User talk:Dbrodbeck/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stanley Cup Finals editing

I am not trying to vandalize articles. I am just trying to include every player on the roster. I have even cited sources to back up my statements that these certain players were on the roster when their team won the Stanley Cup. The link here,[1] is an example of a reliable source that proves my statements. The picture in the link actually says 'Courtesy: Carolina Hurricanes' . 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding things without consensus is a very bad idea. It is being discussed at the hockey project, please take it there before more edits. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What is a consensus? What is wrong with being bold and citing sources to prove facts? It seems that I am easily misunderstood. Are sports news sources with official pictures illegitimate? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That source, for instance, proves nothing at all save for that player was on the team's roster. As it happens, no one disputes that. The statement that requires sourcing -- which you are unable to provide, because none such exists -- is that the player actually played in the Finals, which he didn't. Ravenswing 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it fine to list and cite players like Colby Cohen and David Gove as being on the roster, but not appearing in the Finals; as well as mention that they did not qualify to have their name engraved on the cup, but were included in the celebration on the ice? Even my later revised edits got reverted even though they stated that they did not make an appearance and had citations. I cited sources that stated that they were on the roster, didn't appear, did not havee their name engraved on the cup, but were in the team picture. I don't understand this about the later revised edits that stated that they did not appear being reverted. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are better off taking this to the hockey project page where more people will see it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I already did, and I haven't heard anything. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I need a lot of help when I edit ice hockey articles, I still don't understand everything and make too many repeated mistakes. I do not try to make up my own definitions or vandalize articles. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

love ur article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.225.96 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford sig disappearing act

Sorry. My bad. That appears to have happened inadvertently when I was moving HochMeister's ramblings. Of course, I could be part of the MSM conspiracy to 'disappear' you. :)  Natty10000 | Natter  12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN WHY DID YOU DO THAT YOU ARE CENSORING ME..... You took out the spa tag too, not sure if you want that put back in or not. Sometimes I think we need a template that explains that wikipedia is a bit different than say comments on youtube...Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't any intent to censor anybody or anything. You happened to have posted your comment on the talk page while I was trying to make sense of the mash that was Hochmeister's postings and while I thought I'd gotten everything you posted, evidently a small bit got snipped inadvertently. That's the unfortunate reality of editing a contentious page like Rob Ford's happens to be just now. There was no malice aforethought nor any intent at censoring. My apologies.  Natty10000 | Natter  12:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh damn, my sarcasm did not come through. I was doing an impression of HochMeister.... Sorry! Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Given all the touchiness surrounding that particular Wiki entry, absent a smiley one can never tell. May122013 is a good example of someone on that brief responding seriously in the tongue-in-cheek manner you did. I think some of the inmates are trying to run the asylum. And for good measure, within the day I wager we'll hear from May demanding that the whole crack thing be immediately and permanently excised from the Ford entry.  Natty10000 | Natter  12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be right but I think we have a pretty decent consensus. I am hopeful, but.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Natty personal attacks such as referring to my posts as "ramblings" is wrong. I haven't started an edit war. You folks did and will not prevail. This is a vital piece of information that is now included in the murder investigation of the Somali. Dbrodbeck doing an impression of HochMeister will take years of mastery. Give it up and just be yourself204.237.25.252 (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed on my 'talk' page that you have warned me of a 3 revert rule. It is you folks that are doing the editing, and gaining up on me by each of you doing a deletion to avoid contravention of the 3 revert rule. This is my first time posting on wikipedia, and you folks are being,...well bullies for lack of a better term. You folks not only make threats, and make defaming statements on your talk pages, but you make contributors shy away as some self appointed gate keepers. The casting call is vital to a balanced and impartial reporting of recent issues. If the crack video allegations are to be posted then so are the casting call ads.HochMeister (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

read the 3RR policy and learn how things work around here. We don't do 'fair and balanced' on wikipedia, it just does not work that way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Justin Trudeau". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi Dave, I just wanted to let you know that I left User:Drgao a very detailed message regarding my concerns about his disruptive editing behavior at Talk:Morgellons, see here. To do that I pored over every diff involved, and I hope you don't mind me saying but that article's Talk page could also benefit from seeing your comments there also mellowed out a bit... Take a look through the diffs I left at Drgao's and see if you don't agree. As you know it's one of the touchier articles that's on our Watchlists, nobody's been perfect at that Talk page, avoiding unnecessary poking at the hornet's nest by everyone will help... Zad68 04:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have done my best, but I shall endeavour to do better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one you just reported for trying to include the "actual wording" of the CDC study. It states in the study done by the CDC that the fibers they found consisted of 83% protein. Why do you have a problem with me correcting to include this information? I am not trying to edit war with you. I am new here and got my warning about that so I'm being careful to cite the source that is already used but not fully disclosed as to its content. Read the study and see for yourself. Look on page 9 under the label "Analysis of Fibers or Materials From Non-biopsy Skin Site" , the second sentence states "The materials were largely composed of protein..." then it him and haws around that fact with unscientific conclusions of 'probably' and 'likely' and 'possible' without any scientific evidence of fact to support these conclusions which is why the following peer-reviewed study, "Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease" stated in their conclusion that although the CDC study was useful in finding the protein, that their conclusion does not reflect the body of their work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneye9110 (talk • contribs)

I reported to whom? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rodney is referring to this 3RR noticeboard discussion, that actually Dawn Bard started. Zad68 15:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh right that makes sense now. I left the warning, I guess that caused the confusion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

When you imply that the internet plays a role in spreading a disease you need to support it wit scientific evidence not hearsay from newspapers and popular opinion magazines. I feel my edits were justified.72.253.225.48 (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article, and read the talk page first, this has been discussed. And read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wayne and Trevor Gretzky

If you look at the previous edits, there was already quite a bit of info on Trevor's baseball career; all I did was update it for 2013. Should Trevor have his own article? Probably not, unless he makes the majors someday. RMc (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said,I am not sure it belongs, but, hell, let's take it to Talk:Wayne Gretzky. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Aryanization of Slavs

The article 'Aryanization' does not need to have anything about Slavs even mentioned, the Slavs were regarded as Aryan so how can they "become" something they are already part of? Think logical it's the exact same as fire can't be water. The definition of Aryanization is:

Aryanisation (Arisierung in German) in Nazism, which literally means "to make Aryan", was principally used to refer to the expulsion of the so-called "non-Aryans" from Nazi Germany, Austria, and the territories it controlled.

During the Nazi period Jews gave up their businesses for minimal compensation. At first, this was voluntary; it became mandatory in 1937-8. The compulsory expropriation of Jewish industries, businesses and shops.

often refers to the Nazi policy of taking away businesses and property owned by Jews, and turning it over to "pure" Germans.

The expropriation of Jewish businesses and property by the German authorities as well as similar measures by other Axis nations, including Romania and Slovakia.

Please explain to me how that has anything to do with Slavs?

Also the cited book Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory (p. 167) says this: "ones were judged capable of Germanization and those in the lower ones, including the Slavs, were classed as untermenschen, or 'subhumans'. In reality the Slavs are nothing more than a linguistic group. But the fact that various Slavonic nations - such as the Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs and Serbs - make up the majority of Eastern Europe's population, heralded a revolution in the region's ethnic national patterns. According to the GeneralPlan Ost, which the SS drew up in 1940, the racial reconstruction scheme was designed to stretch as far as the Urals, with millions of undesirables being expelled to Asia and Siberia. But for practical purposes, the key question was how much time would be given for the plan to be implemented?"

How has this got anything to do with Slavs undergoing expulsion to become 'Aryan' when they were always regarded as Aryan and it was nothing to do with Germanisation or anything else... please tell me why 'Aryanization of Slavs' makes 1) any sense 2) needs to stay.

I've shown you clear evidence as to why it needs to be gone, its utter rubbish. Why persist on keeping it there?--Runes Of South (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey look, another sock puppet of English Patriot Man. I imagine you will be blocked soon... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

knightmare on wall street (deletion)/help

Hi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Indenting on talk pages

Hi Dbrodbeck - I notice that you changed the indenting of a group of comments over at Talk:Morgellons; I've put them back. Just for your future reference, the standard is to indent each comment to one level more than the comment to which it responds, and not simply to indent each additional post. (See also WP:INDENT.) Over at Talk:Morgellons#Hypothesis About the Fibers, for instance, the original post was unindented (no colons). The first reply, from AndyTheGrump, replied to that original post, so was indented once (one colon). My comment also replied to the original post – and not to AndyTheGrump's comment – and so was also indented only once (one colon) and not twice (per your change).

Hope that helps; this seems to be a relatively common misconception or misunderstanding about indenting in threaded discussions. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, been here a long time, but there is always something to learn. I even hit the little thank button on your edit :-). Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Didn't even know that button existed. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See so now you have learned something, my work here is done...... (I only found out about it when someone thanked me the other day) Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a help

Hello Dear User,

I would like to ask you to do me a favor: it's keep going discussion in the talk page of Thomas Jefferson's article about including his words about Christianity in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Thomas_Jefferson.27s_words_about_Christianity. Unfortunatelly, some users turned it into the religious sermon. If you have time and want to help please give an attention to that issue. Thanks in advance. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but we edit summaries help

Thanks for cleaning-up the MLS articles and removing WP:REPEATLINKs, but please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

yeah I am aware, I assumed my talk page notice would suffice. I have been around for a while .... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

why are you attacking me?

i have written stuff on a talk page and you harass me fo it. please stop that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chemtrail revision

I don't think I could've explained my revision any clearer. I definitely provided an explanation. Evidently, you didn't read it. 174.102.33.213 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, calling people who follow policy and reliable sources 'sheep' and asking what they are smoking is a fine edit summary. <- That is sarcasm. Please read WP:RSDbrodbeck (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

autism

I saw your comments on the talk page of Causes of Autism. I remember you as a reasonable editor, and I would value your opinion on my recent edits to various autism pages. Leadwind (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I tend to think of myself that way...... I will take a look. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Could I ask another favor? I've found an article that's published in reputable journal, and I think it will be up to our standards, but could you double-check me? How reliable would you find this source? Is this what's meant by a systematic review? Thanks. This article. Leadwind (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

At first blush it looks good, I'll have to actually sit down and read it some time this week to give you a definitive (well to me anyway) thought on it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate it. The WP:MEDRS stuff is new to me. Leadwind (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you can find time to vet that article for me. But there's no hurry. I'm slowing down my participation on the ASD pages in an effort to let things cool off. Leadwind (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm marking tests this weekend, and then I have an article to review for a journal. Hopefully I can get to it after that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate to keep bugging you about the paper, and if you like, I'll stop. Leadwind (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope to look at it at the end of next week, once the term is done and I have more time. Don't worry I don't feel bugged :-). Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't feel bugged. Obviously, there's no hurry. Leadwind (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting changes in Dispute Resolution

That's bang out of order.Z07x10 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I quote the top of the fucking page? Yes, I shall 'This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.' You don't edit archives, learn how it works around here. If you really think I have done something incorrectly take me to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pipe-down with your loud-mouthed bureaucracy. It should never have been archived without resolution.Z07x10 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bite me. I reverted your changes which you were not supposed to make to an archive. Pretty simple. Learn how things work around here. If you have an issue with my behaviour, really, take it to ANI, I really welcome it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Me and the World War article

Hi, is it ok for you if I delete what I have written on the talk page? I would like to restart it in order to shorten it down and remove the long personal discussion we had. You may still comment what you wish of course.--Anders1985 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No it is probably best to leave it for now. Others might want to chime in. I know you are new, there is a lot to learn, it can be a bit intimidating. It is, however, worth it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your message

I think a permanent block would be appropriate, but having just read his talk page there seems to be a slight possibility that he may finally give up his crusade. Lets review in a day or so Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alan Kamil

Hello Dbrodbeck,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alan Kamil for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you check the date of that post on that site, it copied wikipedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard notification

A discussion you have participated in, (Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#That "trio" was the Perth Group) has been brought to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Perth Group website). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will check it out. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop editing London_South_Collegiate_Institute

Please stop editing the London_South_Collegiate_Institute wikipedia page, those two students attended this school, this is a fact and it maters for those who seek information about this school. If you have attended this school, please stop modifying the page based on your interest ! this is Wikipedia and all relative information about certain topics must be listed whether you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.254.150 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, yes, I went there, but that is irrelevant. I have no idea what 'all relative information' even means. Relative to what? We actually specifically DON'T list all things about every topic in the encyclopedia. Please read WP:BRD WP:NOTNEWS oh and probably WP:OWN. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no it is not irrelevant. Since you are an alum who is also listed in that article as "Notable Alumni"--I don't blame you for not wanting to share that space with people accused of crimes, but unfortunately that is a pretty clear conflict of interest.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What part of take it to the talk page of the article don't you understand? I honestly don't give two shits about the dumbass fuckheads who joined al qaeda. You really ought to read WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't accuse of edit warring when it never happened.

Please review Wikipedia guidelines.

And proposed changes have been taken to the Morgellons talk page.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I know policy quite well thank you, and have been here for six odd years. I will comment when I get a chance, I am rather busy in real life right now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long you've been editing. You still need to follow policies correctly and use talk pages instead of posting unwarranted and unsubstantiated edit warring warnings on editor talk pages. Thank you. Read WP:POV RAILROAD

76.115.128.195 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You were editing without taking it to the talk page and you are lecturing me about using talk pages Irony can be so ironic. I was pointing out my editing history to give you some evidence that I know what the hell I am doing. If you think I have violated some policy take me to ANI. (By the way, that link you provided is an essay, an not policy). Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hockey Player Edit

Took me a minute but I realized what happened.

I know you didn't change weight. The edit before yours did. I reverted yours along with that edit accidentally.

Heh. Does that make sense? Apologies. Go ahead and re-add your grammar change. Thanks for understanding.

Regards, --Manway 04:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I figured. I just wanted to be clear in my edit summary, I am sorry if I came off as a bit of a dick..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:5

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between a question and a command, but since you love referring to policy so much, see pillars 4 and 5. You may also want to try WP:EQ. Condescension is not civil, and I will point it out, if need be. 67.171.210.88 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have twice asked you, in edit summaries, to please not post on this talk page. Please stop, thank you. If you honestly think I am doing something so horrible take me to ANI, I think it would be funny. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am now asking you a third time, seriously, just go away, from here anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified that static IP editor that they need to respect your request to stay off your User Talk page. If your request isn't respected, please notify me and I will block the IP. Zad68 03:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Question about COI. The thread is Editor asked for comments I answered but they still don't understand simple COI.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your page

I hope you don't mind, but I've deleted our article on you. If you want, I can provide a copy of the deleted article though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh hell, I don't think it really belonged here in the first place :-). That said, good of you to let me know. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Be advised

I've publicly responded to your comment and have called you a liar, you left me little choice.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I came over here after seeing your message at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, and just want to alert you that name-calling is always a really bad idea. I suggest that you apologize immediately, and review WP:NPA. Regardless of what you think of another editor's edits, name-calling (a personal attack) won't go well. -- Scray (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken on my part, I probably should not have quickly agreed that the editor came across as a conspiracy theorist. I have noted this on the talk page. While I am aware that this was not directed at me I don't think I helped matters much, so, I have noted this on the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dbrodbeck, obviously I was offended and I lost my cool. It won't happen again. I have legitimate policy related concerns about that entry as a whole. While my concerns are legitimate, I failed repeatedly at communicating my intent. I'm not sure what the others editors issues are with my submissions but in the future I will use appropriate procedures to rectify them if they can't be worked out. Thank you again for being the bigger person. Hopefully we can work together to keep our exchanges constructive and find common ground.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I have posted at ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:ANI-notice} — Preceding unsigned comment added by CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG........ Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi, I noticed that your recent reversion to Chemtrails conspiracy theory removed properly sourced material and re-introduced material unsupported by sources. This was probably done in error without checking the source. Your edits purpose was described as "But, there is no 'covert release' this version" while the properly indicated source of the statement, The Oxford English dictionary states: "In the context of various conspiracy theories: an aircraft's visible condensation trail, believed to contain chemical or biological agents released for sinister or covert purposes. Cf.contrail n." diff Please revert your change. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not see a consensus for the version you added. Please propose text on the talk page. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page was to use the Oxford English dictionary definition in this entry. That has been discussed repeatedly. Please look again at the talk page and revert any (faulty) edit. What was the actual purpose of the reversion? Reverting my edit because I did not ask for consensus is an illegitimate edit. The each change to the previous text was also discussed. Thank youJohnvr4 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please propose text on the talk page. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You have inserted a faulty definition of chemtrails that doe not contain the word contrail much less normal contrail. This is not acceptable and no consensus was reach to use it. "The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials." Your edit appears to be pushing a conspiracy.Johnvr4 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am hardly the problem. Take it to the talk page of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Harper talk page

That wasn't vandalism, that was a wakeup call. Stephen Harper has decimated government scientific institutions, censored peer-review, changed the electoral laws to keep him in power, signed dangerous treaties to prevent Canada from enforcing its own laws on foreign corporations, and was even found by a federal court to have been involved a fraudulent election with the robocalls. This is all public record. Wake up Canada, we're being sold up the river. I don't want to wake up tomorrow saying, "Yes, massa," to some dictatorial elite. Speak against this person. Protest! We must protect Canada the free. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalhacktivist (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums. They are for improving articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

quit reverting crap to the wrong information.

The RTX page doesnt even say Rooster teeth expo once. Quit reverting stuff when you dont even know shit. people like you are the reason why nobody likeswikipedia its turning into a website with wrong information and no facts written by a bunch of monkeys

Take it to the talk page of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

REALLY ? Did you *have* to have the slurs that badly ?

Following the "This is not a forum for general discussion of the articles content" Following the Straw Poll guidelines Following my stated topic and period And revised a wipe to simple closed the poll as a bust....

Did you really have to have pejoratives in the hiding and closing ?

I'm inclined to point to evidence seems any sham goes to ... well, lets say I think it's not me ;-) Markbassett (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I know what these words mean, but not in this order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

These mean to say what guidelines I've followed the and others maybe chose not to.

Seems lots of paranoia out there but geez just try out the guidances Assume Good Faith and Be Polite coulda simply said want close or just not say anything and wait the announced week as much easier and sufficient to intent ... the rest seems just gratuitous. Gotta ask is the talk level there all that admirable ? Is either side really that objectionable ? In each post is it pointing towards calming and consensus or flaming ? Just sayin' and now just leavin your action as is. Markbassett (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want people to assume good faith, I have repeatedly recommended that you try avoid putting words in their mouths while reading what they said for reading comprehension instead of deliberately misinterpreting what they say, and if you want people to be polite, well, what goes around comes around. That, and it's hard to remain polite when you make it clear you have no intention of listening to others' concerns.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And I've repeatedly told y'all that you were off the topic of the poll. I'm feeling at least some obligation that to stick to topic and timeframe, and to try and explain and be polite, especially so for a poll I started. The poll guidelines offer that one can simply say the topic isn't ready, or offer additional choice, or discuss process and state of the poll, or just not play -- but to try and change topic, nah I don't think that is right to do, especially not for the one who started it. If one wants a different topic, the thing to do is simply start a different thread rather than put it into the discussion. (poor though it turned out.) On a practical note, I'm hardly able to do the time for what there is let alone to also prep or have ready drafts in each of the possible formats to share ... Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words, it really was physically impossible for you to have typed "I have paleontologists V, W and X lined up who have genuine objections to biological evolution that are not based on personal religious biases, or motivated by a need to peddle a pet hypothesis for fun and profit" or even "Don't worry, it won't be a perpetually empty section"?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the crux of the issue right there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Apo - If one should try reading and actually considering what I said, one will find the answer already there: I tried to keep integrity to staying on the topic and guidance of Wikipedia:Straw_polls, and to politely point it out at the time. It would not advance consensus on structure of article to have extensive distraction of other discussions into V qualifications, a V specific objection, of what "genuine" is, and that the article does not currently have such barriers so those considerations only apply if the poll result was for scientific being separate section. All of that would seem to me to require many further and extensive discussions. Feel free to correct me if you mean you would accept my simple assertion of such -- otherwise this seems a false objection. Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

(Can't remember how to do an outdent....) It was a proposed section that would have been empty. There was no proposed content. Move on, nothing to see here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdent would seem to imply responding to the original topic (here that is "Did you really have to have pejoratives in the hiding and closing ?") and indent level or name indicates responding to what a prior post said. I'm thinking that neither of those seem your practices, y'all seem more following the style of post whatever at the bottom, and not having my level of valuing for protocol or continuity of discussion. As there seems no info coming re the "did you really have to have pejoratives" topic, nor reading and responding to words of post "And I've repeatedly", and I do not think y'all seriously proposing anything or perhaps not able to frame any position to work from -- I will go way from your talk now, bye. Markbassett (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's wrong. See WP:Outdent. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, why the hell I could not find that link after being here for eight frakking years is beyond me..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett, let me give you some advice for your next straw poll: first off, do not set up a straw poll to choose the editing style of a proposed section before assuring other editors that there will be content to edit in the first place. If you can not be literally bothered to do that because you're too busy misinterpreting other editors' comments and concerns, then you should not get surprised that consensus will turn against you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I was outdenting so as not to do too many damned indents, that is all, Jesus. Anyway, you might want to go read WP:IDHT. You are wasting time, please just realize that and move the hell on. You have been responded to, you just don't like the answer, now go away please Markbasset. (That means don't post here any more, is that clear enough? This discussion is over) Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice RE:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and WikiProject tags

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Direct link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism

wp:ani

Something you are involved is being discussed at WPI. ttb Martin451 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4