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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.  RGTraynor  12:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are welcome to join the discussion on diacritics here.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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