User talk:BROBAFETT

Articles for deletion/Nu gaze (3rd nomination)
I've completed this nomination, found at Articles for deletion/Nu gaze (3rd nomination). FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

April 2014
I didn't call YOU "patently dishonest". I don't know who YOU are. I said the sourcing was patently dishonest, which honestly it seems to be. Either your argument is that you got the sources mixed up or that that review is "harsh"; you can't have it both ways. I would suggest that you take a step back and not get so worked up; it's not a personal attack for me to delete your erroneous sourcing. That being said, thanks for all your hard work on the article.BROBAFETT (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I refer to your edit here:. Please read Assume good faith. Accusing other editors of being "Patently dishonest" does not assume good faith, and is not constructive for improving wikipedia. A little civility goes a long way. I almost single handedly upgraded the article in question from C status to good article status, adding about 50 references in the process; I may have simply gotten one of my references mixed up. I do not appreciate being called "Patently dishonest", especially after all the hard work I put into this article. You also appear to be incorrect in stating that it is a list of the 50 greatest sci-fi films. The title of the article is "50 essential sci-fi films", and it would appear not all films are considered essential for completely positive reasons. The review of The Fifth Element is rather harsh. Accordingly I have reworded the quote to a direct one from the source, rather than 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' and completely removing the entire source. Also please take more care when deleting text in the future; It is not appropriate to end a sentence with a comma, which is what happened after you just removed the second half of the original sentence. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Tyron Woodley and Daniel Cormier
Hi Brobaffett, Greetings to you. Please note that both of your edits on the above pages have been reverted as fr Cormier - ranked P4P is under UFC ranking and not the world ranking. Secondly, it is Light heavyweight and not Light Heavyweight and lastly, changes on BJJ belt ranking and under certain instructor need to be back up by sources. The sources indicated in Woodley is brown belt and under Ricardo Liborio. You are welcome to change it but the info need to be supported by independent, reliable sources. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Cassiopeia,

My bad. Other than the Din Thomas/Liborio change, everything else was sentence structure and not related to sourcing; if I changed the wording on the P4P rankings to the extent that it changed its meaning, or somehow implied it was a different ranking than the UFC one, it was unintentional. I've got a source for the BJJ Black belt instructor change for Woodley; I'll add now. I won't bother with anything else; I was mostly just thinking that it was a stronger statement to put their championship status first and foremost, as opposed to their both being signed to the UFC. Khabib's intro page is good example of what I was attempting to do. BROBAFETT (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)