User talk:72bikers

A suggestion

Probably best not to respond to another editor acting like a dickhead. It just lowers the general tone, draws the work away from improving the Wikipedia, and increases the possibility that a complaint of incivility may be made against you. I think some editors deliberately bait others, hoping to goad them into some unwise behaviour. Don't feed the trolls. Simple as that. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pete's right, you know is purely disruptive, off-topic, unhelpful, a violation of WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA. You should self-revert and find something productive to do. The "you sound like you are on drugs" one should probably be removed too. Don't say nobody warned you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You do act like you are paranoid, with all the unsupported claims of sockpuppet and meatpuppet and some made up conspiracy out to get you. And what does that usually mean drugs or a chemical imbalance in your brain. Look you are obviously tracking Skyring contributions or me to know instantly what he posted on my talk page. Does stalking mean nothing to you. And you obviously have some grudge against me and other with all the personal attacks you make. Then have the nerve to state others are guilty of the very things you constantly do. When your obviously just trying to get rid of all editors that disagree with you. And really I should remove that with all of the horrid statements you write about editors. You were ask by me repeatedly to stay off my talk page and told by the admins to stop placing harassing messages on talk pages. So you know not to come here or any editors talk page you have a grudge with. 72bikers (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Asked to stay off your talk page? Nope. I think you're confusing yourself with the other sock/meat puppets. Skyring? Zachlita? Spacecowboy420? Who even knows. You guys edit as a pack and go everywhere together and say the same things. It is easy to imagine you said it when it was really one of them. Or you posting as them? Who can tell?

Don't make personal attacks and you won't find messages here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Look I just added the part about stay off my page, you are obviously stalking me. And because you have a problem that you feel others can not tell you what to do, you make another personal attack and leave more harassing messages on my talk page. You were ask at the admins notice board and warned by them to stay off my talk page as well as others. So you know you are not welcome to make personal attacks and leave your harassing messages there. And you repeatedly make false accusations of thing that you yourself are guilty of, your logical fallacies are baffling. Just one of them. Please stay off my talk page with your uncivil intimidating and harassing behavior thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)72bikers (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've banned that person from my talk page. If it posts there, I will just delete it without reading and then report it for harassment. On another note, it is a little funny that people think we are all the same person. It's kinda sad, I just came here to edit articles about sexy bikes and other fun stuff. Personal vendettas are not my style. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Good advice everything that comes out his mouth is just Self-deception and constant contradictions. 72bikers (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to laugh. He just reverted a post of mine on a talk page, claiming a personal attack. I wouldn't call it that, but perhaps he felt it was a little close to the bone. I might start reverting all his many personal attacks on other editors. Keep discussion on topic and reduce disruption. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right to say stay on topic, you were spot on with your observation. And with all his personal attacks man he is a walking, talking, contradiction. 72bikers (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a week

for violation of your i-ban with Dennis Bratland at User talk:Skyring. Next time it's for a month. After that, indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

72bikers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for an IBAN violation here [1] I am a new editor, I was not warned, just blocked for a week.

If unblocked, I will not do this again.

Decline reason:

What do you call "However, note the not-more-than-once; you've already asked three times. A fourth time will be too much." if not a warning? You knew Nyttend was aware of the situation, yet you tried to involve other interaction-banned editors in it. If an admin explicitly telling you to not pursue the issue any further is not warning enough, I don't know what you would have considered appropriate warning. Huon (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

respectfully User talk:Floquenbeam I only went to Skyring page for help for who I should go to about this. That dennis bratland was breaking the WP:BANEX. And that User talk:Nyttend did not reconize dennis bratlands infraction. And I only repeated myself in frustration after getting no response from ban admin, he just kept deleting more of my contributions. I also was not aware he was counting and that was a violation. But you clearly stated I was right at the bottom of User talk:drmies talk page under Ban violations. Wait; why *is* User:Dennis Bratland reporting 72bikers for copyright issues? Was his email sent before the ban took effect? Even if so, he shouldn't be pursuing this anymore. I disagree with you here, Nyttend; following someone you're i-banned from discussing, and reporting their non-vandalism, non-BLP violations by email, that's not solving the problem the i-ban was meant to achieve, and is not allowed per WP:BANEX. That email was not "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban". 72bikers is not Bratland's problem anymore. He should not be following edits, he should not be reporting misdeeds. I really think you ought to put a stop to that, Nyttend. This goes against WP:BANEX, and just takes the dispute underground. [2]

And I was truly astonished that he was getting away with this, that the ban admin would not recognize this as a new comer i did not know what to do. I did not say his name but I was just looking for help. Also I do not feel everything I wrote should have been removed he even removed references.[3] [4] I did not copy and past, I used my own words but in trying to relay the information accurately I had to use some of the words from the reference. Editor drmies wrote this (I told Dennis, by the way, that I looked at them but didn't really see it.) [5] So after drmies told him that he just forum shopped the ban admin to get the response he wanted because he wrote this Dennis Bratland asked me several days ago, but I only now handled it because I overlooked his request. Also all that material was written after the ban. 72bikers (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why am I being blocked for trying to point out a injustice that was being perpetrated against me. While in your comments I was right in pointing out he was breaking the ban. That is all I was trying to do, and the editor that broke the ban gets a warning if even that. Were is the logic in this? 72bikers (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have only the foggiest notion of how 72bikers came to this position. If he claims he was harassed, then surely that needs investigation? Perhaps some editor who knows their way around a motorbike could look at recent contributions to work it out? A week's block without a warning - especially for a new editor - seems a bit punitive to me. He is now unable to request clarification on the supervising admin's talk page. I'm concerned that this inexperienced editor is being treated poorly when in reality he should be helped. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it doesn't come to anyone's surprise, but I agree that the block was a little harsh. I shall try to say this as tactfully and ambiguously as possible, as I don't wish to also get blocked from editing: I had expected that the interaction ban would result in the four editors having no say or effect on the actions of the one editor and vice versa, with the exception of major vandalism/BLP issues. Given the shared interests (motorcycles) of course we would see the edits/comments from each other, but for the sake of peace (and not getting blocked from editing) we would leave well alone. The only bad thing that 72bikers did, was not knowing the best way to deal with what he saw as a breach of the interaction ban. With hindsight, he should have taken it directly to an admin. I think this is a case of an editor believing (rightly or not) that he was being provoked by someone who shouldn't interact with him. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't comment as to whether those feelings of provocation were fair or not. However, it is quite natural to have those suspicions given the background of the interaction ban. While it does set an example (don't mess with the interaction ban), it doesn't seem productive and seems to promote the letter of the ban, rather than the spirit. We should not be staying withing the rules of the ban, while prodding the other party and then hoping they take the bait and get blocked. We should be staying away. This should include templates/reports/comments/reverts/afd/whatever. Perhaps reducing 72Bikers block to time served and making it clear exactly what is and isn't acceptable would be productive and help all of us avoid further sanctions? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The reviewing admin is free to do whatever they wish, without checking with me, if they think I was too harsh. But my thoughts on this are that claiming this was within the letter of the ban but not the spirit is 100% wrong. Everyone gets one warning, and then the 1 week, 1 month, and indef blocks start happening. The other editor has now been warned. Nyttend already warned 75bikers to stop after he made 4-5 attempts to get the other editor sanctioned, and the result was the post to Skyring's talk page. Being new doesn't mean you're allowed to disrupt with impunity. Skyring wasn't warned because he hadn't been trying to get the other editor sanctioned all day, and because his response was semi-careful (although an even better response would have been to delete the message with an edit summary "we can't talk about this"). We are all sick to death of the 5 of you fighting. It is completely disrespectful to *everyone* else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't point blame anywhere. This is not the place for it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. I didn't know who he was talking about, though I could guess. Leaving aside the issue of harassment and possible copyvios, which I haven't worked out - some diffs would be nice, 72bikers, it lets others know exactly what you are talking about - I'm concerned about process. The mention on my talk page was very indirect and to my mind a good admin response would have been to issue a warning that even an indirect mention is forbidden. I'm not seeing any such warning on this page. 72bikers has only a couple of months service, I think he could have a few things explained to him, before bangng the mop down.

As a general note, I prefer transparency in dealing with these sorts of things. BANEX allows editors to lodge complaints about infringements and such and of course names and diffs can be given so the admin knows what's been going on. So long as the process is not abused with repeated complaints over minor matters. But if emails are the preferred method here, I'll go with emails, though clarity and celerity may go down a notch. --Pete (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can clearly see from my talk page Nyttend only warned me once. After I had asked for help else were for something that I should not have been warned about, as Floquenbeam pointed out. I did not reply on my talk page but on his. And from what you can see on his talk page I brought up my concerns before the warning, the last one after his warning. I was simply explaining myself, repeating only because I got no response from him, and stated I would not bring up again. I was not even stating that dennis needed sanction, if it came off that way I apologize. What I was bringing up was basicly it was not dennis job to bring up any copyright infringement, if truly that is what i had done then another editor could have pointed it out. And Floquenbeam from what you posted on drmies talk page I was right to point this out. And being human and humans make mistakes Nyttend had it wrong. As dennis should not have been doing what he was doing 72bikers is not Bratland's problem anymore. Floquenbeam your very words. I asked Skyring for help in addressing this issue before the one warning. But after he failed to recognize what mr bratland was doing was wrong. This got me frustrated and I sought help. I did not say his name to Skyring just stated I was having problems with that editor again. And was simply looking for input for whom to take this to as Nyttend failed to recognize what dennis was doing was wrong. You state We are all sick to death of the 5 of you fighting. I am to! I did not start this and I am not following him around trying to get him blocked. But dennis did just that to me harassing me and when I asked for help I get blocked. Truly were is the logic in this, I am the victim and I get blocked and he gets a warning how is this fair. You just rewarded him for his continued bad behavior. 72bikers (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also you said everyone gets one warning. I got no warning for what I was blocked for. I got warned for something that I was correct in stating as Floquenbeam pointed out. So I should have not even been given a warning for that, but Nyttend should have addressed dennis bratlands misconduct. You say this We are all sick to death of the 5 of you fighting. It is completely disrespectful to *everyone* else Yet when he misbehaves yet again no one truly address this. So he is never given reason to change the error of his ways. And this just goes on to cause more drama for everyone as if he gets some enjoyment from this. Truly not the behavior or thinking of a productive editor. 72bikers (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Look, you do not get to talk about him. You're doing it above. Again. While you're blocked for talking about him. I am removing talk page access for the duration of the block, and if this happens even once upon block expiration, you will be blocked again with no additional warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Top speed claims

With reference to your recent additions to the Kawasaki H2/R article, you might want to read WP:Citation overkill as it's not considered necessary or good practice to add muliple citations to overtly-emphasise events such as these, particularly where these now may be better-served as inline citations, not as many placed at end-of-line, in an infobox not intended for that purpose.

Accordingly, I think the article would read better if a new heading were introduced - "Top speed claims", with prose arranged chronologically and the bulk of the citation-boxes shifted away from the infobox. Might be easier for you to do this rather than me. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I will do that when I get a chance. Thank you for your input on this matter.72bikers (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting behaviour

What have you done to piss off he who must not be named? Judging by messages left here, he's got something up his bum. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who the ip editor User:67.14.236.50 is, though his edit summary and the use of and recent conflict with editor User:Dsandlund with third party opinion editor User:Robert McClenon meadating does seem suspicious. Does seem like the same editor but I could be wrong maybe just his friend or a editor with a grudge or just looking to exploit a recent conflict. It does appear this editor has more of a history of conflict and removing content than actually contributing anything to Wikipedia. But he has started to vandalizing WP:DE the cbr600f page.[6] [7] just few of many. when I called him out on it. He got all uncivil,[8] then he started removing large section of the article.[9] After only minutes of posting this on the cbr600f talk page to remove content.[10] After I reverted his vandalism he then went to a notice board to have me blocked[11]. I would prefer no more contact with this editor as it seem he is trying to goad me into bad behavior, it just seem like he is playing head games. Because on the notice board he is more interested in having someone make me respond to him more than trying to have me blocked. So a editor with a grudge just playing games or just game playing? If you look at his talk page he has a history of removing content then arguing with other editors, and seeming to get some enjoyment out of it, while trying to keep the argument going. 72bikers (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion

User:Foto-dus or whomever, a editor just looking to exploit conflict. Your childish name calling and games will not get you anywhere. And yes the edits in question are there for all to see this matter is clear as black and white. By the way your line I've been editing Wikipedia since before you were born is really comical. This account just started to edit today Foto-dus account has been around for years a obvious slip up. And your persistence to add the same minutes = 32:40 incorrectly as you did today under your User:Foto-dus account that is sockpuppeting. The way you added it caused a error in the citation as well as the way you added would reflect the show was 32 mins long under the Foto-dus edit instead of were in the video the material was stated. Please go back and actually read the rules on this. Also I would advise you delete this account before you get banned. Cheers72bikers (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to explain to someone who is so inexperienced that they don't even know what a dynamic IP is that not all IPs are newbies. Why don't you ask an admin to explain it to you? I also don't have the patience to explain how you can tell that I'm not from Germany as User:Foto-dus is. Again, ask an admin to explain it to you. Please go back and actually read the template for adding TV episodes: Template:Cite episode. It has a parameter for minutes into an episode, as the citation I formatted clearly stated ("32 min. in"). If you don't understand how to follow template directions, then I would advise you to allow someone who does to format the citation properly. If you really think I'm a sockpuppet of Foto-dus, then report me. Otherwise, stop harassing me. 32.218.152.215 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your tells are all over the place and as far as dynamic IP goes that is very useful of a puppet account and of someone who wants to hide there identity. As in ip editor that just goes looking for controversy instead of contributing anything. Very convenient of your ip to change today and start editing under this account 20 minutes after Foto-dus stopped then go on to edit the very same controversial content were he stopped. As for your claim of 32:40 minutes in explanation that is not even were the information is mentioned so again this is wrong it is a error. It would seem you did not even watch the documentary but to give almost the exact time given by User:Foto-dus. Also again after you tried but failed to changed my citation properly you left it in error with this Missing or empty |series= (help) so I fixed it. Then you preceded to verbally attack me as if you had some pre existing grudge, it is quite clear what your motives and intentions are. Cheers 72bikers (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Honda VTR1000F

You recently reverted an edit saying: "(The RC51 is not the same bike and it has its own page. You also even got the production year wrong for it)".

In my edit, I had cleaned up the article and tried to make it more encyclopaedic, more concise, and less breathlessly journalistic. If there were mistakes, mea culpa! But why not simply correct them rather than throw away some sensible editing. I propose to revert to my last edit, and I invite you to correct any mistakes. I acknowledge a problem with shifting the photos. Arrivisto (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So lets recap you added information on a bike that is not directly related to the article it was not a predecessor or successor or even shared any of the same parts. Though I could see how someone could confuse this, 90 degree v-twins are not common from the Japanese. Also the RC51 in Europe was called VTR1000SP, but neither Honda or a source ever say it was in the same model line as the VTR1000F. One review even wrote this about the RC51 but was soon discounted as dealers realised people wouldn't pay vast sums for what was perceived (wrongly) as a jazzed up Firestorm. And you also stated that bike was produced till 2010 instead of 2006 on the RC51, also the reference you added for this provided no link to the online page. The source you list for that reference motorcyclenews.com I have noticed has made numerous mistakes on specifications on many bikes. Though they are a motorcycle magazine publication in the UK, and I have used them as a source as well be careful with them. You moved pictures so that they encroached into the text. You also removed one whole section and tried to combine it into another section. I do not see how any of this helped the page be more encyclopedic. Cheers 72bikers (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

" I do not see how any of this helped the page be more encyclopedic". Really? The article is poorly written and needs a thorough rewrite. Your reversion of my changes runs contrary to Wikipedia's values of respecting bona fide edits. As an editor, if you perceive factual accuracies, then correct them; but don't treat the article as your own and sacrosanct, because the page really does need considerable work to get it up to a decent WP standard. Arrivisto (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what are you taking issue with?

• My removal of the content on the RC51 that did not belong there?
• My relocating the pictures from the way you placed them so that they did not encroach into the text?
• My restoring the heading that separated the information by content that you removed?

I am finding it hard to understand what exactly you thought you did that needs to be restored? And I also do not in any way feel I own the article. cheers!72bikers (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Exactly what are you taking issue with? ": I thought my points were clear. I have already acknowledged a problem with shifting the photos. I am happy to leave the SP1 & SP2 off the agenda until another editor intervenes. However, it is difficult to see why you insist on having a separate paragraph called "Techniques" (later "Innovation"), when it has already been pointed out by another editor that the VTR was not innovative per se, but rather incorporated some good (but unoriginal) ideas. The reverted page reads like a Honda sales leaflet, not a WP page. You say " I also do not in any way feel I own the article", but the fact that you immediately revert my efforts renders that claim unreliable. I propose to restore the page as I last left it, and I invite you to improve it, but NOT have an edit war. Why not wait for other editors to have their input? (I propose any further discussion should be on the VTR talk page). Arrivisto (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are taking issue with the removal of the RC51 but you have no sources that corroborate your opinion correct? You say the VTR was not innovative is this your opinion again or do you have sources that can confirm this. Because there is a sourced reference that states that many of these thing are such as the 48mm slanted flat-slide CV carbs are the largest ever used on a production motorcycle and 38mm intake valves - the largest ever used on a Honda production motor also Unique side-mounted radiators allow the VTR to strike a very compact and slim profile and The Super Hawk's unusual frame design The "pivotless" twin-spar frame and there is more so you see were my views have come from reading a source yours appear to be only of your unsupported opinion. It also would appear it is you who feels like you own the page as it is all you appear to be editing. You say you do not want a edit war, and Why not wait for other editors to have their input but are constantly reverting back to your unsourced opinionated state that looks like a stub page. You have now even gone on to include more controversy with removal of sourced information and these statements The so-called "H.M.A.S"[6] suspension comprised a conventional telescopic fork and rear monoshock and keep reverting back to even after you were shown referenced information on here. If you fail to understand "HMAS" system here is some knowledge for you The HMAS cartridge fork features an exclusive internal piston construction. The innovative design employs smaller-diameter pistons to keep oil velocity high for improved damping characteristics and an expanded range of adjustability. The result: you get more precise suspension performance, especially over smaller surface irregularities. So you see this technology is not a marketing gimmick. This is some common knowledge in the motorcycling community as it has been around for about 20 years and was new to the market around the time it was installed on the release of this motorcycle. And when I changed back and gave up to 4 legitimate reasons for doing so your response is this Restore sanity and clarity (again) as if to say I am crazy for removing your unsourced opinions. You say I propose to restore the page as I last left it, and I invite you to improve it but this is exactly what I did, I did not just revert everything you did, only the parts that were unsourced incorrect opinions.72bikers (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yamaha TRX850

"Restore reliable sourced information and reference, that a editor simply removed because it does not shine a favorable light on his own personal bike." Kindly avoid allegations of a personal nature. Arrivisto (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what part are you taking issue with? You have stated that the TRX850 is your personal bike of which you own three. You have repeatedly removed or argued to remove anything that would shine a unfavorable light on this bike. Also because it would seem you have a affinity for café racers, you would have readers believe that the TRX850 is a café racer when no source supports this, so just WP:OR. You also would have the article look like you are building a altar to your bike. So your editing on this bike has not been neutral as to the rule WP:NPOV. And as such my statement was just a observation in the edit summary for any further editor or admin to see. Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The quoted statement from a reliable source that you keep removing is the sole opposing view to all of the undue weight you have placed on one praising view over and over again. We can take this matter to a noticeboard or bring it to the attention of a admin, if you persist in your behavior that is contrary to the WP:NPOV rule. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. -72bikers (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The quote that you keep restoring was on the MZ1000, with a throw-away line about the TRX and about parallel twins. As I showed on the TRX talk page, the source may be "reliable", but the statement "But as the Yamaha TRX850 demonstrated, many bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins.." is misleading and wrong. But that is not the point of my post above, which is to ask, nay, demand, that you avoid making allegations of a personal nature on WP. Arrivisto (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The statement I left in the edit summary was not of a personal nature. It simply stated the facts as you have just now proven once again. A reliable source that you have almost exclusively used yourself made the statement. But because of your bias towards this bike, you not a expert in any way say the experts got it wrong and misleading. The quoted statement is simply saying bikers do not care for parallel-twins in large to mid capacity sportbikes. A very verifiable fact in that there are virtually none mid and absolutely no large displacement produced today. By saying the quote was about the MZ 1000S is just your inept attempt to discredit. You showed no case on the talk page to discredit it, your whole argument was based solely on your own personal opinion WP:OR. Were as mine was based on core Wiki rules so after the discussion which you lost the quote was on the page for over a month. Now you are attempting to replace it with more statements about the bike having a cult status, that is just repeating statements already on the page. Presumably because you are attempting to sell one of these bikes on ebay. So your actions are contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI, you could be blocked for your actions. -72bikers (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

POV

I don't know if you're edit warring to keep this in the article, and I really have no interest in figuring out if you are or not, but I will tell you that removing sourced content, to replace it with content that speaks more favorably on a topic you seem to be partial about, is simply not acceptable. The two (sourced) statements can be true simultaneously, and removing one for personal (?) reasons can lead to a block. BTW, 72bikers, that goes for the last part of this edit too. If the engineer said that, he said that--it is not up to us editors to censor what he said because we disagree with his distinction between large and small capacity twin engines. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact that I like the TRX does not mean that I am partial; it just means that I am well informed. I am happy to acknowledge the TRX's deficiencies, such as mediocre brakes, sloppy suspension, and appalling pillion provision. However, I reject 72bikers' insistence on the following quote, taken out of context; "as the Yamaha TRX850 demonstrated, many bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins..." The fact is that outside the USA (which is obsessed with Harley-Davidson V-Twins) the parallel twin is more numerous than the V-twin, iconic though the latter may be. Neither the MZ1000 (about which bike the said quote was made) nor the TRX failed in the market because they are parallel twins, but for other reasons, as the talk page reveals. I accept your point about edit-warring, which we all agree should be avoided; but whenever I make an edit on the subject of motorcycles, it is tiresome when one particular user reverts my edit as a knee-jerk reaction. I know about POV and OR; but in every case when one selects a citation, it is inevitably a subjective rather than an objective decision about what to choose and what to reject. I could cite Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as authority on Jews, but obviously I choose not to.

However, note that when I posted on the Yamaha XSR900 talk page (on the meaning of "neo"): The prefix "neo-" simply means "new" (as in neo-Nazi), 72bikers responded: "And shame on you for trying to liken this term to (as in neo-Nazi)!!" Q.E.D. !!! What more can one say! Arrivisto (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Drmies I have restored the statement, I only removed to trim undue weight, as the article is on a motorcycle and not on one particular motorcycle engine, there are already articles for that. As I have pointed out this editor is selling these motorcycles on ebay[12] and talking them up there (“The TRX is "the best-kept secret in motorcycling"!”) with links to the Wiki article (See the Wikipedia page for more TRX information:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850) in a obvious ploy for financial gain. His insistence that the article not say anything that would shed a bad light on this motorcycle is obviously just his effort to get every dollar he can in the sale,WP:COI.

The quoted statement he is trying to suppress is simply stating that bikers do not care for parallel twins in mid to large capacity sportbikes. A very verifiable fact in that there are none produced today. The quoted statement he is trying to replace this with is just restating a quoted statement just one line before about the bike having a cult status placing undue weight on this content.

The fact that I have what this editor calls reverts my edit as a knee-jerk reaction is only in response to editor Arrivisto repeatedly placing WP:OR in article content with no source support. He has done this so much, even after I have in depth explained this rule, leads me to believe this editor believes of himself to be a expert in the motorcycle field and therefore his opinions should have weight as a expert and even outweigh or contradict sourced content. His inability to except this to not be true has led him to make horrid personal attacks like this but I'm damned if I'll take ill-informed criticism from any (Personal attack removed) editor here [13] -72bikers (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The deeply unpleasant tone of 72bikers' contribution (above) is plain to see, and I would be obliged if he/she would refrain from dumping any further posts on my talk page. I shall await a response from any third parties, but assuming others have no interest in this spat, I propose shortly to delete this entire section. In the interim, for the benefit of the (Personal attack removed), one may observe that "lead to believe" should be "led to believe" and "His inability to except this" should be "His inability to accept this". Thank you and goodnight! Arrivisto (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My tone is neither pleasant or unpleasant, I simply stated facts. Were I simply brought to light facts and observation of your rule breaking, yours is to once again make personal attacks on other editors intelligence, Over a typo! Your typical argument fallback when you can not get your way, when all you offer is just your opinion void of any facts. -72bikers (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yamaha YZF-R25/R3 and MT-25/03

What makes you think that these bikes:

• Yamaha YZF-R25/R3
• Yamaha MT-25/03

are SO unsimilar to you? The reliable sources have been given, and yet you still rejected it. I don't understand your point.111.94.180.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your source does not say they are the same bike. This matter can be compared to the ninja 250 and ninja 300 models. 72bikers (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleting well-sourced content...

You have repeatedly deleted performance specs for the 1998 ZX9r Kawasaki, and left you performance specs you posted. The specs I posted (from an IP address) were from a respected, authoritative motorcycle journal, Sport Rider. Sport Rider has a paid circulation of 33,000, and is from Bonnier Corp, who also publish leading magazines including Popular Science, Dirt Bike, Field & Stream, and Outdoor Life. Their reporting of performance specs puts the weight of their reputation on the line.

You, 72bikers, have repeatedly deleted my posts of the Sport Rider specs, and replaced them with specs from much less substantive journal, Motorcycle News. Motorcycle News is an online-only journal, which has no advertisers. You apparently searched for specs which claim the ZX9r is slower, and had to reach for the bottom of the barrel to find them.

I was OK with leaving up your specs, even though they were poorly-sourced, in an effort to seek consensus. But you would not even accept that; you've repeatedly deleted Sport Rider's horsepower and torque figures.

Suggest you knock it off. The logs of the changes will document what I wrote above, as will a search of the references.

2mmBTDC (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's your "source" for ZX9r specs...

This is the text, from the Motorcycle News article that you quote specs from:

"Both the Honda and Yamaha used in this test were standard 49-state press bikes, but the Kawasaki was a California model. For reasons undisclosed at press time, Kawasaki refused to provide a ZX-9R for our comparison, so we used a real customer’s bike (thanks Randy!)"

Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be publicly claiming these numbers mean much of anything. I noticed you removed the "California-only" qualifier, from the horsepower & torque specs. Will correct your plain bias, when I am a confirmed Wiki editor, and we can take it up with the admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2mmBTDC (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dennis

I see you've had the Dennis treatment. If there is one thing he knows it's how to bully editors that don't know how to run to the admins as fast as he does. He kept deleting my claim that the Kawasaki H2 was known in its day as the king of the streets. It wasn't an outlandish claim. He was the only one that it seemed to matter to. I'd Source it and he would say the source wasn't good enough. I was forced by administrative warnings to drop the matter until months later when I saw an episode of Jay Leno's garage about the H2. In Leno's shop he talked to a Kawasaki executive that had a vice president attached to his name who said the Kawasaki H2 was known as the king of the streets. That's what it took to keep a reference that most everybody from the era was familiar with yet Dennis decided to delete and delete, turn it into a test of Wills, and run to the administrators. If all editors were like him there would have to be a source following every sentence on Wikipedia. He is known for making a big deal out of small things. When you had your problem with him didn't the administrators see how many people have disputes with him? My problem with English years ago and I can see just from his top pages that he upset people all the time. I don't do as much Editing as he does but you don't see an endless stream of people running to my talk pages to complain about me either. In my opinion he plays the administrator system here like a connected politician. The whole experience turned me off of the idea of contributing here for quite a while because it wasn't the only time I had trouble with him. Thanks for your appreciation of my contributions to the Kawasaki triples pages. I just was not surprised to read you had problems with the same guy that I was. Seeing that you had a problem with him brought back bad memories to me so I guess I'm just venting. Since this is your page, after reading this feel free to delete it if you think it'll cause trouble. I just wanted you to know you weren't the only one Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nissin Kogyo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nissin Kogyo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Dual-sport motorcycle ?

Hi, why you consider the KTM 1190 Adventure as a Adventure touring and not a Dual-sport motorcycle ? Thanks --AlfredoGMx (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Because this is what reliable sources Cycle World and Motorcyclist call it [14]. These bikes Husqvarna 701 Enduro, and Husqvarna TE510 are what they call Dual-sport here [15] and here [16] and I could provide numerous more, this is not my opinion but simply what the sources say.72bikers (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Nissin Kogyo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nissin Kogyo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nissin Kogyo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Yamaha R3

Hello 72bikers, I recently(09:31, 5 September 2017)‎ added a new section with data (which I believe to be important for Yamaha R3). However It was modified and you removed some data while I believe I can provide with reliable source.

 Therefore I request you to take action and undo some of the changes you made.

Navinsingh133 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor Navinsingh133, you appear to be just copying content from manufacturers website and pasting it in the article and making it look like a sales brochure. You can not do this as it is copyright infringement. Also a lot of the content is just specifications that is already in the infobox were it belongs and just redundant. In the future go find published reviews of the bike, then in your own words place content to the article and show the reference as a citation. Please read the information I placed on your talk page to help guide you. -72bikers (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't just copy 72bikers, I put articles on my own words. However I do agree that some of the information is taken from the Yamaha website and some independent reviewers. Anyway, Thanks for regulating the article(I will add data, its up to you guys to regulate)! Navinsingh133 (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ducati Monster "Muscle Bike"

Hey Bud,

I'm not trying to start a revision war with you on the muscle bike definition of the Monster, I think it's wrong to call the bike that. There are two threads on the talk page for the Monster discussing this, hopefully we can link up there to hash this out. Mustangs6551 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Upgrading the article - Yamaha R3

Hello 72 bikers, I aim to upgrade the Yamaha R3 article to class C, Please enlighten me what else needs to be done to make the article class C on Wikipedia standards. Also, I aim to upgrade Ninja 300 article to start class. Given your strong association with these articles, It will be nice if you could guide me. Thank you, Navinsingh133 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 72bikers. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honda Gold Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger of BSA articles

Happy New Year! May I invite your views, please, on a proposed merger. See Talk:BSA Lightning Rocket? Arrivisto (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cooperation

We have been "at loggerheads" for some time over motorcycle topics. This is tedious, so let's bury the hatchet, assume good faith and try to work together to improve Wikipedia.

I have just started a page on the KTM 790 Duke and I invite you to help me develop it and knock it into shape. Arrivisto (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure I will take a look.-72bikers (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's been a misunderstanding! I myself created the KTM 790 Duke as a redirect, and then thought it would be better to have a full article on the bike itself. The article (iteration 2) includes a reference to the engine type; ( Straight-twin engine#270° ). So the page should not be turned back into a redirect, but should revert to the beginnings of an article. Arrivisto (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see now the issue has already been addressed. It was just extremely odd to have seen one bike be redirected to a unrelated bike article.Cheers-72bikers (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the roadster class you placed in this article, all the reviews seem to just refer to naked. If this is a error that I have missed the source to give the bike this designation please add it to the article. I do believe this is just semantics though, as this class of bikes are just subtle nuances of the standard motorcycle. -72bikers (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Require your review

Hi 72bikers, as you may know I have recently wrote an article on Energica Ego. Will you please review my edits and correct mistakes I made. I don't have much experience on editing so I rely on you guys to correct my mistakes and regulate the data I add. But this time you have't edited or reverted my edits .Thank you-Navinsingh133 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kawasaki Ninja 250SL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Just a formality since it looks like you hadn't been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)