User talk:Brothejr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 gaol. 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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] Request for your opinion

Hi, please !vote on the language in my article 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 Wikipedia'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)

[edit] 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)