User talk:72bikers

April 2018

Where is this consensus you're referring to here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I get no discussion? This is not according to Wiki policy.72bikers (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a open talk page discussion here[1].72bikers (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also these editors have been trying to circumvent consensus on gun articles by trying to claim that somehow the controversial content is bringing a Neutral point of view to the article [2].72bikers (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR. You didn't take the chance to explain yourself. You were blocked. The block is perfectly in line with policy. Now, please explain your consensus assertion as I am weighing whether or not to topic ban you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't even give me chance to speak.72bikers (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You were notified of the edit warring report and you were invited separately to comment there. You ignored that. Now, I'm giving you the chance to speak again. For the third and last time, please explain your consensus comment. If you don't provide a satisfactory explanation, you're probably looking at additional editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The notice was posted 16:45, 2 April 2018 and in mere hour and fifteen minutes 18:07, 2 April 2018 I am blocked. 72bikers (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you kindly tell them to stay off my talk page, it is not a noticeboard.72bikers (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers, as I said before, I understand your POV but it was edit warring and the hostile edit summaries are also not going to win any assumptions of good faith. The 72hr block isn't that long and I think the odds of getting a reversal are low. Let it slide. Springee (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Springee thank you for your levelheaded comment.72bikers (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In all honesty I needed to take a step back as some editors were pushing all my buttons and got under my skin. That led me to make rash and huried decisions. Taking a step back was exactly what I needed. I see now why some editors ask admins for a voluntary block. I let the drama consume me. Though this is just volunteer work I do enjoin bringing knowledge to others and also in that process finding knowledge myself.

Legacypac clearly violated WP:HUSH and failed to understand it with this [3], just one example of the harassment I have received.

With all that said I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [4] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [5] by editor Legacypac. I do not think Legacypac understands Wiki policy that allows any editor to remove anything they wish on there own talk page.

I get the frustration. I actually wondered about the "insist on removing my posts" comment. Your talk page is one area where you can almost do anything you want including removing what ever, when ever. The only catches that come to mind are no misrepresenting/editing conversations to misrepresent the statements of others and no threats, insults, etc. The best thing to do is WP:FOC so long as the editing behavior is not problematic. Springee (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes Springee Legacypac clearly violated Wiki policy. I really should take it to a noticeboard, but I'm not one who goes crying to others as they have done. It is also clear the more they are pushed on this the more they start tearing down these article, claiming not sourced or not encyclopedic or any number of things. I believe this is a effort to get others to back down or they will remove such and such. I believe the more they claim we are paid editor or a employee or some devoted fan are just there efforts to deflect why they are here and hide there motivation.

You are right about pointing out to stay on topic. I just wanted to point his violations, and to say what I sure everyone was thinking. So from now this point I will edit solely on topic and not stray. -72bikers (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

One other thing, NeilN is a good admin and very fair even in very politically challenging topics. Don't take any frustration out on Neil. Springee (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I will take your word about it, you have been very helpful trying to get cooler heads to prevail. -72bikers (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

New "Flathead motorcycles" page

I have decluttered the Flathead engine page by shifting most of the bike stuff to a new Flathead motorcycles page. Would you like to contribute to the new page? Arrivisto (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Honda ST series merger

Please see Honda ST series talk. Arrivisto (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I plan on looking for the disputed claim content. -72bikers (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-lock braking system

Please see the recent merger on this page. Some polishing still needed! Arrivisto (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Honda Blackbird

I myself have driven well over 200+ MPH on my Honda CBR 1100xx Blackbird, anyway you could change the speed maximum for this here bike? Akay816 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Articles must not contain original research (OR). Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If what you state is true then there should be a reliable, published source that supports the claim. -72bikers (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Job

On making your addition of the H2-R to List of fastest production motorcycles page Dennis proof. I read on the talk page where he did his usual "I'm pretty sure such a claim would have laughed out the door" thing when it was first mentioned. I thought the SBK source was fine and I see you had to through the hoops of adding, what, 5 or six sources?

Now, I'm having trouble with him again on the Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration page after I added the 72 Kawasaki H2 to the list of sub 12 bikes. Again insisting with little no support that my sources weren't good enough I think I got it to stick by not until he personally approved of one of my 3 (actually 4) sources.

Then another problem arose when removed the Dunstall Norton because it was not a production bike regardless of cycle world using the word Production in their 71 article. I go lengths over there explaining how the word production was misused by cycle because Dunstall had only been homologized by Auto union for one or two years in the late sixties on a completely different bike under their rule of homologation to get it in production class. It's not like referring to a President as President the rest of their lives. Please if you can read my rather lengthy argument over there. The H-2 was the first factory bike to set records below 12 flat in drag racing and no other factory bike went sub 12 for 6 years. The Dunstall was kitted out from a 750 in a garage down a London ally, not a factory. It doesn't even fit Wikipedia's own definition of Production vehicle. I'm not expecting to get on my bandwagon if you disagree. Jackhammer111 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries

Like this aren't helpful. Please don't do that. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)