Jump to content

User talk:Brothejr

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maxframe (talk | contribs) at 07:42, 17 July 2009 (→‎RE: Factual Information on Barack Hussein Obama II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hehehehehehe!!!! Thanks I will next time.  :) Brothejr (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even here you had to make a corrective edit. The preview button is your friend. SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It did! You added that comment in one shot. SMP0328. (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

thanks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

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

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

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

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

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


your edits

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Also, take a moment to read the external link policy too. Brothejr (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brothejr&oldid=302560139"