User talk:Dbrodbeck/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hi, I think I know that name... I have been trying to clean up Animal cognition and would welcome some help! See its talk page. seglea 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to get the CO3 community involved with keeping Animal cognition correct and uptodate. I shan't be there myself this year (clashes with various things) - would you be able to bring it up? seglea 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you change my edit? I think your powers have taken over your life

a) dont you dare bring down your ban hammer on poor people like myself, i edited the topic for the humour of the nation. In fact i have decided that i will start a new website called benopedia and i will steal ALLLLL your aticles...

p.s wikipedia is fiction.

p.p.s hi claudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.163.125 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You should try cutting the Prozacs in half next time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

your both retarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.22.153 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to be insulting, at least learn how to spell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK how about this: your an asstard

There is still a spelling mistake there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you erase ABA can cure autism.

a) I added a ref tag that leaded to the website saying that, the first person who invented Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), cured dozens of kids and was very successful. My son had autism until he was 5, he had no language, had motor skills, constant tantrums/meltdowns, avoided eye contact, he would cry when the motor in the back of the car would star it would hurt his ears — Sensory Issues, he had trauma, sleeping problems etc. He had an ABA Home-Instructed Program, it turned out very succesful, he gained his language, and no longer had autism, he is a pre-teen now and goes to a special-ed school for the IQ of average or above, he is functioning now. And another kid had a different early intervetion program that he got better from. So I know this for a fact. It even said it on the article, but doesn't mean every person with autism could get better from it through early intervention, not with severe autism. People are still caught up with the scientific studies 30-years-ago, tons of PHD's told me about this, it said 30-years-ago kids with autism could not get better from it, but recent studies showed that many kids with milder autism got better from it. So could you please revert my edit.
b) nothing with cured should be there "cure" means healed from being sick, it should say "no longer has."

Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. You will note that on the autism page the term 'management' is used rather than cure. It is pretty well accepted that the disorder has no cure. However, it can be managed. (Of course the degree of management depends on the severity). Secondly, your edit was really not in the correct section, it should have been in the 'management' section. Finally, and please do not take this the wrong way, the English was very poor. You also used 'kids' rather than 'children' which is a little colloquial for an encyclopedia. Finally, a website is not the same as a peer reviewed scientific article (though it seems you had added two references, one of them peer reviewed, I have not read that article). BTW, I too have a son with autism, he is 6. I also have a PhD in psychology. Your point on the word 'cure' is interesting. I guess that implies disease, and I prefer the term disorder, that said, it does not change the reality that we have kids with autism.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood one of the things I said, I was trying to make a point that you can get completely better from autism, my son does not have autism anymore he had it until he was 5, ABA helped him, he is high fuctioning now. So I am saying that children with not so severe autism can get completely better from it, through Early Intervention, and let me give you an example of what I ment by cure, "A disorder can't be cured — Cured means no longer sick, but it could be that he/she no longer have it. So can that be changed about scientific studies - no cure, to say they beleived autism was only severe 30-years-ago, but now studies show you can get completely better from it.AnnieTigerChucky 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a peer reviewed journal article that shows this I encourage you to add it to the page and see how other editors feel. Or, perhaps, put it on the talk page for autism for inputl. Dbrodbeck 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a peer viewed journal article? AnnieTigerChucky 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review is a process that ensures the accuracy of scientific papers. It involves experts in a field looking at a manuscript before it is published and them finding any flaws, faults etc. It is a standard thing with scientific articles.Dbrodbeck 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing is scientist say there is no cure, I refer to call it "completely better", and scientist don't explain it clear enough they are trying to say that you can't get completely better from the "Autistic Spectrum", but not necessarily "autism", but the spectrum. The truth is scientist do not know enough information about autism compared to a certified analysis who works with the kids through Early Childhood Intervention, they know so much about autistic's brains but so little about how they think and process things is the problem, that's why this is very tricky to find a peer viewed article that explains this, but I will continue to do so. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Take Temple Grandin as an example, she had autism when she was very young but got completely better from autism but not the "autistic spectrum", she has Aspergers Syndrome now. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know about Temple Grandin, she actually works in the same field that I do. I am not sure what 'scientist don't explain it clear enough' means. Dr. Grandin surely still has autism. That said, individual cases are not that useful, controlled studies are what is needed. In science, anecdotes are pretty much useless. Good luck in the article search Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

warning vandals

Hey, you may want to consider warning the vandals whose edits you revert. See here. Enigma ^msg! 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nice resource, I always forget howw to do it, I watch a few pages, but typically when I am reading something that has been vandalized I fix it. That said I think I have warned people maybe twice.... Again, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sault Ste. Marians

Just thank God they didn't say Saulters... Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! You know, I had to read that like twice before I got the joke, sad but true.... You're a good man Bearcat. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the assist on my homepage. I'd dislike to take this fellow to AN/I, but it sure seems like it's headed that way.  Ravenswing  12:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Parizeau article

The main word mostly used is sovereignist, not separatist. Separatist is consided as a prejorative word. And writting sovereignist instead of separation is not propaganda like you said, because it IS the most comonly used term to describe those who wants Quebec to become an independant state. Please stop changing the edits that I made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.225.164 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, please consider registering an account. Oh and also please sign your posts. You have made a series of edits changing 'Canadian' to 'Quebec' so it is hard to assume good faith on your part.I will, on the Parizeau article go with the consensus. That said, your other edits give me pause. I also wonder how a rather clear word like separatist can be considered pejorative, it is a rather descriptive term. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dbrodbeck. This anon has been making numerous similiar edits across Quebec related articles since yesterday, with multiple IP addresses. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS- I wonder how many articles will have to be semi-protected; to get that anon ding-o-ling, to leave? GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to kill him with kindness so to speak. However, I think the semi protection approach is the way to go. Well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the concensus in Quebec is the word sovereignist, thats just the way it is. And since Quebecers have been recognized as a nation, even by your parliament, it means that quebec's personalities should be mentioned as such. Saying otherwise just shows that you are racists. English section wikipedia isn't subjected to english canadians vision, especially on articles concerning other cultures and nations.

Dude, if you don't stop disrupting all those Quebec-related articles? They'll be semi-protected (thus you won't be able to edit them). GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you might consider registering an account, and dude, using simple plain language isn't racism, it is called writing, and dude saying there is a consensus is not the same as there being a consensus and dude how do you know that I am not a francophone? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And why don't you stop disrupting all thoses articles with your canadian propaganda. Your edits are not better than mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.162.191 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's break this down, if my edits are no better than yours, why revert mine? Oh and if a person holds a Canadian passport, they are Canadian, for example. That 'dude' is not propaganda, it is a fact. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it's time to start getting those Quebec related articles semi-protected from this anon-vandal. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Updates

Hello Dbrodbeck. I've just requested semi-protection for Jacques Parizeau and Têtes à claques articles. Feel free to makes such requests for any other articles the anon (with he's multiple IP addreses) continues to disrupt. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one do that? I have never requested semi protection before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My requests were denied (this time); but the Page to report to is Wikipedia: Request for page protection. PS- Djsasso, has informed me that a 1-week Range block has been handed to the troublesome fella. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, well I have learned something then... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Wassup54 has gone back to his IP annoying ways (atleast up until May 23) GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have not seen anything since then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Craig Rivet Montreal Rocket Laurentian Mountains Steve Bégin Emile Bouchard Mario Tremblay Niklas Sundström Mikko Koivu Hockey Canada Montreal Crystals Bert Olmstead Jonathan Ferland Elmer Lach Jacques Lemaire Shattuck-Saint Mary's Wolfgang Köhler Joel Bouchard Shawn Horcoff Le Soleil

Cleanup Marcel Hossa Luc Robitaille Doug Wickenheiser Merge Linden Lab List of counties in Maryland World Cup of Hockey Add Sources Jason Ward Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Teemu Selänne Wikify Demographics of Sierra Leone Demographics of Ghana Herb Brooks Expand Yann Danis Wilf Paiement USA Hockey

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology talkpage

Hi! I left a brief response to one of your comments in the "Contoversies" section of the EP talk page. Since the comment is kind of buried in the middle of the section, I thought I'd point it out. [1] EPM (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wassup/Night-sunne

Well, he/she must like getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quebec city

Here is the source: http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/c-33.1/20080515/whole.html

Now please, stop deleting referenced informations, especially since I am not the only one agreeing with this on the discussion page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.163.111 (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I am not the only one that has disputed the national capital claim. There was no consensus. Oh, and really, you ought to get an account. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you have any suggestions that can improve the way it is explained in the capital section, you are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.163.111 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, tx for just adding the "citation needed" quote on quebec federalist ideology instead of just reverting. I gotta go sleep now, but I will work on it in the near future, probably tomorow. I hope we can start to coexist from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.163.111 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jokerrr

Hello Dbrodbeck. Thank you, for reverting Jokerrr's revenge reverts of my edits. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I noticed those edits and well, they were all plain silly, plus I respect your editing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

As you can see from the talk page, this IP is used by many people. While I cannot speak for the the rest of the users, please be aware that not all of the people under this IP are vandals or extremeists.202.12.233.21 (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, that is one of the issues you run into with IPs, no worries.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, we`re a whole group of IPs, so if you any stupid edits, just remember we're not all like that. Maybe it's just the inbuilt Aussie larikinism... 202.12.233.21 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeeping

Glad you thought that was helpful and not overly bold! - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (retired peacekeeper)

Knuckle Puck AfD

Merge with The Mighty Ducks, though part of me, the part of me that is a hockey fan, wishes we could remove the Mighty Ducks from history, but that is another matter... - What?! You mean you don't secretly want to see the Flying V during the next Stanley Cup final? Quack! Quack! Quack!  :) - Addionne (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaahhhhhhh.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysical parallelism

This is a perfectly respectable philosophical (not psychological) theory. There are various versions of it. There are other articles with which this might be merged. Alternatively, the article itself could be expanded. Welcome any thoughts you have about it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Algoma University

The logo that we have on the article right now still says "Algoma University College" on it. I see from the university website that you're still using the same logo with the name updated to "Algoma University", but I can't find an image file that's large enough to copy over to Wikipedia. Do you know where on the website we could find a version of the updated logo that's of comparable size to the existing file? Or, alternatively, if it's not on the website would you be able to get an appropriately sized file from the university administration or the PR office? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have never uploaded an image before though, but I think I have a copy of the 'new' logo here somewhere... yeah just found it, what are the specs? If not this one then I can get one Monday. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No particular specs as long as it's reasonably comparable in size and quality to the existing image... Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a JPG (as you can see below) but the colours seem all messed up, any idea what the hell I did wrong? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The image has already been deleted, so I can't see it. If you'd like, though, you can send me a message through my "e-mail this user" link — when I reply, send me a copy of the file and I'll take a look and see if I can get it sorted out. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AULogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AULogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This image is mangled anyway; it does not display in Mozilla-family browsers under MacOS X. This is usually an indication that it has been saved with the wrong filename extension (e.g. is really a PNG with a JPG extension, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Albinism photos

Re: your note at Talk:Albinism#Who is affected?: If the pic(s) would be of encyclopedic quality, it would probably be useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can dig up.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Trailer Park Boys

Thank you for updating my tweak on the Trailer Park Boys trivia section. When i saw that someone had noted that Code Monkeys was referencing TPB; i felt the need to update it with clarification between Cali and NS. It was a better idea just to remove that altogether. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.1.248 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi User:Dbrodbeck,
I'm working on an article I added Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
It is not fully finished and I'm wondering if you could help me on it.
I know that you are very informed about disabilities.
Son-Rise is an early intervention program that was created by two parents to reach their son who was diagnosed with severe autism and mental retardation.
Their son eventually recovered, and is no longer on the spectrum. The father wrote a book about it that developed into an NBC docudrama television movie in 1979.
Do you have experience in editing film articles on Wiki?
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

American realm

Heh, maybe, but only by virtue of America, right? I don't think even he understands what he's going on about, I'm just going to leave that discussion alone now. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on diacritics

You are welcome to join the discussion on diacritics here.

Cheers LarRan (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Vandalism, yes. Though it looks like User:Kelapstick beat you to it already. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So I see. Thanks so much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture section of the Brazen Bull article

Hi Dave. I've seen that you have removed the popular culture section of the Brazen bull article. I've reverted your edit. I'm not being rude to you, I just want to let you know some people love those sections! Hahahaha, take look at the following links:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture
• Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles

Thank you for fighting vandalism!

I also want to thank you for fighting vandalism. I've looked at your contributes and are impressed. Wikipedia needs more people who are willing to fight vandalism. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Québec

The charter does not say City of Québec? How can you say something so incorrect? It stated that the city will be known as "Ville de Québec", which in real English is City of Québec. You cannot keep making false claims. You can not rely on Lavoie or MathieuGP, as they are French speaking individuals who do not have a good grasp on the English language. They might know Québec English, with terms like Dep and Stage, but it is not standard Canadian or International English.--76.226.62.84 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The charter says "Ville " not "City of" Your translation is WP:OR it seems to me. I rely on editors regardless of their ethnic background or politics. I judge them solely based on their edits. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming.

So, what you assume I'm North American without even knowing me? I reverted because everyone calls it The Zombie Swamp, not Marshes Of Death or some crap. I'm doing German at school, I know what Verruckt means, and I also know the way crazy/mad were being used. I reverted because of the stupid marshes of death thing. I don't care how many languages he speaks, if its a professional translation or if thats what it means, everyone knows it as Zombie Swamp, and it wil stay that way, like everyone knows COD:WAW as COD5. So, don't assume my nationality without knowing me yeah? I'm Australian, now living in England. --Flashflash; 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not assume your nationality actually, more your continent..... If you took offense to that I am sorry, that was not my intent. That said, using two words seems better than one, to make it clearer to more readers. A direct translation of the Japanese seems the best approach. I have never called COD WAW COD 5, well I probably did when it came out, so never might be a tad strong. The game is called Call of Duty, World at War. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

That's nice, guess he still doesn't understand my explanation. Anyway, I came here to say I've never seen "wholeheartedly". I just wanted to thank you for expanding my English vocabulary. :) Bye Mallerd (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Depp

You know, it occurred to me, but it was so late - and I was so angry - that I just fired off my post, reverted the page and went to bed. I'll take a look. I looked at the registered name talk page and contribution history and decided this was a problem person already. Everything was called vandalism and there were instances of overt vandalism from him. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

About Quebec City

Hey, I'm not often on English-language Wikipedia these days, so I just wanted to warn you that the vandal IP of Quebec City is now registered as User:UnQuébécois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), so you should watch him. He confirmed this fact by requesting the unprotection of the article here. Have a nice day, Jimmy Lavoie^talk 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from user page to user talk page, from user Mardiste

Thanks so much for your helpful and constructive comments on my user page, Dave. And you're right, even though only two users (including myself) are ready to make a public statement of concern regarding your posts on the Michael Ignatieff talk page, I do apparently owe you a clarification. I promise that over the next few days I will repost all of my past comments on that talk page regarding your activity there (which I had previously removed out of courtesy towards you), along with more specific information about the nature of my complaint. Thanks again for your input, Dave. I'm looking forward to speaking with you again soon. Best wishes. Mardiste (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This complaint, umm, you mean like some sort of formal thing? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, when you said you've been policing a lot of pages to make sure that nobody uses a Wikipedia talk page as a public forum, you weren't kidding! I've been reading all your contributions. That's actually pretty impressive. Or something? Seriously, wow. Mardiste (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also make contributions like discussion on talk pages, I have created two articles, I do general typo fixes, and of course, I try to be constructive. I watch about a hundred pages, mostly in my areas of expertise or interest, which are listed on my user page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to the talk page for Michael Ignatieff about the couple of 'not a forum' posts/edits I made. I have done this on a number of pages, if memoery serves, such as Modern Warfare 2 Sidney Crosby and autism among others. I assure you I have no agenda at all, other than making this a good encyclopedia. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I hope there is no misunderstanding. I moved your edit from my user page to my talk page. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs)

Talk:Call_of_Duty:_World_at_War#Nazi_zombies_vs_DLC

What do you think? Don't really need to know anything special about this subject to judge, I think. Mallerd (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Asiantractor

Thanks. This is covered by WP:TPO - "Never edit someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." William Avery (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pour me another...

I'll have to look you up for a martini sometime. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Two shots Bombay Sapphire, and then shake with ice, close your eyes and whisper 'vermouth' while turning your head away from the shaker. Garnish with a twist of lemon, never an olive. Drop by the pub at Algoma University some time, the bartender will know where to find me.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha next time I am on my way to Thunder Bay I will have to remember that lol. -DJSasso (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Mad Men

Are we ready to go for a 3RR vio for our Korean anon IP who keeps forcing the minor character? He's got seven edits/reverts in just over 24 hours. Drmargi (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell yeah. How do we do that? Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd help out, as Drmargi's talk page appeared on my watchlist with the most awesome section title ever.

Go here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi-level_templates, where you'll find a list of various warning templates. Generally, you should start with a 1, then work your way up the number scale. However, offensive edits (such as racism or anti-gay slander, plus sexual innuendo) generally warrant a "4im" warning--which is the penultimate a non-admin can do.

Here's an example of how you should post the warning on their talk page:

==November 2009==
#{{subst:uw-3rr|Mad Men}}~~~~

As you can see, start a section with the current month/year, if it's not already. Then, copy + paste whichever template is most appropriate (in this case, the single-level "3RR" on the second grid). Use the horizontal line break "|", and list the article in question to the right of it. Then, naturally, sign your name with the four tildes (~). The warning is a default, and will appear automatically with that code. Such fun, right? Jolly good!

You can add a second | line after the article and add additional commentary, but usually the template does the work just fine on its own.

Hope this is helpful =). Have fun pwning unruly IPs, haha. I know I do.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have for sure given warnings before. Now, if the IP does not stop, what is next? Thanks for the post. Man my talk page has not had this much traffic in ages.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

After being around for this long, that makes sense. But I thought you would've known what that meant as well =P. But I guess after that...a blatant vandalism warning. And following that, reporting him here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Make sure to stipulate that they're a repeat offender, with long-term patterns. I've found that if you don't mention that, the block time is often not appropriate to the Wikicrimes.

And glad to give your page some much needed action. I'm sure you're getting more visitors than Paula Abdul's nose.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I put warnings on the Mad Men and Conrad Hilton pages, and have started the 3RR, but will hold it until we give him/her a chance to discuss. My buddy Cinemaniac is pretty knowledgeable about these things. We need to make clear to this person that the behavior must stop and give him/her a chance to discuss. Putting it on the article's talk pages makes sure we've done our due dilligence. I reverted on Mad Men but can't on Conrad Hilton or I'll go over 3RR myself, and don't want to do that. Drmargi (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the addition of two other minor, non-notable characters would seem to suggest he means to ratchet up the effort,so I've filed the report on the Admin Notice board for edit warring, here [2]. I just went after Mad Men since that's the biggest problem and the most active article; if we get a favorable outcome, we can fix any others of concern later or allow more vested editors to do so. Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And we got a page protection! That should do the job at least temporarily. Hopefully, he'll get bored. Drmargi (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We were lucky - we got a particularly thoughtful Admin. Drmargi (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The block is off, and guess who's back in town? The garbage has been restored to Mad Men, the overlinking is back on internal link, and my guess is next stop: Conrad Hilton to add all the fancruft there. Drmargi (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Connie's back!...Why? It's so fucking random. Yes, let's shove a mid-season 3 client in with the more notable employees who've been working there during all three seasons. Let me clarify...who actually WORK at Sterling Cooper. Brilliant minds at task.

I'm definitely in on this mêlée now. The entire article is rather sloppy, actually, and sections are inconsistent with one another. I'm feeling drowsy, so I might not be able to sustain myself and finish tidying it up, but I will try and do what I can. As this is one of my favorite shows, not to mention the critical juggernaut and all, this article deserves the utmost attention.

What are your opinions on sectioning characters? I believe only the main characters should have individual "==="/"====" headers. But for some reason, all of Sterling Cooper is lumped together, while a bunch of random family and friends are sectioned-off. Madness, no?

Just would like to add: I do think that some clients are notable, including Hilton. John Cullum played one of the Lucky Strike men, if I'm not mistaken (Lee Garner, Sr.), so he's notable, as is his son (Darren Pettie) for groping Sal. They can be grouped into one simple, measly paragraph--Lucky Strike. But they belong in a clients subsection, not the Sterling Cooper section. Well, write me back and whatnot. I'm off to load my skinny ass with cake.

P.S. Best talk page ever. It's the new AIM chat.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can to host a pleasant back and forth on my talk page... Yeah I think they ought to be sectioned like mentioned above. Glad to have you on board Cinemaniac86 (and I hate Dane Cook more than you). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just try to fine-tune that article. It's an absolute mess, it's got that nonsensical section about parodies or whatever it is, and the cast list is so out of kilter with Season Three's cast arrangement. But the true believers just love it! Cine, you and I will go at it about the and/with business later -- that's a credits affectation that doesn't belong in the info box but I didn't see what prompted the edit because I'm a couple episodes behind. I"ll weigh in on the rest once I finish up, hopefully today.

As for Mr. 68, etc. and his malarkey, that's just vandalism disguised as edits. Who knows why a college kid in Korea is doing what he does, but it's beyond random. Abedecare was all over it in a matter of minutes after I posted a comment on her (I get a female vibe) page. 68 is blocked for a couple-three days, and the pages have longer protection periods. Hopefully, that's enough to do the job! Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Small World

I intend to pursue psychology at Algoma U after I finish my last two years of high school. I think my older brother, a student at Algoma U (not in psych, though), Daniel St. Jules, may have added you on Xbox. MichaelExe (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

that is awesome! Weird that we are editing the same article eh? Oh and that comment on the IP's page about the Autism questionnaire, you have to realize that it is not a diagnostic tool, it is a bunch of characteristics, and Baron Cohen says that. A buddy of mine, former student who studies AS and has it BTW, says it is quite respected. The idea that you got different scores is not that big a deal. It turns out that most tests are like that, note your scores were all similar. I score around oh 30 or so and I don't have it, I have characteristics of the disorder though. I have a son with autism though. Very glad you want to go to Algoma. If you are interested in psych you could check out my online lectures at http://people.auc.ca/brodbeck/blog Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the test shouldn't give equal weight to "Definitely agree" and "Agree slightly" as well as "Definitely disagree" and "Disagree slightly" and across all of the answers.

And thank you for the link; I'll check it out tonight. =P MichaelExe (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much the way tests like that work, and if validated properly they work well. You'll find out in third year when you take psychometrics.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful with your reverts

Hi, in our discussion on aspartame, you reverted a valid edit I made which had nothing to do with our discussion? Please be careful when making changes.Fxsstm (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh hell, sorry about that! Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It appears we are reaching a consensus on removing that sentence. Could you remove the offending sentence considering your revert was accidental?Fxsstm (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works. First of all, the discussion and consensus happens on the talk page, not here, and second of all, this is canvassing. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame

You've defended the reference discussed here, would you care to weigh in on its inclusion? (This is going to other users similarly involved as well). --King Öomie 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't see your point on Rollerball revision

Not exactly sure what you are specifically you are referencing with (please see WP:EL), nor what the 'violation' may have been. Jape77 (talk)

It is tangential at best to the topic. Plus, it is PR for a game. (A cool game BTW, which looks great). Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement, but my own interest aside, why then is another game permitted to stay on the ext. links list? And if my game were a simulation of the fictional sport, would that make it any more tangential? Just trying to be consistent here. Jape77 (talk)

Did not notice it, it should go too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could just keep both :) Jape77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Opinion requested

I've started a new thread at WP:ANI, about the so called '172 Vandal', who has a long history of vandalizing Canadian political articles/other random pages. Since you have dealt with this person before, I'd greatly appreciate an opinion on how to deal with the said user, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_IP_Addresses, to prevent further abuse/attacks. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question!

Bouchecl and I share the same server to save money, but we live in separate homes. The name changes were not directed at you, so why get involve. Anyways I appreciate your candor.--142.169.118.147 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah well I asked on the page as I just started watching it. I watch Bearcast's talk page, as I really respect his edits, and I saw your post there, click lead to another click and there I was. I have a lot of interest in things Canadian in general. By the way, I quite like Simple Plan, any band that makes a song for the Habs when they score is cool in my books :-) Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I like you! Maybe that we can be friends! All the best--142.169.118.147 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you. I also speak passable French, and my wife is a francophone from Quebec City. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

French Canadians

Thanks for the support. This really is getting kind of silly. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

you are doing a disservice to silly people by calling this silly..... No problem, you are one of the most evenhanded people on here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you delete Mylene Farmer?She is one of the most well-known French Canadian.Sentinel R (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No argument about her fame. However, a change like that should go through talk first. (You should check it out, you will see there was quite the discussion there). Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For me it not essentially. What for then Selin Dion in the list?Sentinel R (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for Celine Dion a bunch of editors agreed on her inclusion. As i shows on the talk page it took a long while to reach consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok,but why you don't wish to include Mylene Farmer in the list ?You consider that it is not worthy?Sentinel R (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I have no opinion about including her or not. But, as it took a long time to get consensus about whom to include I think we need to be sure there is consensus to add anyone.Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: A question

Absolutely you may remove personal attacks. Just reference "rm personal attacks", "WP:NPA", or the like in your edit summary. I've gone ahead and taken the liberty of removing them myself, while I was looking at the page. (I probably should have taken them out earlier.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I like to be careful, I have made a lot of edits, well a lot for me, and I have been on here for quite a while, but, I figure better safe than sorry. I appreciate the work people like you and Bearcat (and many others) do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia and Contorversy

Hi I can see exactly where you are coming from, the real problem having in place the stepping stones from the science and research of the 1970s and 1980s currently used to define and describe dyslexia, especially by those in English speaking countries where most of the early research was done, to the present day international research using present day technology and research understanding. Dyslexia is a man made problem, Elliot calls it a social construct, dyslexia is about having problems with a man made communication system the visual notation of speech. The structure or orthography of each writing system is very different, and there are also orthographical differences between individual languages within each writing system. Which means that there are different cognitive skill sets required to process information from the different orthographies. So the cognitive issues which can cause the dyslexic symptom are language based. This idea is waht is causing the controversy because it questions the validity of the concepts used to describe, define, and remediate dyslexia outside the realms present day dyslexia research. Dyslexia research has advanced dramatically in the last decade, but unfortunately this research has not been followed by everyone else in the world of dyslexia. I have dyslexia myself and sometimes have problems find the words i need to express what i want to say, so hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say. dolfrog (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The issue here is twofold. Saying something is a social construct is not a scientific argument, and I think we have to follow WP:MEDRS here. As well, if it has not been followed, is it indeed a controversy? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Social construct" definition of dyslexia is prof Elliots contention, which is the intermediate step from saying that dyslexia is an independent neurological condition, which was the research position in the 1970s and 1980s, to the present day dyslexia research which says that dyslexia has many cognitive subtypes, or underlying neurological causes. Prof. Elliot is reporting that he sees many different recognised disabilities which cause the dyslexic symptom or cognitive subtypes of dyslexia. And His paper has been used in the UK to question the existing definitions of dyslexia as thye exist in the UK, while looking for research which came from say Germany at about the same time or a year later in 2008.

I have real problems with Wikipedia structures (different to my thinking, learning, style), so if they have a guideline to follow then you would better placed to interpret its meaning than me, and how it would apply to this content. dolfrog (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others say then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:142.227.116.129

ICANN disagrees with you. See [3]. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Blake Edmunds (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I Never

How dare you sockpuppet? In the 87 years I have been alive, I have never seen such poor behavior. You and that Blake Edmunds man should be ashamed of yourselves, being socks of poor old Bischof-Ralph. Doris Welches (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

blocked accounts are funny... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take any of this too seriously. Pretty sure Blake Edwards is also a sock of him and will be blocking him as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DJ, I am actually wearing it as a badge of honour of sorts... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the situation from his comment on the AIV vandals board...I was like whoa thats a vandal...then I looked at the diff and saw your name and was like well that doesn't seem right. Investigated the situation and its pretty clear they were being disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This edit by me is not vandalism. It is a false statement from myself. Just because a user gives a false statement, doesn't mean a vandal message should be given to that user (like vandal1 or vandal2, for example, and so on). Remember this: Only use the warning templates for vandalism when you see that it is apparent vandalism. Instead, please write a manual message, explaining why you reverted it.

I later verified what I wrote and it turns out that Round 1 = 30 players appeared to be true, while the rest appeared to be a piece of false crap, so I am however glad to thank you for reverting my edit. However, I have now removed that template warning message you gave me. Thanks in advance. /81.232.86.231 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying there are 15 teams in a 30 team league, and doing so deliberately looked like vandalism to me. I take your word of course, but from where I was sitting well, I hope you can see my point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry. Two conferences. I understand your point. /81.232.86.231 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

I suggest you read it. It talks about sourcing, which is fine. You want a "rationale" for discussing side effects of a drug on the drug's controversy page? You must be joking. Please self-revert. TickleMeister (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not joking. I would like to see consensus here, and there is clearly not consensus. You can provide that on the talk page. You have not, despite being asked to. Please do not take this personally, as it is not meant that way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in psychology (I have a qualification in that field too), you may like to peruse this page and consider all the links and associations behind aspartame, and the psychology of marketing. The more I dig into this, the more interesting it gets. TickleMeister (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: August 2010

WTF? People usually get four warnings. Why are you skipping ahead? --174.95.202.172 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that was so clearly vandalism. Plus, the only edit from that IP was vandalism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of universities in Canada. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

reverting an edit twice by an IP user trying to make a WP:POINT that has been blocked does not seem like an edit war to me. I have also commented on the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did warn him too but I wanted ensure I was fairly warning both parties. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, figured as much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird eh

Thanks. I came across the Aspartame pages through a noticeboard posting and had not been aware of the "controversy" before. Ironically I only buy organic, natural and local food. TFD (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

University Canada West

A group of people who work for this diploma mill and who are active in wikipedia are clearly advertising for this clown college on the wiki page and have locked it. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.196.36 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens

There are a few of us watching the article... as you are already well past 3RR, I'd recommend leaving further reverts to other editors. We got it covered.  :) Resolute 20:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that alright in this situation? If not, I've definitely went over the 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I stopped at three, I thought it was two. As far as the bigger picture goes, is GoodDay not correct though? Either way, sorry. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been invoked. Things should be quiet for a week. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

aspartame controversy article history section

What was wrong with my link in the mentioned artcile that you removed it. How should it have been worded? Arydberg (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well pretty much anything on that page, I would bring to talk first. After that 'for more history see' is a bit of a sentence fragment, finally, you signed your entry, and it was not a talk page. Take it to talk, see what others think, it might be useful to add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Dbrodbeck. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

The User WLU has posted this (it is nothing but a negitive rant against the bible what does any of this have to do with kent hovind?):

"Also, I am quite prejudiced against Mr. Hovind. In addition to being a convicted felon, he actively lies to people. You are being mislead by him - and if you don't believe me, try looking on Talk.origins, they have a whole list of his claims and why every single one of them is a deception [5]. That's probably the most accessible mountain you could start climbing, but their index to creationist claims is also a really good one. His arguments are even considered discredited by other creationists, that's how bad they are. You very, very much can say his arguments are not scientific - for one thing, he does not research. For another, he starts with an assumption - that the Bible is literally true. Specifically the English Bible, specifically the version codified in probably the King James Version, specifically the Genesis account. This ignores the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, which were translated into Greek, which were translated into 17th century English, ignoring other versions of the English Bible, and selectively choosing which texts were considered orthodox. This also ignores the Greek New Testament - since it was first written down from oral traditions in Greek, not English. Also, since there were multiple versions both when the "original" Bible (old and new testament) was put together around the 3rd century AD, as well as the multiple versions found when the "first" (read, Jewish) Bible, the Old Testament, was put together into an orthodox version between 200 BC and 200 AD - and ignoring transcription errors, scribal column notes integrated as text, etc. You should look into the history of your bible. First off, there is not a single "bible" - the number of books varies according to which sect and doctrine the bible descends from. Second, the scribes who copied the many different books made frequent errors, inserted their own commentaries, corrected "unorthodox" versions, added their own stories, and generally ensured that we wouldn't have a single "bible" to work with. So, in addition to being very selective about which "bible" he is using, he's assuming it is 100% true and works backwards from there, ignoring information that contradicts his assumptions, and selectively citing information that does. Science is about selecting the best theory that explains the most observations, and all theories are subject to revision. Hovind's theory, that the Bible is 100% true in all details (specifically the ones he knows about and wants to be true), can never be disproven - it doesn't matter what he finds, he will never change his theory. So no, Hovind is not a scientist, and is not doing anything scientific. The only interesting thing he is doing is trying to co-opt the authority science carries in modern society to justify a religious set of beliefs. In other words, he's not sufficiently confident in the Bible alone as the word of God - he has to bring in a totally separate discipline to "justify" the Bible. That's morally weak, deceptive and philosophically incoherent. You can't take an evidence-based discipline like science and use it on a faith-based set of beliefs like religion. They don't work. The only reason he's doing so is because he's unable to justify his own faith to other people using just his own faith. Weak."

He was showing the IP that he was responding to the problems in his (the IP's) argument. Please do not delete talk page posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE???? What has discussing the origins of the kings james bible got any to do with Kent Hovind? Why is this users single angry opinion aloud to stay up? 30 lines there of the users WLU personal negetive opinions and you say nothing to him?. Why is it aloud up? You are a biased moderator. I am taking this further. Why are negetive personal opinions aloud up which have nothing to do with the article? Article discussion pages are not for rants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a 'moderator' (or an admin). Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole discussion page on Ken Hovind is biased. I spent about 40 minutes typing up a section earlier, where i explained about hovinds views are not truely explained in the article and within 10 minutes somebody deleted everything i wrote (my post was about the article it was not a rant or off topic) why do you do nothing about that?? All my stuff was deleted, who deleted it? I bet they got no warning. I am not religious or a creationist i write from a neutral perspective. So the user WLU is aloud to post rants attacking the bible and calling Kent Hovind "morally weak" (both these things are opinions and nothing to do with the Kent Hovind article) and his posts are aloud up? Something is wrong here. On a side note, you only need to head over the the user WLU user page to see his interests are discussing "types of rape" and "sexual abuse" very normal isnt it? As a professor of psychology that is normal to you is it? The guy is clearly a complete nutcase, he spends his time looking at that sort of thing and spending his other time attacking creationists and all of his biased rants and comments are left up? Im not getting involved with this anymore. I give up i am not contributing to wikipedia discussion pages anymore it is not a safe place it is biased. People like myself should not get banned for deleting abusive rants that have nothing to do with the article, the moderators need to be doing that i will not try to do your job anymore. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

People can edit whatever they want, perhaps WLU has expertise in the area. Do not attack other editors please. You might want to read WP:CIVIL. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted another editor's post from a talk page ([4]), which really isn't cool unless it obviously violates policy. See WP:TPO: "you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." If you think another user needs to be warned for deleting comments or being uncivil, feel free to warn them yourself or discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Complaining about deletion of your material while you delete someone else's point of view isn't particularly useful. Zachlipton (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad I looked at that diff, I was afraid you meant me... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." requires that all science and or scientists agree with evolution, which is not true. Saying “Hovind's views are disputed by a majority of the scientific community.” is true, and offends no one. I do not agree with Hovind at all, but I was wondering, if you truly wanted to rid wikipedia of bias, why revert my edit? Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of the article. The only 'scientists' that agree with Hovind are, umm, well name one? One that is not out on the fringe. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SORRY. I'm new to wiki. I concede the point. Science (including Creation Science)does reject most of his research. As for Scientists who reject evolution…  :) …here’s an incomplete list… http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ (Definitions of fringe differ GREATLY.) Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I was referring to the policy WP:FRINGE. Yeah, take this to the talk page of the article, you can get an idea what other editors think there as well. And, welcome to wikipedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's compromise about Dynamic Tagging Theory

This is Ereep, who wrote the article on the Dynamic Tagging Theory. I understand your concern about it, and I may have gone too far in inserting references to it in other articles. Why don't we compromise? I still want the article on wikipedia for people to see, but I don't want to go so against the standards of you or other psychology academics, who deserve respect. What can we do so we're both happy? I am willing to make changes to the article.

Hi Ereep. Thanks for the note. The big thing we need, to make the article stay, is notability. Has the theory been mentioned in secondary sources? That is the key. If you can do that at the page, bring the references to the talk page there and we can try inserting it. The other thing to be concerned about is conflict of interest WP:COI. Thanks for being so cordial about this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this? You can remove references to it in other articles, but let us keep the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.169.234 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Once it was removed from other articles and an attempt to reintroduce the link was made it was reverted in, say, short term memory. That was not by me, so other editors agree. Now, if someone can find stuff that shows the notability of the theory then of course it will stay, assuming others agree. This is, of course, not just my decision, we operate on consensus here. If you think the prod template should not have been added feel free and maybe we can take it to AFD which will attract others to either help find articles or to decide they cannot. Like I said, this is not just up to me, of course. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you declined the Prod. I put it up for AFD, which will now allow discussion, and the case can be presented to others. Good luck. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad to help! November Hotel Romeo Hotel Sierra Two Zero One Zero ✈ 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page violations

Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, already visited. I will keep an eye. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Online

Since it's tagged as non-free but not actually in use, the best thing to do would probably be to list it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion to allow for discussion of whether we actually need it or not. But strictly speaking, the only rule is that we can't use non-free images where a free alternative exists or could be created (such as for a living person); there's no blanket prohibition on non-free images in cases, such as television or video game screenshots, movie posters, CD covers, etc., where no free image could ever actually be substituted that would convey the same information. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. I can always count on you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with source

Since you offered, I was wondering if you could please help me with locating a source: book review of George Meinig's Root Canal Cover-up Exposed, published in Annals of dentistry, Volumes 53-54 (1994), page 42. My institution doesn't have a subscription. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will see if we have it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, nor do we. What the hell use am I... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh wells, thanks for looking. I'll find it somewhere. Yobol (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, seems they were more attracted to here, though. :P Yobol (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias

If you look on the Kent Hovind page, i did a section a couple of months ago, my section on the talk page was deleted 6 times and finally censored and put into a soapbox, read over what i put, what i wrote was relating to Kent Hovind and the article.

Another user has posted his own personal opinion in a section called "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" what he has posted in this section is his own opinions and nothing to do with Kent Hovind or the article.

So my section is put into a soapbox, yet this other guys section is not when what he wrote has nothing to do with the article?

This bias needs to stop. It seems anyone who leave abusive comments against Kent Hovind is left up, but anyone who trys to actually improve the article has their comments deleted. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

THere was discussion at the time as to whether Mr. Hovind's views are unscientific, the post on the talk page was evidence of that, and it had been there for 3 weeks without incident. Do not remove others' comments, as I have pointed out to you in the past. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You have already admitted you are not a mod or an admin, you are not authority on wikipedia and you have no powers, so i couldn't really care less about what you say, you are also wrong about this whole issue, i am not a vandal anyone can see that and i am not disrupting anything, i am not in the wrong on this issue, as explained my posts are deleted on the Kent Hovind talk page (my posts are actually about the article), but as soon as someone else posts offensive material which has nothing to do with the article and i delete it (i get a warning from you and their offensive material which has nothing to do with the article and is nothing more than personal opinion is left up on the talk page), you seem to be the only person dishing out warnings for no reason, the warning you sent me was completely silly and unneeded, just for the record i will not be going back to the kent hovind talk page, it's biased i have no intention of trying to help that article anymore. I do not want to talk to you, so please do not leave me anymore messages, we can happily close this issue. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can give out warnings. I have never claimed to be an admin. You will see, above, that another user agreed with me and my interpretation of policy. It might be best if you stayed away from that page, and read up a bit on policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you violate policy again, I will warn you again. As you are an IP user it is difficult to know if I am warning the same user anyway, though I suspect I am. You might consider registering an account. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

For the continued reverting of vandalism on my talk page. Although, to be fair, the IP probably didn't know I'm more of Pepsi person... Yobol (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dude, seriously, don't send me messages accusing me of vandalism for editing a post I MADE. I have fixed it yet again. Next time I have to fix it I will complain to whomever runs the site MrNWA4Life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.104.47.165 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to complain all you want. You are not supposed to edit others' talk page comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

From one "douchebag" to another, thanks for getting in on that. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

-JTF2-

Thanks, I just thought it deserved to be included on this wiki-page since it really is quite the accomplishment for them.

QOdrowski

Please explain

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) Seems to predict your actions a little too confidently. He made these remarks, implying an edit revert happened ([5]) before it happens, and a few minutes afterward, you make the revert ([6]). You also made the same capitalization errors as him, using a lowercase l in "WP:WEASEl". You should give an explanation. Thank you. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

control c and control v. I agreed and still do, completely with OM's edit summary. If your implication is that we are somehow socks of each other I encourage you to open up an SPI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, my point is it seems a little odd. I always assume good faith, just want an explanation of how he talked as if you have done something before you did it. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you can forget about it. I would care less even if you are a sock puppet. I'd rather continue discussing the disagreement we have. Getting you banned wouldn't make me the correct person. You wouldn't be editing Wikipedia or anything unless you think you're correct, and I don't want nobody to leave still thinking they're correct. Last thing I want is people to despise me. If there is disagreement, I believe I should discuss, instead of looking for whats wrong with the opposition to get them banned. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You make me laugh

Because you're pathetic. Lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.22.236 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

START SLEUTHING!!! WHICH MEMBER OF YOUR DRAMA WORLD AM I?! LOLOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.22.236 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

umm ok..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotiabank Saddledome

Can you please explain your removal of information from the Scotiabank Saddledome article ? That info has been in the article for 6+ months, it was recently removed by a problem user, I reverted the removal. I'm not suggesting you were helping this problem user avoid a 3RR infraction, but if that is in fact the case, such behaviour could get you banned. Now when you suggest to use the talk page and removed information from the article, please actually use the talk page as you suggest ! UrbanNerd (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolute is a 'problem user' good one.... It seems irrelevant, as I noted in my edit summary. Go ahead and try to get me banned, good luck with all that then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No need for the attitude buster. I was simply asking you to use the talk page like you suggested after removing info from an article. And yes Resolute is a problem user, and by helping a problem user avoid 3RR I could in fact try and have you blocked and/or banned. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please report my for my actions, whatever they may be, I welcome it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry its his typical tactic, if you look through his edit history he does this to anyone who disagrees with him on any subject. The irony is he often is an edit warrior himself and almost never follows BRD. Kind of amusing that he tries so hard to bully people on here which only makes him look bad. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know, I sort of hope for a 'report' and the subsequent WP:BOOMERANG Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Paleoscience

As you deleted the section Paleoscience and worldview of the scientists in the Paleoscience, I'd like to ask you whether you hold a view that it is absolutely impossible that the worldview of scientist might play a dominant role in the process of selection of explanatory assumptions as well as when interpreting the current findings and observed effects of the past phenomena. I'm strongly convinced it is not so difficult to demonstrate that it is truth.--Stephfo (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was not referenced. My own views are not really that important actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But you deleted it even if it was referenced by academical researcher dealing with paleomagnetism, please note WP states:

However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.

Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Please note the content of article is in my strong opinion based on common sense and it is demonstrably not a subject of any research area of any natural phenomenon - just stating facts easily to be proved by examples and related to worldview of scientists. --Stephfo (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please give your rationales why logically coherent statements backed by academic source is not acceptable for you. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be on the article talk page. The source you provided is a conference proceeding, which is not a good enough source. Please find a peer reviewed academic source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But such requirement is nonsense - the content is general comment, not subject of research -which researcher will discuss in his research subject of his worldview? I believe WP advises in such cases applying common sense: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." - the context is not disputable research results but just statement of truth - worldview of scientist affects the way he tends to interpret the research data dealing with past events - evolutionist (such as Schweitzer M.H.) will always try to explain that protein reaction of Dino bone will lead to some new discovery of protein long-life phenomenon while young-earth creationist (such as J.Sarfati) will interpret such result in his belief system of 6000~1000 years by arguing protein should not last million of years.--Stephfo (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not nonsense it is policy, you really ought to do some reading, stop posting here if you want to talk about the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the policy is obviously: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." - it would not make sense erasing help pages of Wikipedia by arguing that they are not per-reviewed - that would be pretty narrow-minded. Likewise, to expect someone will include worldview information in his research paper.--Stephfo (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of 'take this to the talk page of the article' do you not understand? If the idea was notable, it would be somewhere other than a third rate conference. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing images

Please explain why you have removed the properly sourced image from "objections to evolution" in the section on thermodynamics, do you claim that there is any WP rule that wikipedia images related to given topic are banned? Pls. read: Help:Images "Wikipedia uses a variety of multimedia files to enhance content and explain concepts that are difficult to convey via text alone." or Wikipedia:Please clarify"Add a diagram or photo: Complex text might be illustrated by a diagram."--Stephfo (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Like the previous section please take this to the talk page for the article. This is not what this page is for. I removed it because there is no consensus to add it, get consensus first, you added, it was reverted, now please explain why you want to add it per WP:BRD. Again, TAKE THIS TO THE TALK PAGE OF THE ARTICLE. I do not want you to take that as shouting, I just want to be sure you see it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How I see it, you don't need consensus to add an image if it's everything okay with it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

I am new to editing articles so am not sure if this is the right way to start a dialogue. I have also added some comments on the "discussion" page for Mrs. Piper.

I believe it was you who removed the edits I made to an article on medium Leonora Piper. As I was using a credible source, the book Irreducible Mind, I don't understand why you did so.

Like TV evangelists today, most mediums a century ago were in it for the money. Nevertheless, each case must be addressed on its merits and you seem to have the opinion that any claim to such abilities is by definition unbelievable. The existing article is clearly unfair, mentioning her most credible control only as G.P. and supplying no additional details, instead focusing on her French doctor spirit, and even there listing only facts that imply deceit.

The bias in the article is obvious and typical of people who know what the result has to be, and therefore only permit data that reinforces their foregone conclusion. I intend to keep at this until a balanced article results and appreciate the opportunity to learn how this system works. Apollion888 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First off welcome to wikipedia. The best place to discuss this is on the article talk page. As well, you should familiarize yourself with those policies I posted on the article discussion page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Are the Martin Gardner articles peer reviewed? [Never mind, as an expert in something he does not believe exists, his articles need no review I have learned.] Apollion888 (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You will find that rather than be civil WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith WP:AGF on your part, people will start getting quite pissed off with you quite quickly if you keep up the sarcasm. It has very little use. Read some policies before jumping in any more is my advice, for whatever that may be worth. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the words of encouragement: I'm very much tempted to delete the whole thread.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nyctohylophobia

I removed the prod tag you placed on Nyctohylophobia because it was discussed at AfD and is therefore permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; do not interpret my action as an endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD, taking into account the discussions in the previous AfD (linked from the talk page). Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Your name has been mentioned in conjunction with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel. —Novangelis (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, apparently I am part of the international aspartame conspiracy, along with you... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for so promptly resolving the soapbox issue at the Talk:Fascism page

As I said above, thank you for the prompt action, the talk page was being usurped in an edit war by a fringe anti-Semitic extremist user who was trying to force her/his views upon the Fascism article.

You are too kind. Yeah that was getting ugly. I do find it quite jarring to see such open anti Semitism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I also came here to thank you. It was an ugly thread. My initial thought, after replying to the editor and then wondering if I should have bothered, was to archive the whole thing. But collapsing it was probably the best solution. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, now to two of you. Yeah ugly is almost being mean to ugliness.... Happy New Year to both of you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Condescension

I noticed you were condescending in an edit summary. It's fine to remove and revert stuff, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. Just do what you are doing without the attitude. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue about what you are talking about, have we interacted at all? I cannot find a page that you edit that I do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, I guess you ignored where I kindly asked you to respond on my talk page... :-/ Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rather keep it in one place please. I still have no clue what you are talking about. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I just prefer it that way because it's a courtesy thing. Now the article in question is the Saskatchewan Roughriders. I have that one on my watchlist. Yes, you've told that editor about previous articles they have done this in. If they continue to do this, than go through the proper channels. Don't waste your time being with the attitude in the edit summary. Just stat what you did and move on. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong, I invite you, if you have some problem with an edit summary I made, to open an ANI thread, this is ridiculous. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could provide evidence of me 'being a jerk' that would be helpful Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

fuk u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.180.203 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well put, excellently argued, and perfectly spelled..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

AS note

Just a note-- it's important to issue a 3RR warning to editors who are edit warring. If he had been warned, he'd be blocked now for his fourth revert-- since he wasn't warned, no point in submitting the 3RR report. I logged on too late to realize that no one had warned him-- next time you see someone edit warring, be sure to issue a 3RR warning. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How does one easily do that? I use twinkle, and I can't for the life of me find an option there... Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't twinkle or huggle or any of those things, but the subst template is on my user page if you ever want to grab it from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Here is a useful website instead of removing references. It is called the Internet Archive. It is useful when links in references are dead. So I used it to revert your removal of the SaskMusic.org reference on the Saskatchewan Roughriders article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of archive.org, indeed I use it daily. On the other hand, the user in question has added youtube links, again, and a dead link. I was not about to go searching for it. Especially as it was just added, it was not like it was an old link or anything. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness - possible Prevention section

thanks for your message. I thought I had included a sound source for almost everything (except the thought on how prevention in this generation means prevention in future generations also) - please could you tell me which sources you found unacceptable?

Maybe the last line of my draft text is a discussion on if/whether mental health systems are running prevention programmes, rather than whether mental illness can be prevented- maybe it belongs better in another section e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health.

Thanks again for your work for Wiki.

JCJC777 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Prevention stuff, I think, might be pretty good in the article. It is a matter of sourcing. When something is added often it gets reverted then discussed, especially if it is a big section like you put in. Most editors follow WP:BRD which says, basically, add something, have it reverted, then discuss it. I imagine we can find a way to get some of that stuff in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks again. I will read WP:BRD and am working on improving sources. I have posted on the article Talk page. JCJC777 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

French Canadians

I explained my edits in the edit summary. The chart was debunked last year when it was shown Francophone groups had worked to skew the census reporting. 184.175.5.227 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find the reference that debunks stats can. Present it on the talk page for the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Plan Nord

No, in fact I saw Paul Wells rant, which came a bit earlier :) I'm going to give it a try, but feel free to jump in if you feel like it. Bouchecl (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Algoma University

Before I start reverting, can you make sense of [7] and more or less identical edits to other Canadian university articles by the same editor? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Should have looked at User talk:Victoriaedwards first, I see it isn't just me that is concerned about these edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed that, I really don't know what that is about actually... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And her reaction to 4 editors complaining was to delete that from her talk page and add it to another university. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Autism

Hi do u mind replying to my comment left on the autism talk page [See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#Change_in_epidemiology_of_autism]. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 23:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dbrodbeck. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 02:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Comment

hello Dbrodbeck, why did you undo my edit of the Inertial Propulsion wiki page? People have a right to know that Newton excluded the linear reflection of rotational inertial mass motion. Do you have police powers??? message from Ggutsche1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggutsche1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments go at the bottom. No I have no police powers, but, I like sources, you have to reference things, you can't just say them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar"

I noticed that you've either reverted one of this "Croatian writer"'s edits, or posted a warning on his talk page. Have you noticed anything similar from other IPs in the past? This "person" has been spamming from multiple IPs, and we're not sure of the total number of IPs being used. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Croatian_writer_Giancarlo_Kravar for details. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have, I will check my contribs, then hop over to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Osama bin Laden, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely where the hell did I vandalize anything? Someone REMOVED talk page comments, which I restored. That is not vandalism, you might want to slow down on the template button there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In answer

| This is polemic and not suitable on a talkpage. It may not have fit the definition of vandalism, strictly speaking, but it certainly violates WP:FORUM and WP:POLEMIC. If it's still there, I'll leave it be, and will take more carefully in the future. Thanks

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee I dunno, saying something is not a reliable source, and the mouthpiece of an authoritarian regime (which press tv is) is, to me, saying a source is shitty. And, well, it is. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. You might also want to read WP:DTR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't give last warnings instantly - you have to start with a notice. The only warnings given instantly are 'Only warnings' (4im), however what he did is in no way eligible for 4im (there are strict guidelines for those). Please take care in future, Kosh. Also, WP:AGF. θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 05:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Last Edit

Referring to :-

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi

Well the mercenaries myth was proved to be wrong by Amnesty international, Human rights watch and to date no proof has been given, so even if any of your 'RS' regarded such information they are not meant to be added in the page at all, if they are, then you should also include that they are proved to be lies. Clarificationgiven (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because a reference goes against your POV does not make it any lest reliable. The Atlantic is a rather well regarded publication. BTW, this belongs on the talk page of the article, not here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because you still count some outdated rumor as fact doesn't mean we all should do the same, for example, julian assange was known to be rapist for a while, but once he was acquitted there's no reason to put him in such category again. I haven't made topic on page but here, because you are waging an edit war for something which is obvious fact. Clarificationgiven (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am 'waging an edit war' I encourage you to report me at the 3RR noticeboard. I have said nothing whatsoever about Mr. Assange, I have no idea what you are talking about there. The reference I provided is more recent than the one you have. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha just used assange's clue for describing the situation, neways, we will carry on the discussion on the page.Clarificationgiven (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

this was an ethnic slur

Why you are pouring publicly ethnic slur ? When you do not understand what essence carry sentence, please next time, ask. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For the 400th time, 'Vandalism' is not an ethnic slur, and, learn how to write in English please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Plase don’t be pathetic it is. You can just say not for you, by the way what is your ethnic origin? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your block. My ethnicity is irrelevant, but apparently your behaviour is not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 99.

I do believe that 99. has an agenda behind his advocacy of certain stories. What I've noticed is him using Ron Paul related materials or quotes such as "truth is treason in the empire of lies" even edit advocacy favorable towards Ron Paul. So it's likely the possibility he's trying to skew any article of Mitt Romney in favor of Ron Paul. But that's just my opinion. ViriiK (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have been dealing with him/her for quite a while. Both in human evolution articles and some US politics articles. (S)He is not very good with English, and I think a little confused now and then. I think we have a case of WP:COMPETENCE here to deal with as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who else would be good to go to on this since I am new to Wiki editing. However since you are mentioning 99 I would also like to add that I believe he may be a Sockpuppet for User:Pass a Method. They both have the same poor English skills, they both have been warned numerous times about their disruptive edits. However other than same miss-spelling of words and grammar I do not have any other proof. Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that, and I have had a few interactions with PAM. Hmmmm.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I respect your opinion as you seem to have been doing this and dealing with these users much longer than I have. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are too kind. One of the things is 99. does not just make grammatical errors, he or she makes up words, and puts things in odd orders. If 99. keeps up this way though the next block will be quite a bit longer I would imagine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I brought this IP user to the attention of WP:ANI, resulting in a 3-month ban. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology

My comment wasn't a threat toward you, but reflecting on it I can see how it is easily taken as one. So I am sorry. I was trying to be encouraging toward boldness.--v/r - TP 15:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the heads up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this a WQA issue

87.114.156.18 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Newish Wikipedia user unsure how I could not undo 3 edits, but other person could. 2.I do not know how my reference fails MEDRS. 3. Questions about letter of law (fails MEDRS) overcoming spirit of law - the mission of Wikipedia in making useful information available to worldwide audience.

You ought to go read WP:MEDRS Then, read the top of the WQA page, nobody is treating you uncivilly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WRT "Why is this WQA issue" I read the following on WQA page:

What Wikiquette assistance can do:

   Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility,or
who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
   Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility
   Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem

Bold italic bits are why I wanted to use WQA.

Thanks for your help. 87.114.156.18 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

fails MEDRS and more

1.I quoted a book from 1995 in the further reading section - which was removed. Is this against MEDRS? I could not see from reading the MEDRS guidelines that it is.

2. Could you also explain why I could not undo 3 edits, but the other person could?

3. What can be done when the letter of law (fails MEDRS) overrides the spirit of law (the mission of Wikipedia in making useful information available to worldwide audience). In particular not being able to use older medical articles as references, even if they are still very relevant and have no newer articles available which can replace them, as further research is unnecessary or hasn't been done.

Thanks for your help on this. 87.114.156.18 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS specifically mentions recent secondary sources, for example. That is one way the source failed MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On your second point, nobody is supposed to do more than three reversions in a 24 hr period. On your final point, 40 year old articles are not that likely to be relevant or useful. We have more recent stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reply

1. MEDRS specifically mentions recent secondary sources My reply: - In the book section it says "popular science and medicine books are useful sources, which may be primary, secondary, or tertiary"

- in up-to-date evidence section (note italic bold)

"Use up-to-date evidence

Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published.

Up to date also I read as research papers/fields not books

87.114.156.18 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

2.Three reversions My reply - I know I cannot do 3 reversions, why could the other editor do 3 reversions?

87.114.156.18 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

3.40 year old articles

In some cases they are relevant and useful and as above quoted from MEDRS guidelines These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published.

This statement is verified in a reference in the Wikipedia article on anxiety disorders. This 2007 article quotes the book I added as still being the most useful book on the subject in a series of questionnaires to many different anxiety disorder related organisations. That is a 40 year old book. This article proves that saying "we have more recent stuff" is not always true.

I restate my question- . What can be done when the letter of law (fails MEDRS) overrides the spirit of law (the mission of Wikipedia in making useful information available to worldwide audience). In particular not being able to use older medical articles as references, even if they are still very relevant and have no newer articles available which can replace them, as further research is unnecessary or hasn't been done.

Thanks again for your input

87.114.156.18 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

==What if he is not fully bilingual==

I do not think the edit I made was an opinion the man has a hard time communication in English, I didn't call him a retard i said he has an accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.194.136 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope to hell you don't call anyone a 'retard'. You can't just put your opinion into an article, you need a reference. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of countries by ethnic and cultural diversity level

Hey Dbrodbeck, the article that the list is based is a paper in the Journal of Economic Growth. The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed journal, with one of the highest impact factors in the field of economics. The paper itself, although authored only by Dr. James Fearon, incorporates data from many different authors (please see the Sources section in the paper for a full list of data sources). Also, the paper has been cited over 700 times since its publication in 2003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=james+fearon+ethnic+diversity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44).

I dont think the paper can be considered Dr. Fearon's point of view, since he relied on so many different sources (which he references) and since his paper was peer reviewed. Thanks.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure it is a fine paper. Do we need one article on the results of the study though? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have posted it to AFD so we can get other opinions. I remain unconvinced, but, I also remain convinceable (though I am not sure that is a word).... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Have replied to your posting on AFD, with additional arguments. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New version of the page is up. Do check it out, and let me know if you're satisfied with the additions.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I will check it out tomorrow. Thanks, and thanks for being civil and cool about this and not taking it personally, as it was not meant personally at all. Much appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dbrodbeck, latest version is up, please check it out and respond on the AfD talk page. Thanks ! I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have responded to your latest post on the AfD page. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandal

What's the deal with that anonymous vandal? He is constantly putting a bath party flag on my main user page. EkoGraf (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I truly have no clue.... Page is now protected though, so that should stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

UFP 3RR

I'm on a mobile device all day, and it's a pain -- any chance you can report our UFP 3RR fellow to the noticeboard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW. --EEMIV (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

NM; I've got it. --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Got this just as I was about to file a 3RR, well done. IP is blocked. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw this earlier and meant to make the block earlier but got side tracked. Gave him 31 hours. Hopefully that encourages him to communicate. If it doesn't let me know and we can go from there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DJ, you are too kind. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Brodbeck

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Brodbeck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me..... I have done a few things etc. I, however, did most certainly NOT create this article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i dropped the notice here since I saw that you had edited the article and thought you might be interested.

the speedy has been declined, with the admin suggesting AfD may be the proper venue.

I was not able to find any sources that I could identify significant content about the subject, and am not great at assessing the ACADEMIC notability criteria. Do you have any sources / guidance on establishing Notability or do you care if it goes to AfD? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Academically I guess google scholar is the way to go. I'm on a few editorial boards of journals as well. I have guest hosted on a rather high profile podcast, Futures in Biotech, and I have been quoted a few times in online media. I have been written up a few times about my podcasting of my lectures, including by the APA. I am not sure how notable I am.... Heck, I can't have a problem with it going to AFD if it does, I have been here for 6 years, and have tried to follow policy. Oh, the editing I have done has solely been reverting vandalism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed that the majority of all recent edits to the article were IP instigated vandalism and then the removal of the same. I hadnt however looked at the talk page - someone got a bad grade? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That was always my guess...... Plus, I have had the odd run in with wikipedia editors over the 6 years I have been editing. I tend to edit somewhat controversial topics now and then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor: Warfighter talk page

I just wanted to send out a thank you for your defense against the odd IP editor. It was very much appreciated. Thanks! QValintyne (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are too kind. No problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding Toronto Ultimate to the sports section in the Toronto article

Hello, will these articles, along with my other references, help satisfy the secondary source requirement?

http://www.thestar.com/sports/localsports/article/1292212--american-ultimate-disc-league-gets-toronto-franchise

http://canadiansporttourism.com/news/toronto-will-host-world-flying-disc-federations-world-under-23-ultimate-championships-2013.html

http://tuc.org/

thanks Audra454 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Those look reasonable, wait to see what others on the talk page say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks Audra454 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Halbert Gil

It be his name yo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.198.5 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You might try typing in English next time..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty

Hi,

A while ago you commented on Call of Duty, saying that they should add a section noting the popular criticism of its violent nature. I've just added a note to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty saying that it was played extensively be two people who then committed mass murder. My experience of these things is that this kind of post often gets quickly removed. If this is something you still feel strongly about, I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on the page and mentioning it if you think the section should be kept. I've copied the new section below too.

Thank you!

Where did I say that? I am quite sure I did not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Connection between Call of Duty and Violence

A concern that is repeatedly raised by the press is that the Call of Duty is a very violent game and could lead to violence from players. Two mass murderers have both said they played it extensively. They are:

Adam Lanza Dec 14, 2012, killed twenty children and six adults

"The Connecticut school massacre gunman Adam Lanza spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker".

Anders Behring Breivik July 22, 2011, killed 69 people, mostly teenagers

"Anders Breivik 'trained' for shooting attacks by playing Call of Duty"

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thanks for your work on medical articles! Reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Drodbeck, a VERY good recommendation for you. (from rbok.spare@yahoo.com)

This is your private page, linked to your name, open for public publishing.

Yes, you may and can wipe out all and every single comment, placement, whatever in this page, according to your own liking.

If you do, to prevent reverts, add a section that keeps a tally of whatever is the reason for doing so, so that those that wrote here will feel that they contributed effectively.

Something on the order of:

Tally of comments placed:

• A) 1 Helpfull.
• B) 1 Noted.
• C) 5 Out of context.
• D) 20 Out of guidlines.
• E) 120 Uncivil (my opinion, not yours, I´m sure your emote is that I am)
• F) 511 Shit, that was irritating:

E&F should have the higher numbers.

Hmmm, forget E, just add that to F.

If you have a problem with my editing perhaps you should bring my behaviour to the attention of an administrator, Might I suggest WP:ANI? Honestly, just read the guidelines WP:OR and WP:TALK and move on. I have however been on here for more than five years, you might consider that I know what I am doing and take the advice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Bay area editor at autism articles

Hi Dbrodbeck, regarding the disruptive editor at these articles, I think you should feel confident at this point to simply roll back further edits without comment. There was clear support at the ANI discussion for this. I would link the ANI discussion in the edit summary as you have been doing; I've created a convenience link for it, you can just put per [[WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP]] . I've watchlisted the articles and can offer help as needed. Thank you for your stewardship at those important articles. Zad68 19:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to present my side of this dispute but it is repeatedly removed from this TAlK page.

I think this is not really fair. I think the points I've made are valid. Brodbeck is free to dispute them, but instead of that, only removal. It's very akin to censorship. Kind of ironic someone who seems to want very badly to be an encyclopedia author is mostly a censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck -- I've made an edit complaining about you at a link you gave to someone above WP.ANI

Basically, it says you are not acting in good faith by misrepresenting the rules one primary sources in medical related articles and by not discussing the actual content of the suggested edits, but rather rejecting them based on emotion. If you can't find the discussion I will try to help please let me know here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandy

Just noting that SandyGeorgia hasn't edited since January, so she's probably not going to be able to help this time around. —Soap— 01:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4