User talk:Dbroer

Hello, Dbroer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Union, Connecticut

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)[reply]

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]

Reply

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

July 2013

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

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)[reply]

Lower Saxon cuisine

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talkback

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.[reply]

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

Hogans Heroes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move review

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)[reply]

Can't Find Reference

Hi! I saw that you recently reverted an edit of mine on Woodstock saying that the "songfacts.com/blog/interview" has been referenced in news outlet such as CBS News. I was looking through the website and I can't find it on CBS. So, I was wondering if you could it for me and replace it with the songfacts reference? If you could do that, that would be great! Thanks! Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack - Thanks for the opportunity to provide that. I found it yesterday when I was looking for a better reference and I just updated/changed the reference to that story as it's a better one. Dbroer (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that! Thank you for replacing it! Best wishes! Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 14:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dbroer

Thank you for creating Wall Municipal Airport.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup

I stand corrected, 'sugarbush' and sugar house' are mentioned in the book, But, no mention of 'sugarwood', 'sugar shack' or 'sugar shanty'. Those words do not appear anywhere in the text. They lack a reliable published source. Do we remove them? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they lack a source we should add one if available or flag them with a citation needed tag in my opinion. That gives the author who added the content a chance to justify it. Having said that, I was able to find numerous references to the different words.

Sugarwood

Multiple maple producing farms use the name - https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=maple+syrup+production+%22sugarwood%22&ia=web

This site references the history of the name as a place of maple syrup production - https://www.chikamingopenlands.org/sugarwood-forest-preserve

Sugar Shack

Sugar Shack is an article with several references - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_shack

Official travel sites referencing sugar shacks - https://www.quebec-cite.com/en/restaurants-quebec-city/sugar-shacks and https://www.mtl.org/en/experience/sugar-shack-101

Sugar Shanty

Multiple maple producing farms use the name - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22sugar+shanty%22&t=ffab&ia=web

https://www.nujournal.com/life/lifestyle-feature/2019/04/07/sugar-shanty-%E2%80%83-couple-keeps-maple-syrup-tradition-alive/

Given that, I think they should stay since there seems to lots of "references" to the words and support that they are associated with maple syrup production. I've always found it easy to spend a few minutes looking for a reference for something that is missing a referencefor something that an author took the time to post. If it's obviously spam and there's nothing to support it directly, I usually add the citation needed tag to give an author a chance to substantiate their wording, otherwise it should be deleted. Hope that helps. Thanks for reaching out!

Dbroer (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing the ‘Sugar shack’ article upon suggestion from SuggestBot. I did several hours of research over a few days. I was unable to find reliable published sources for 'shack' or 'shanty'. This lead me to this article that had the same terms.

As for your list of "references". Almost all of these don't appear to be reliable published sources. Some of them even appear to be mirroring Wikipedia.

Sugarwood

Just because 'multiple' farms use the term, it should not lead to a particular conclusion. Advertisements for eateries. Come have food here (for a fee).

Sugarwood Forest Preserve, the name comes from one of the Platz’s many uses of the property: tapping maple trees and making maple syrup. Advertisement. Where is the reference that the preserve was named 'Sugarwood' because 'sugarwood' is a term for a 'sugarbush'?

Sugar Shack (mostly describing the eateries, not the shack where sap is boiled)

WIKI sugar shack. I added one citation [1] to that article (Spencer, James Burns (1913). The Maple Sugar Industry in Canada. Bulletin No. 2 B. Ottawa: Dominion of Canada, Department of Agriculture. pp. 21–25. Retrieved September 14, 2022 – via Google Books).. Does not mention 'shack' I put it there because it supports the rest of the text.. The second is a travel section item behind a paywall at the New York Times. I can't evaluate it more than that.

Quebec Cité Advertising for eateries. Not a place where sap is boiled down to syrup.

Sugar Shack 101. Tourisme Montréal is: The creativity of some 85 professionals who work together to position Montréal as a leading international-calibre destination on the leisure tourism and business travel markets. More advertising for eateries.

Alive Magazine. Reads more like an elaborate blog. A family visits a friend's farm. At least it is not an eatery.

Sugar Shanty

Just because some farms use the name does not make it a reliable published source. Advertisements

The Journal, Lifestyle Feature states: ‘The building where the maple sap is processed into syrup is called the Sugar Shanty’. Not ‘a’ sugar shanty. More advertising.

Conclusion

'Sugarwood' and 'shanty' should definitely be tagged. Or removed, unless better sources are found. Shack is the only one that has one tenuous source.

I'll leave it up to you to add the 'citation needed tags', and continue my editing journey of adding encyclopaedic tone and adding citations from reliable published sources to articles, and removing promotional material from articles.

Hope that helps. Thanks for reaching out! Absolutely Certainly (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spending some time looking for references. So many editors just delete things without looking for references.

I wasn't trying to provide you a list of different places justifying the use of the terms maple syrup and maple syrup production which the article is about. Regardless of the advertising quality of the search results, the fact that they are all associated with maple syrup lends some validity to the fact that they are indeed terms used around maple syrup. Doing a search for any of those terms and the results around maple syrup make that self-evident in my opinion, but it is an encyclopedia and they do need to be referenced.

Sugar shack

https://mapleresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/0616climatechange.pdf

"We are always interested in expanding our network of sap quality observations and data – from adding producer hosted sample collection sites to historical data, perhaps which is re-corded on your sugar shack wall."

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/541/

"Beyond the Sugar Shack: How Non-Financial Forms of Capital are Conceptualized by Small- and Medium-Scale Maine Maple Syrup Producers"

https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/79602

"In order to draw on the sugar shack traditions, the program is conceived a layered set of activities that support both the working farm and the visitors creating opportunities for agritourism."

If a sugarhouse is not also known as a sugar shack, why would they use that term?

Sugarwood

Of all the terms, this one has the fewest returns and I believe it's from a more modern use of the term. It also seems to be spelled both with and without a space. Older papers reference "sugarwood" or "sugar wood" to mean wood that is burned in the process of making maple syrup. However, given that the name is used by multiple maple syrup producing farms, it seems to be an alternative to sugarbush. Here's an older paper that uses the term as firewood hence the reasoon why the forest preserve might have used that name because it was a source of wood to burn for maple syrup production:

https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/23145/LD2668R41955L752.pdf?sequence=1

"Many of the products of the woodlot are used on the farm as stove wood, fence posts, sugar wood and maple syrup"

I did come across this book which uses the term in the title giving credence to the fact that it is indeed a term for maple trees:

https://www.abebooks.com/9781494370442/Sugarwood-Forest-where-Maple-trees-1494370441/plp

"Ty of Sugarwood Forest... where the Maple trees grow"

My suggestion would be since there is evidence that term does indeed exist that we tag it with a citation needed tag. There's several maple syrup research stations in different states and I or someone could reach out to them for publications that may not be showing up searches.

Sugar Shanty

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880200701735031

"In the modern sugar shanty, large volumes of sap are concentrated by using continuous-feed evaporators heated by wood or oil stoves."

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/digest/article/view/33992/37457

"Other terms for this structure are known, such as sugar shack, sap house, or sugar shanty (in Quebec, the term is cabane à sucre, which translates literally to “sugar cabin”)."

https://www.proquest.com/openview/5a5dcce2fc609a4134921f30b128892b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

"Sap boiling in the sugar shanty"

All three reference a place where maple syrup is made, aka a sugarhouse.

I think those links provide enough support that those terms are terms associated with maple syrup and belong in the article. I could spend some more time doing some research with some other library tools but don't have time right now to look. I'm from New England so I have some familiarity with maple syrup production and can help with any research if you want more help.

Thanks again for reaching out!

Dbroer (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to add all those sources. Reach out for encyclopaedic content. Wiki happiness. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]