User talk:Dbrodbeck/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dbrodbeck. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Monosodium glutamate

Hi, I noticed you on the MSG talk page. I'm working to improve NPOV and welcome your input. Alrich44 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I will look over the stuff you are adding. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ekplatonos. Hi, thanks for helping improving my submission. I am new here, I have difficulties even with formatting. I have improved my submission, please look into it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekplatonos (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Autism

Hi,

I'm asking you about this new autism "key" because I don't know who else to ask. Project Autism has come up with this "key" which I fear is a way for the project to piggyback unseen on to the Psychology Project.

[[:Category:WikiProject Psychology|Autism]]

Since I don't fully understand how this "key" thing works, I'm asking your opinion.

Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not sure what you mean by "key", but that just looks like a "Category:WikiProject Psychology" link renamed to appear as "Autism". I didn't even know you could do that, and am curious how putting "|Autism" in the category tag makes it appear different in any way. Where is that being discussed or used? Zad68 02:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK I see you asked here... Parabolooidal be careful you're not over-reacting, let's see the explanation first. Zad68 02:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the autism tag would sort of piggy back on the psychology tag? Cuz, if it is that, I don't think it is a good idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd think Autism as a topic would find a better fit in psychiatry rather than psychology, and WP:PSYCHIATRY is already under WP:MED. Not even sure really... need to see the response first. It's unclear whether WikiProject Autism is really going to stand up and walk on its own legs anyway. Zad68 03:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor who invented the "key" has decided to remove it. What it did was create an encapsulated category within the Psychology project category in which all the articles tagged with the Autism project were placed. Thus the WikiProject Autism became a subsection of WikiProject Psychology.

The problem, from my view, is that the articles tagged by the Autism project are really a mixed bag of articles, mostly articles already tagged by other projects. Some are just articles about specific medications, or specific diagnoses, or types of therapy, or Autism advocacy articles, or BLP's of people who may be seen as doing something "Autism-related", like Rimbaud, or people who have been diagnosed with autism, or people who have been speculated to be autistic, as in Retrospective diagnoses of autism, or jpeg's deemed related to the Project Autism, or articles about subjects like Bullying, and more. See Category:WikiProject Autism articles for an idea of the range of the articles, images, even redirects that have already been tagged, many of which I think the Project Psychology would disown, IMO. If you think I was wrong, over-reacting etc., please speak up! The "key" can easily be replaced. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are on the right track. No worries from me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I somewhat misunderstood and over-reacted as you suggest. Apparently the Autism project was already in the Psychology's project category, per an edit on 23 July 2014. See history page of it. At the bottom of the category you can see that it's also in the Neuroscience project (as well as a couple of others that don't bother me). Oh well, I personally don't think the project will survive because as somewhere someone said about the project, it's survival really depends on gathering enough editors willing to work on it and keep it going. I don't understand what the goal of the project is. It seems like a mixture of advocacy and "supposed" science, and I'm not sure project members understand about WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS. Parabolooidal (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I imagine it will die. I think your analysis of it is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization_(paranormal)

Your participation in Talk:Materialization_(paranormal) is pending. In case you can't present any solid argumentation, that irrelevant source will be removed again. Logos (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If you remove it you will be reported for edit warring. You are at 3RR as it is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of warning or blocking template

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Logos has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. Logos (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On my planet, doing three reverts in under 24 hours gets a 3RR warning. If you think I misused it, take me to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordon Ramsay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hotelier. 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) 09:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But you couldn't answer the question

Why did you avoid the question of HIV never leading to AIDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

HIV leads to AIDS, the science is clear. Now, go take your AIDS Denialism somewhere else, anywhere but here. To be even clearer, don't post here again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why am I always YOUR sockpuppet?

Why am I always your sockpuppet? Why can't I be the sockpuppeteer for once? The injustice of it all! Yobol (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we let that secret out they would find out about our ties to Aspartame/MSG/Morgellons/MMR Vaccines/Monsanto, and now I've said too much...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems now that the IP knows that Zad68 is another one of my sock puppets...... [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on Brett Salisbury as well. This particular author has been around with numerous IP addresses and fake identities for years. --Esprqii (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I have checked that out, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking of AFDing the Brett Salisbury article. I have asked over at the college football project if he is notable by their standards. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 controversy

I understand that "fan reception" is the term that has been there longer, but I remember in 2012 it read "controversy." Instead of starting an edit war with you why don't we talk about this? Osh33m (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

sure let's do that at the talk page Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby

You may be correct that it was not part of HRM at the time, however, Crosby was born in the Grace Maternity Hospital in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on August 7, 1987, to Troy and Trina Crosby. Crosby grew up in nearby Cole Harbour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Trolling on the Holocaust Talk Page

Dbrodbeck: you are abusing your position as admin to troll and support trolling. This is quite clear from the very history referred to. Please desist.--80.229.223.248 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I don't know what gave you that idea. Plus, don't call people fascists, and, don't change others' talk page comments. Now go away. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada

Why is the word federated terminologically incorrect while federal is not, again? I have explained why federated is correct and federal is not. All you seem to have done, in the absence of explanation of your position mind you, is to resort to oppositionally-defiant edits, in inexplicably demanding the use of the incompletely-descriptive word federal instead of agreeing with the correctly-used federated. Paul63243 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page of the article, and please do not edit war. I hope you don't mind, but I made this a new section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I could never find a clear explanation of the difference between "federation" and "confederation" when referring to Canada, so I surmise McDonald chose "Confederation" for the 1864 conference just to tweak Lincoln's nose, as Abe was already fighting one Confederacy at the time.... (sorry to drop in on your talk page, but I was about to add a reply to a reply you'd made on the Artificial Sweeteners page). SmarterAlec (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ratel

As an affected user should you note: Indef block appeal for Ratel --ClaudioSantos¿? 06:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

why have you assisted in removing content at Dawn

the user is removing perfectly good content--70.190.111.213 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

if anything the onus should be on the citation supported content remover--70.190.111.213 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Richard Dawkins a Scientist or a Science Journalist

Dear Dbrodbeck,

I won't argue against you closing the thread, but I complain about closing it by saying "Dawkins evidently is a scientist". "Dawkins is not a scientist" is not a POV, but something can be demonstrated by anyone who actually do the homework. That thread was trolled by Hob Gadling and nobody did anything to avoid it. From my point of view, he should be blocked from that conversation and space for others who actually want to investigate about the topic and share their results should be allowed. Your decision, but mostly your argument is biased and unsupported.

Use your power well.

Good bye.

Prdm12 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no power, no more than you. The discussion had ran its course is all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm OK with that. Close it. But please don't put your personal opinion as the reason it was closed. In order to ensure objectivity, I didn't publish my analysis, paper by paper, of Dawkins literary production. Others should be able to come with the same conclusion without being biased by my own analysis. If their conclusion is different we have to reanalyze it and the best argument will prevail. Remember we are building knowledge.

In any case, nice to meet you, and I wish you the best. Prdm12 (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion of a journalist is not journalism, it is opinion.

First, you incorrectly claim that I edited Andrew Wakefield's article without explaining the reason, which is FALSE.

Then, you edit it back to reintroduce a claim by a journalist. But that claim was not based in a declaration by any of the people interviewed, but it was just a claim that the journalist made of thin air.

The facts reported in the article are that was that Andrew Wakefield was scheduled to talk at the meeting, and that the meeting was suspended. These facts were left, uncommented, after my edit. At no point in the cited article there is any declaration in which the journalist may base his/her opinion that one fact is related to the others. What I edited out was that journalist free, unbased interpretation. Maybe s/he was wrong, maybe s/he was right. We just do not have the data to support the affirmation, and the journalist sure did fail to give that to us.

Otherwise, following your criteria would lead to allowing to use almost anything published in the internet as a *source* (since the publisher seems not to need to report his/her own sources for his/her affirmations).

Be a good guy, and edit back my modifications. Otherwise, if you want to insist in the claim, do it correctly and source it properly (vg "the journalist Saerom Yoo claims that the meeting was cancelled due to the scheduled presence of Andrew Wakefield").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.218.80 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material, and, if you have article improvement ideas please take it to the talk page of the article rather than here. Journalists report things, that is what they do. We don't qualify stuff that is in reliable sources Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the opinion of someone is not sourced material (unless the article is about that person's opinion). That's Editing 101. Even if that someone is a journalist (who, I remember you, are biased and may be quite sloppy in their reporting and wording). And I am posting here because you told me to do so in your message.

Anyway, I won't insist in it. Thank you for your time, and the insight it has provided to me about the value of Wikipedia and its editing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.218.80 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, if you take it to the talk page you will see that that is how we source things. Happy editing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why will I be blocked from editing Kent Hovinds page?

Dbrodbeck please explain to me what I did wrong in my edit. I simply stated that Kent Hovind is trying to convince people that many beliefs in the feild of science are wrong, but I never said they were false. I also changed the grammar to "mainstream ideas in the scientific community" because not all scientists believe those ideas (about 47%) and because they lack in the scientific method but are still accepted. (If I was accused of vandalism because I claimed that I was correcting grammar, and correcting grammar is only for spelling errors, then I apologize)

Also I changed "Hovind's ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence..." to "Some of Hovind's ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence..." because most of his ideas are backed by science (including fossils, laws, etc.), scriptures, examples, and quotes and of coarse not all of his claims are correct but what the statement on the first paragraph gives the impression of saying is that all of his ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence which you can easily find to be false by watching his creation seminars.

I believe you are misusing your power on trying to prevent me from editing this page because I have done nothing wrong. I also have not been informed of what I have done wrong specifically. I have only been accused of vandalism but I do not know what about my edit was "vandilizing" the page, I was only wanting to correct, but I cannot do this if everyone who is editing the page reverts my corrections and not telling me what was wrong with my edit.

Please explain to me what is wrong with what I had written. Thank you! Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacob, have you read ANY of the other warnings on your talk page? You are engaging in an edit war. You have been warned MULTIPLE times. If you wish to make an edit on Ken Ham's page, you MUST discuss it on Ken Ham's talk page BEFORE. End of story. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no more 'power' than you do. I am not an admin or anything. Honestly, as CLU says, read the warnings you have been given. Your recent edit was hardly a grammatical change, so a misleading edit summary is not a good start. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased and sexist in the Sexism Article.

Protects position that did not prove its claim in TALK, without addressing the actual people warring. Remarkably unprofessional and unapologetically biased.

Don't edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You attack the ones not edit warring and leave the people who are edit warring alone and stating the claims. Hilarious. Who lines your pockets?

If you are going to stoop to ridiculous personal attacks about 'lining my pockets' you can go away. Oh, unless you mean who pays me, read my user page, you can see where I am employed.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky 99 Award

Is there any award other than Wayne Gretzky 99 Award? Recently Velan Nandhakumaran is awarded with "Wayne Gretzky Award".Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The kid who was drafted by the Spits? I don't think he would be considered notable yet for WP anyway. I imagine there are a lot of awards named after 99 that don't have articles on WP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My doubt is cleared now. Thanks.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Learned behavior

Psychology? That makes bullying when you do it professional.

Would you truly find acceptable a professional colleague making a mass diagnosis of people he had never met as having Asperger's Syndrome? There is a referenced quotation in which Tony Atwood states that Star Trek fans have Asperger's. Flatly, no qualification.

Are you truly so buddy-buddy that you are incapable of allowing an example of quackery by another psychologist, reliably sourced, to appear, or are you compelled to remove it as a professional "courtesy"?

Yours for professional ethics -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I truly have no clue what you are talking about. I don't do psychology that is even remotely clinical. Find a source, Propose it, instead of whining and attacking others. That is why I deleted your talk page comment, it was about you using a talk page inappropriately. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I did. It wasn't allowed into the article. And once again, I can't even talk about it on the Talk page without being bullied and censored. Tony Attwood, the big-name Asperger's expert, said that Star Trek fans were examples of Asperger's patients. I cited a university transcript of him saying it -- fact, citable reference, not allowed. I look, see many of the same faults I tried to politely correct in good faith years ago, with the added insult that the article is rated good for the front page. So it makes me angry and I'm not so polite this time. Doesn't make what was done right, or bullying right.

I have no idea which branch of psychology you work at, clinical, research, social, whatever. You're a professional psychologist who has to adhere to ethical and professional standards nonetheless -- do you think it's appropriate for a professional practicing in the field, even if it isn't your branch, doing a mass diagnosis of hundreds of people he hasn't even seen as a crowd, much less in person, much more less examined, just because he knows they like a particular television show? -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't care. I really really don't care. I also don't care for your attitude, and I don't care for your attacking anything about me, or any other editor, go away, and don't come back. This discussion is over, here anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you were ethical, you would ignore whatever attitude you perceive me as having and deal with the facts of the problem. You do not. You corruptly fail to answer relevant questions about professional ethics while at the same time conspire to keep properly sourced information out of an article which you don't personally like, projecting upon someone else that they are wrong when it is actually you who are acting improperly.

If you perform these same actions at your employer over test results you don't like, you produce false results. I don't know if you do or not, but people let flow over into their bad Wikipeia habits the same bad habits as they have in other parts of their lives. As it stands your actions are a lesson in corruption.

You violate AGF and actively participate in keeping important information from appearing in an article, acting instead in demonstrably bad faith. Shame on you, for you deserve it. May you get from life exactly what you give, no more, and certainly no less. -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think I have violated policy take it to ANI, that would be hilarious. Now, seriously, get out of here, don't post here ever again, ever. Dbrodbeck (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Saputo Stadium

It can be argued that it is the same franchise considering that teams switch leagues constantly (NASL to MISL/WSA in the 80s) but retain predominantly the same players. Steve Zungul was traded from the New York Arrows to San Jose and continued to play for the NASL franchise. Same can be said about players with teams promoted from the USL/NASL to MLS. Players would have to re-sign with the "new" MLS franchises since MLS players are registered with the league and not the respective teams. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a new franchise considering it is the same makeup.

The main issue with the Saputo Stadium edit was the fact the Academy team withdrew from the CSL, the PDL team that took over the Academy team folded after last season, and the USL Pro has been renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty4545 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it to the talk page and see what others think, I see your point but I don't know if others will. I still disagree with you, but like I said, I see your point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I barely know how Wikipedia works so I don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty4545 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. OK, when you get to the Saputo stadium article go to the top left of the page, you'll see a link that says 'talk' click on that and start a discussion. People will chime in over time. There is no rush, and we will come to a consensus based on policy. Yeah it can be a bit daunting at first but it is really fun. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Zyklon B

Source needed for sentence to keep it in its declarative structure: "The product is infamous for its use by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust to murder a million people in gas chambers installed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, and other extermination camps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGrootis (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is cited in the article, throughout this section [2]. The WP:LEDE is a summary of the content and does not need citations. Zyklon B was used to murder a million people in Nazi Germany, that is a fact. It is cited in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion you may (or may not!) be interested in joining

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2 regards Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eurofighter Typhoon 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by TransporterMan (TALK), Committee Chairperson, on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Football League

Hi I noticed you reverted my edit to (CFL) and I would like to ask why?

Edmonton has more CFL championships yes? Toronto have more Grey Cups, two different things. If I am wrong, please correct me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Hi I noticed you reverted my edit to Justin Trudeau and I would like to ask why? The election has already been called and he's participated in two debates. While the results of the election are as yet unknown, parliament has been dissolved and that is not news at all. Shouldn't there at least be a mention?YoursT (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh I think once the campaign is done it would make complete sense to have a section on it. However, talking about where the parties stand in the polls now, for example, I don't think that belongs. Perhaps you can take this to the talk page of the article and we can get some input. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015

Hi. Sorry I didn't explain why I removed the Reference section for this article. The first reference has a broken link, and the second goes to a home page which does not state the information referenced. The third and fourth references are duplicates of the first and second, respectively. The first piece of information referenced is statistical knowledge, while the second is simply a detail of the methodology of some of the polls included (too many to reference). For these reasons, I found it unnecessary to reference the referenced information. If my reasoning is correct, please let me know so that I can re-remove the references; if my reasoning is incorrect, sorry for my edit. Aa508186 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd just remove them and then note it in the summary and on the talk page I thin to let other editors know. Thanks for the heads up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks

I am surprised that, given the science on the issue, my proposal to including that science in this related article would be dismissed rather than discussed. My position is that limiting content to a series of primary sources that mention the Blackhawks is SYNTH since it implies that the issue is a mere difference of opinion when the science says otherwise.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I'd like to see a consensus built, rather than edit warring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to the prior edit war with an IP editor? Being aware of that I have not yet edited the article itself.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I just want us to come to a consensus, follow policy, you know, that stuff. Not accusing you of anything, worry not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me towards some information regarding the mascot controversy in Canada? My references are thin at best.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll look and see if I can find something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One that immediately comes to mind is the McGill Redmen. The weird thing is that the name originally had nothing to do with First Nations people, and then later their logo did have an FN person, though that was apparently removed a very long time ago.[3]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

After surveying the usually complete (money-making) source of such information, an athletic apparel retailer, there appear to be NO post-secondary schools in Canada currently with FN nicknames. Does that sound right? Perhaps the Marauders had one before adopting an M with an Eagle logo? How can one find a RS for stating on WP that something does not exist? Thanks: FriendlyFred (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can say that where I work, Algoma University our teams are called the 'Thunderbirds'. That said, we have about 20 percent FN students and our logo is actually based on an Annishnabe thunderbird (which is pretty cool I think, though I have a bias....) I wonder how in the heck one would do that, what you ask. Hmmm. Oh there is a hockey team in Sweden that uses such a logo.... Frölunda_HC . Oh UBC is also the Thunderbirds. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbirds is not a name that invokes the usual stereotypes of Natives. One HS in Dearborn, MI says they are named after the Ford Thunderbird, and some others in the US take their name from the USAF Air Demonstration Squadron.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

• I have conceded to the consensus on the place of the controversy in the Blackhawks article, that it has no place, only to be reverted. The editor states that "There is no such thing as 'peer reviewed science' as it relates to opinion and viewpoints." You must have something to say about that. (PS. now there is another editor that agrees.)FriendlyFred (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol

[4] LOL! I'm probably distant cousins with Carey Price as well. ;P Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. In all honesty everyone on the planet is no more than everyone else's 26th cousin. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It was a good chuckle. I was told by my parents my family mostly consists of cousins. Heck, if I am related to some celebrity, I would rather not want to know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Epicman811

Hi. All three of the contributions by the user Epicman811 have been cases of vandalism with a clear political agenda, including the removal of verifiable material and the addition of misinformation. How is it possible to block this user from all further edits? Thanks. Aa508186 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

First off you should warn them, most people stop doing stuff with a warning. Then if need be report them to the vandalism noticeboard. BTW, I am not an admin. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Aa508186 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dbrodbeck. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4