User talk:Dbroer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Dbroer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SwisterTwister - I've actually been a member for 4 years and have edited and created over 50 articles but I appreciate the links.Dbroer (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Union, Connecticut[edit]

Hi Dbroer, I see you've been making quite a few edits to the northern areas of the state. Out of curiosity, would you know what the Union town seal is, and is there a flag? It's one of the few Connecticut towns that have been elusive to me, for whatever reason. Good work and thanks! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Sorry, I don't know know about a town flag or seal, but if I think about it, I can ask at the town hall. Perhaps someone there will know? They always say that you should write about what you know and since I live around here, I've been adding what I know to the towns (& cities!) that I know. I'm glad it's helpful. I'll see what I can do for your flag & seal project though and let you know. Dave
Thanks Dave, even confirmation that there is no flag would be a big help (every town has a seal per a law that the state passed decades ago). You're doing great work, please feel free to drop a line anytime. Also, consider this to be an invitation to join the Connecticut WikiProject. We're a group that focuses on improving and expanding any and all Connecticut related articles. (We have no minimum requirements for being an active member other than editing one article a year, so there are no obligations -- just work on whatever you want to.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hello Dbroer, I have replied to your post on my talk page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm GeorgeLouis. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Watts, Los Angeles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lower Saxon cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Lower Saxon cuisine[edit]

The article was translated from German Wikipedia which says: "Im Allgemeinen wird in Niedersachsen Kaffee gegenüber Tee bevorzugt, lediglich in den Regionen Ostfriesland und Friesland wird vor allem kräftiger Tee (Assam) mit „Kluntjes“ (Kandis) und Sahne getrunken.", but aside from the book sources, there are no citations for this. However, the statement does agree with my experience of Lower Saxony and East Frisia and is, most likely, correct. However, you then changed the wording without providing any citations for the change either. So why don't we leave it until citations can be found? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a different approach. As I mentioned, I agree that it's most likely correct that in the region as a whole coffee is more popular - based on my experience as well. However, I only added text regarding the well known tea culture is East Frisia (Ostfreisland) and provided several references so I'm not sure what you mean by citations. To me, the wording is as it is written is a declarative statement that coffee is more popular than tea and it should require a source. The way I wrote it, "While coffee is a popular drink, there is a strong tea culture in East Frisia and Friesland..." conveys what we are both trying to state. If I were to write "Fanta is the most popular drink", I think most people would want a reference just as with stating that coffee is the most popular drink. If you have a book source, you can include that. I don't believe that Wikipedia is limited to online citations. Dbroer (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dbroer. You have new messages at Pepper's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Pepper" @ 18:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hogans Heroes[edit]

The cited material I removed was referenced either by sources that were unreliable ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) or did not reference the show directly (http://books.google.com/books?id=GstzfO4QN30C). If a reliable source can be found for any of the text I removed, then feel free to restore it. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. You also removed sections that were had CBS News as a reference. You also haven't specifically stated why you feel that those sites are unreliable. There are other sources and books but I'm reluctant to use them for fear that someone like you will unilaterally declare them unreliable. The sections that I would like to see restored are the filming and retrospective filming sections. The other sections could be reworked if a discussion had been opened up rather than a wholesale removal. I guess I'm not used that kind of editing from someone who really hasn't contributed to the article. Dbroer (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not remove any section with CBS News as a reference. I did move one paragraph cited by CBS News because it was part of a controversy section, which I did away with because such a section should be avoided as it calls undue attention to negative viewpoints. As to those other sites, they consist of user generated or self-published content and do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have restored the filming section, as I found a reliable source to support the information. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring those sections. I know what Wikipedia considers to a reliable source but there are editors that rule like judges over what they consider to be a reliable source as they are the sole person to make that decision and speak on behalf of Wikipedia. There are also editors that seem to show up and make wholesale changes to an article without any discussion. You obviously had issues with the Hogan's Heroes article and instead of requesting or replacing citations you just wiped out the sections. You then wound up putting them back because you found a better reference. I guess we have different styles because if I see sections like that on an article, I'll either update the reference or request a citation. In the case of a significant portion of the article, I'll open up a discussion on the talk page. There's probably better references for many of the sections that you deleted because of poor citations but because of your approach I or any one else does not have the opportunity to supply them. That's my main issue with the approach that you took. Dbroer (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review[edit]

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dbroer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dbroer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)