remove the portion of the Obama article about The Rev. Jesse Jackson's comments. Your opinion was that it should be moved to Jesse Jackson's article. However, people have added information about Rev. Wright's comments. Therefore you are contradicting your removal. DePaul75(talk) 10:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rev. Wright controversy and the comment Rev. Jesse Jackson made are not the same thing. Barack Obama was involved with Rev. Wright, yet he was not present when Rev. Jackson made his comment and also Rev. Jackson was not addressing Obama, but a man sitting off to his side. Brothejr (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi, I though you may be interested in this Misplaced Pages: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 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 with Image:Danversroof.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Danversroof.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Danverstunnel1.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Danverstunnel1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages 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)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

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: Misplaced Pages: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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

External links redux

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 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 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 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)

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ 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 Misplaced Pages? 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)