User talk:Dennis Bratland

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle

In the Seattle area? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help. Come to our first Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle on July 27, 2015, 6pm to 9pm, at Café Allegro

Yours, Peaceray

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter misconception

I really found very little in the sources to indicate that it is a common misconception. And where is it mentioned as a common misconception in a parent article rather than a misconception among literary critics? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter. In the social impacts section. The linked NYT article directly quotes the head of the NEA that it's a misconception. They cited a study precisely on the question of HP and literacy. The book Literary Criticism and Harry Potter has corroborates it as well. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"NEA chairman Dana Gioia said the series, 'got millions of kids to read a long and reasonably complex series of books. The trouble is that one Harry Potter novel every few years is not enough to reverse the decline in reading'.": That is a matter of opinion as to whether it is a common misconception, an opinion with which I disagree. So we need a consensus to keep the item. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You just quoted a snippet from Harry Potter#Social impacts but not the New York Times article. I think you should read the source.For exampele the headline is "Harry Potter has limited effect on reading habits" and the first sentence is "Of all the magical powers wielded by Harry Potter, perhaps none has cast a stronger spell than his supposed ability to transform the reading habits of young people." See the supposed ability to transform the reading habits is the misconception. it says this is a "near mythology". The decline in reading is not opinion, it comes from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. I'll review this in detail over at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Harry Potter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:List of common misconceptions‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you've gone and posted a template which asserts that my comment wasn't civil "so it has been removed". But in fact, nothing has been removed. We can chalk up one more erroneous assertion on your part. We're kind of getting used to those boners, aren't we? ;)

So I could just ignore this bullshit template but it creates kind of a problem for me, because you've not deleted any of my posts at Talk:List of common misconceptions‎, I have no idea which of my posts is a "personal attack" [sic]. This forces me to do a quick review, to try to nail down where exactly I've run afoul of the civility policy (assuming you have not yet again simply posted something patently absurd, which as we know is a distinct possibility).

I told you that you wasted everyone's time with this pointless collection of false assertions. Do you think telling you that you wasted everyone's time was a personal attack? Not so. But if you would like to go crying to an Admin saying you feel sad because you've been informed that you're a time waster, then by all means, go ahead and waste their time. You seem to enjoy it.

Then you accused me of violating WP:OWN on the basis that I'm the editor who added the misconception material to both Harry Potter and List of common misconceptions. I pointed out that this accusation is, yet again, another false assertion on your part. I'm perfectly within my rights to cite facts on the talk page in support of an entry, regardless of the fact that I'm the one who added it in the past. WP:BURDEN basically sais it's my job to do that when contentious material is challenged. You accused me of baiting you and seeking an argument, yet you were teh one who deleted well-sourced material, and you were the one who posted false assertions on the talk page. I refuted them and you attacked me for "baiting" you and "seeking arguments". That's a catch 22: make a false claim, and accuse anybody of refuting it of being argumentative. Then you had the nerve to belittle me even more, saying "Calm down Dennis; you'll live longer. This is Wikipedia, not the real world."

Calm down? Mansplain much? I finally pointed out that your behavior is trolling, the classical definition of a troll: one who posts absurd claims for the purpose of drawing a reaction and creating pointless arguments. You made one demonstrably false claim after another, and when I refuted them, you belittled me. Your behavior is disruptive editing and obvious trolling.

Please stop. If you continue this behavior you may be blocked form editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Miguel Galluzo

I thought it would be preferable to a dead link to quote the 530 word bio directly in the citation. Otherwise, the reader has nothing to go by. But hey, a dead link appears to be the preferable solution. 842U (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting this discussion all over the place? It started on your talk page and it should stay there. Brian has asked you twice already. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ducati Monster

If you are so interested in the Ducati Monster article, please feel free to edit it yourself. In case someone else is interested, I've linked to the last archived Miguel Galluzi edit that included the overloaded Monster information. Rest assured, it is not lost. Peace. 842U (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Still missing the point. From now until whenever I'm able to get to it, there's missing information from Ducati Monster. Before the information was around in Miguel Angel Galluzzi. Now nobody can find it, on either article. That's harm. Having excess detail on Galluzzi's bio was less than ideal, but it was causing no harm. Plus all the grammar errors and missing context from the hack job that was done to the Galluzzi bio that somebody has to fix now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not editing the Ducati Monster article. You are crediting me with damaging another article than the one I'm editing. Good Grief. Rest assured, the Galluzzi article is far from harmed by the edits I've made — which include providing links on both the Galluzzi and Monster talk pages to the archived Galluzzi article containing the Monster data. I suggest you improve the Monster page. When you're ready to edit the Monster article, you'll know where to find the info! Peace.842U (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Smith Cove and Interbay (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) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wenatchee Revert

Thank you for reverting the Wenatchee, WA page earlier today. I know it's inappropriate and in bad taste, but I was joking around with a friend when I made those edits. I had intended to go back and revert the page, but didn't get to it in time. I'm grateful for your patience and help. Apologies for any inconvenience. DILNN1 (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) DILNN1 (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yamaha FZR250

Hi Dennis Bratland, I searched fairly thoroughly for WP:RS and I don't think there's anything out there. So I moved ahead with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. Let me know if you disagree, and I will go the long road via WP:AFD. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Bratland. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zxtxtxz.
Message added 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honda CBR600F, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDI (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) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Motorcycle

Hi, I am not sure if you are familiar with the consensus guideline for lead sections set out in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, at MOS:LEADALT. It says that when there are three or more alternate terms for the title, it is recommended that these terms be moved to a new section entitled "Terminology." I look forward to hearing from you, best regards,OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start threads in two different places on the same subject. Confusing! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wire wheels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hub (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) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove alerts from Casey Family Programs?

With the most recent edits to improve the Casey Family Programs content, both by myself and others, and with the resolution of the sockpuppetry accusation, can we now remove the alerts from this page? I believe they are no longer valid:

• COI (2015): I have been transparent about my relationship to Casey Family Programs from the outset - working as a short-term contract employee. I was not hired specifically to update Wikipedia, nor is my compensation dependent on Wikipedia updates. It's simply a task I was asked to perform. I recognize the inherent conflict of interest, and I have made a good-faith effort to provide unbiased but much-needed updates to the entry.
• advert (2015): I have attempted to remove any "advertorial" content from the page and to maintain a tone of neutrality throughout. I've removed "peacock" language both from earlier submitted drafts and from content submitted by other users. If there are further improvements required, please let me know or submit edits.

Respectfully, Worldraveler (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Casey Family Programs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bubba Blackwell

Dennis, Bubba Blackwell clarified he only retired from jumping. Since Blackwell clarified this via facebook and the sources didn't reflect the difference between 'stunt show' and 'jumping', I'll defer to you on how to best keep his page accurate (those last edits were from me...I forgot to login). Maybe even revert back before I added the Retirement? I suppose he wouldn't be the first motorcycle jumper to say that he retired and then went on to jump again! Take care,Docob5 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		Cascadia Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to Cascadia multimedia, including documenting the summer 2015 Wiknic. Great work, Dennis! Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended rights

Hi there Dennis. I just have an honest question for you, mostly out of curiosity. Is there any particular reason why, in your extensive time and efforts here, you have never acquired any additional user rights? Surely you're familiar with most of them by now, right? And if you don't object to them for a personal reason, would you be interested in any (e.g. pending changes reviewer, autopatrolled, rollbacker)? Surely the project could only benefit from extending the abilities of your account. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker? Autoreviewer? I don't get the point. I can already revert several edits in a row with Twinkle. What do I care if I have to wait for somebody else to review a page I created? Maybe the reviewer will even help make corrections. That's a good thing and why would I want to mess that up? I don't see any rights that would help me achieve my actual goal, which is to create article content. And the downside would be time wasted getting the approval of Wikipedia royalty, who are enough of a pain in the ass to deal with when you submit a DYK or GA nomination. What I really need is a user right that grants me peace and quiet to focus on finishing what all the articles I have waiting to be written, but I think that's beyond anyone's power. If there is some user right that would make me more productive, then I'm just ignorant of it.

I did request press credentials so I could have better access for taking photos for Wikimedia, but that not going anywhere... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam Vets MC Northeast listed as Outlaw Motorcycle Club

This club should be listed here as there are many documents online that point out that they are included in that category. Not to be confused with the Vietnam Vets MC USA which is not an outlaw motorcycle club and does not wear 1% diamond.

There are numerous articles and documents from newspapers and government organizations that list them as such. As you find the articles, please feel free to add them to the list of references. I did notice that some of the clubs listed do not have any references confirming there status as outlaw mc's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.255.9 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of outlaw motorcycle clubs#Vietnam Vets MC Northeast listed as Outlaw Motorcycle Club. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Badge of honor/badge of shame

vn-50This user talk page has been vandalized 50 times.

Feel free to delete this comment if you don't give a rip, which I suspect may be the case. I'll just say 50 occurrences of vandalism conservatively; the word "revert" occurs between 50 and 75 times in the summaries on your talkpage. You can get your talkpage semiprotected, like I did mine, if you find it annoying. — Brianhe (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, many of our most incorrigible sockpuppteers give themselves away with their trademark talk page taunts. I wouldn't want to lose that! Only 50 times seems like so little; I guess I'm just that likable...Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fastest cars

You bet me by about 2 seconds reverting the edit - have a nice day NealeFamily (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Casey Family Programs

Hi, Dennis - I haven't heard back from you since I responded to your most recent comments. I believe the page is written in a neutral tone, provides factual information, and provides adequate external references. Can you pull your alerts?

Just to clarify about Casey Family Programs, as an organization that neither seeks donations nor provides grants, they don't seek a lot of publicity and therefore there really aren't a lot of news references available. For this same reason, their goal for the Wikipedia is simply accuracy, not somehow trying to push an agenda.

Thanks, Worldraveler (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We should redirect the page to the Casey Foundation since it lacks enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:ORG.Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please specify which page you think it should redirect to. If you mean the Annie E. Casey Foundation, that would be a mistake. Those two organizations are not affiliated. In addition, I think your assertion that Casey Family Programs lacks enough coverage in independent sources is unfounded. I'm pasting a list of news references from the last year into the Casey Family Programs talk page. These should demonstrate the depth and breadth of Casey's work and influence. Unfortunately, none of them speak directly to the specific points made in a description of the organization. If you have advice on how to incorporate these references into a post about the organization, that would be most welcome. Worldraveler (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps telling me that you don't have independent sources to base the article on, only sources published by the article subject. Ergo, the subject fails WP:ORG. If enough independent sources exist to justify an article, then why aren't you citing them instead of press releases?

The fact that they are related is enough reason to put the Casey Family Programs under Annie E. Casey Foundation. The article George Lucas has a paragraph about Pixar and Lucasfilm even though he no longer owns them. You need to understand that Wikipedia is not the Casey Family Program's website; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists to inform readers, not to participate in the article subject's branding strategies. Their need to create a break with the past is not Wikipedia's problem, any more than Disney's need to assert that Pixar and Lucasfilm are now part of their corporate brand.

At any rate, you can express your opinion, along with other editors, over at Talk:Annie E. Casey Foundation#Proposed merge with Casey Family Programs. Remember to state your Conflict of interest up front; not disclosing your relationship with the subject can lead to you being blocked from editing.

Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and other Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid, and also Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello Dennis, not sure if I am doing this rite its all new to me but I have a question about editing the zx12r page I owen one and would like to and my manufactures manuel as a source on specs like weight and length and such and also how to use intern sites as reference thanks I think the VW device scandal deserves an own article, like it was handled with the GM recall, see: Investigation. TemptationLTZ (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@TemptationLTZ: a spinoff article is generally acceptable if there is enough material and sources for the article, and it retains NPOV. — Brianhe (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it probably will get its own article, and I'm sure somebody will make one today or tomorrow. I think it's better to wait a little while and let the sources accumulate, but there will always be someone who makes a new article the earliest they can.

I think a better use of time right now would be to sort out the problems with oxides of nitrogen, NOx, NO, NO2 and N2O, as explained at Talk:NOx#Global cooling. There are a large number of articles that need to have their links corrected, and they need clear explanations about what we're talking about when we say vehicle nitrogen oxides pollution, and what that pollution does that's so bad. We have some accurate articles and some that are sloppy. And we need to figure out which article all these automotive pollution articles should point to . A dab page is very unhelpful to anyone trying to find out kind of pollution these VW diesels are emitting. And do TDI cars increase or decrease global warming? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Careful, every vehicle-mile powered by fossil fuels increases atmo CO₂ regardless of technology, and that includes (most) advanced diesel and (most) electric alike. Even if you bicycle to work but consume food transported by truck, you could arguably be part of the fossil fuel consumption cycle. — Brianhe (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I want all of this stuff to be more careful written. I'm talking about the destruction of methane molecules by NOx, countering warming. But that should should be overbalanced by the CO2 that comes along with the NOx. The main problem -- I think -- is that NOx is a family of 7 compounds, only two of which are regulated by the EPA[1]. None of the 7, or the two that are regulated, are N20, Nitrous oxide, but some articles here and some sloppy sources include N20 along with NO and NO2 when they define NOx, which is the problem in the case of VW. N2O is a greenhouse gas that does cause warming.

I'm trying to rally editors to go through all of these article that mention vehicle nitrogen pollution and correct any more of these errors, and explicitly clarify what is what. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, is is much more complex than a CO2 emissions issue isn't it? Unfortunately for me, my chemistry education stopped in high school (not counting eng school materials science). I wonder if UW atmospheric photochemistry folks [2] could lend some understanding? Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Me too -- I'm a bit over my head so I need others to work on this with me. But I figure the general public needs an explanation of this that is as least simple enough for the likes of me to understand, and this VW story is going to drive readers to Wikipedia looking for answers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for agreeing, however, I stumbled over this "spin-off" article: Volkswagen common-rail TDI engine emissions scandal. It would be nice if one could make a direct link to that aforementioned article to the main page. I also would appreciate a much more shortened recap on the main page and leaving all relevant technical details to that other page. What you think? Thanks in advance TemptationLTZ (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, someone already linked it TemptationLTZ (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there Dennis. I noticed this and I think you need to be careful about following our policy on WP:NPOV. You are quite right to point out that Volkswagen is not a living person, but our style is to refrain from issuing verdicts that may affect living people until a court has made a determination. As I have edited the article I will not be the one to block you if you continue with this, but it is likely that you will be blocked if you choose to do so. It's entirely up to you what you do now, but I would hate to see a good editor blocked so I advise you to proceed with caution here. --John (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have asked you to stay off my talk page.

Please refrain from posting fraudulent "warnings" on my talk page. I have asked you once and yet you persist. Your opinion is at odds with the reality and I see your contributions as uncivil and disruptive. If you wish to discuss an article, please do so on the article talk page. If you have issues with my conduct, please go through the usual channels. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Looking at this edit, you use the words "Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********." Could you tell me, here on this private page rather than on an article talk page, what was passing through your mind when you wrote "m*********"?

If it's what I think it is, perhaps you'd like to apologise for the grossly uncivil remark? I've suggested before that you might like to slow down and think before posting something, and I'd like you to try doing that. Please. --Pete (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Aren't you supposed to ask permission or something to post on my talk page? How dare you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lab at the UW Research Commons

	What:	Wikipedia Lab
	When:	Weekly on Mondays, starting 10/5/2015 through 11/30/2015, 4:30pm-6:30pm
	Who:	UW students, faculty, and staff; Wikimedians; Seattle community members
	Where:	UW Research Commons
	Focus:	Women and the Sciences in October and Pacific Northwest in November; weekly topics
	Wikipedia Lab at the UW Libraries Research Commons brings together local Wikipedia experts with University of Washington subject specialists and UW community members to learn about editing Wikipedia. Come contribute vital, local, and corrective content to the world's largest online encyclopedia. Come as you are with questions, ideas, or content knowledge to share! The Wikipedia Lab will run weekly, every Monday, during fall quarter. The Lab has two thematic focuses: Women in the Sciences and the Pacific Northwest. Each week will feature a special collections librarian content specialist and Wikipedian editors. Sponsored by the UW Libraries & Wikimedians User Group

To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Motocross

Heyo. Just a heads up, I reverted one of your edits on Motocross. I'm pretty sure when you were reverting the vandalism you accidentally reverted a good edit. In other words I think you reverted a revert that was reverting vandalism caused by someone reverting a constructive edit... of a revert... Sorry just had to make that a little funny. Anyway, good work reverting the vandalism!! :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Incivility

I thought I'd try to work things out with you, before taking this further. Your behaviour recently has been uncivil and aggressive, a violation of Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. It appears to me that you are trying to steer me away from editing at Volkswagen emissions violations, where I have been working to keep our article within policy.

Looking at your contributions to my talk page:

• 0605 27 September 2015: You quote a long sequence of my comments on the article talk page, mostly me asking you for sources for the statements you wished to make in Wikipedia's voice. Ironically, you conclude your post, saying, "If you had once cited a source which shares your novel ideas, your unique skepticism, then it could be argued that you are working to balance the article, seeking fair middle ground between differentiating points of view. But the second point of few has never been shown to exist outside of your own imagination." In Wikipedia, we need reliable sources and we cannot synthesise something out of various different sources to come up with a statement not actually uttered by anyone. My "novel skepticism" is merely wikipolicy. All you need do in response is to come up with a reliable source and my question is answered. Attacking me is not the correct response!

• 1142 27 September 2015: After a couple more posts from you in similar vein, I wrote,

You are wrong in your surmises, Dennis. Please stay off my talkpage with these uncivil accusations. Thank you.

User pages belong to the project, rather than the user, but certain conventions have developed. As stated in WP:USER, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request…" Of course, certain administrator notices, ANI or 3RR warnings and so on are always appropriate.

• 1154 27 September 2015: You posted again on my talk page, again an aggressive note, fraudulently couched as a "warning". You seemed to think that Wikipedia could state in its own voice that corporate behaviour was illegal, even where no illegal behaviour had (yet) been found or admitted. This was also the subject of discussion on the talk page, where after an RfC it was quickly held that your view was incorrect. I removed your post, and advised you here,

Please refrain from posting fraudulent "warnings" on my talk page. I have asked you once and yet you persist. Your opinion is at odds with the reality and I see your contributions as uncivil and disruptive. If you wish to discuss an article, please do so on the article talk page. If you have issues with my conduct, please go through the usual channels. Thank you.

• 1207 27 September 2015: Notwithstanding being politely asked twice over to refrain from posting on my talk page, you decided to edit war on my talk page, adding more personal attacks.

• 1214 27 September 2015: And again.

• 0747 28 September 2015: You left a 3RR warning on my talk page, as per the 3RR case you had opened 2 hours and 32 minutes earlier. This was an entirely proper use of my talk page and I even thanked you for it, albeit you had to be prompted by an admin to do so. More on that 3RR case later.

• 1546 30 September 2015: You left a "warning" on my talk page concerning the civility of a message I had left on yours more than two days earlier. You provided no diff, but it was easy enough to work it out, given the paucity of material there. We'll get to the particulars of that message soon, but you scored high on the irony scale here.

• 1555 30 September 2015: A similar "warning" concerning my contributions to Volkswagen emissions violations. No diff provided, so I had no way of knowing which of my contributions there you were supposedly warning me about.

• 1618 30 September 2015: This time, not even the pretence of a "warning". Just launching into abuse. You know that I've asked you to stay off my talk page, but you have taken no notice. If you do not honour the polite requests of other editors, what does that say about how you expect to be treated by others?

• 0716 4 October 2015: Again a spurious warning, this time with a diff, which leads to a perfectly fine copyedit of some clumsy wording in the lede at Volkswagen emissions violations. This one comes with the advice that if I continue like this I may be blocked. Well, why don't you take your concerns further? Wikipedia is full of mechanisms enabling conduct and content differences to be resolved. You do not take any of these avenues, but instead harass me on my own user page for normal editing behaviour, after you have been repeatedly requested not to. Other editors on the same article seem to find no problem with my behaviour, but I notice a few taking exception to yours. You should heed these warnings.

• 0753 4 October 2015: You again edit war on my talk page, and add some abuse because I asked for sources for the stock prices listed in the article. It is common practice to supply sources, and in this case I requested them so that other editors could update the table if needed, as the listing stopped four days ago. Again, the correct response is to supply sources, if you have them, not abuse other editors for asking! Again I asked of you,

Dennis, I've asked you several times not to harass me on my talk page. If it's about an article, use the article talk. If it's another fake warning, why not take it to ANI or similar. Please stop.

• 0814 4 October 2015: More edit-warring and more abuse. If I delete comments off my talk page, it's a sign that I have read them and no longer wish to see them. When you have been repeatedly asked not to post on my talk page and you not only continue to do so but post them again and again once they are removed, perhaps you should consider taking your own advice about WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, hmmm?

Please refrain from posting on my talk page. If you wish to advise me of actions taken at WP:3RRN or WP:ANI or elsewhere where it is customary to advise all parties to a discussion, that is fine, but if you wish to attack me under the guise of spurious warnings, you will find your own conduct the focus of wider attention.

Turning to your 3RR noticeboard complaint here, you mentioned my name three times in your initial complaint, which is clearly not a breach of 3RR. However the first mention was not a revert, and the third mention was exactly the same diff as the second. So, one revert. You failed to warn other editors (more irony!), you failed to follow the template for providing diffs, you failed to notify the users you listed until prompted two and a half hours later, you failed to provide any evidence that any of the five editors you named had made more than one revert. Not surprisingly, the complaint was closed as "No violation". I suspect that this was an attempt to shut other editors out of discussion so you could edit the lede to your own preferred wording when advised by several others that we could not state in Wikivoice that Volkswagen had acted illegally.

Looking at the message mentioned earlier, the history there is that here you said in direct response to me,

Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********.

I suggested on the article talk page that we should focus on content, but on your talk page I said:

Looking at this edit, you use the words "Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********." Could you tell me, here on this private page rather than on an article talk page, what was passing through your mind when you wrote "m*********"? If it's what I think it is, perhaps you'd like to apologise for the grossly uncivil remark? I've suggested before that you might like to slow down and think before posting something, and I'd like you to try doing that. Please.

No apology, just a glib response, but more stalking, harassment and edit-warring on your part, as listed above. Including your "warning" me of uncivil behaviour in relation to your "m*********" comment.

Dennis, this is good advice right here. Stop attacking me and other editors. Stay off my talk page unless you are leaving a legitimate warning. If you want to discuss article content, do it on the article talk page. If you have a problem with my conduct, take it to the appropriate forum. If you are trying to get my goat, it's not going to work; I'll just assemble evidence and let others comment on your behaviour. You were warned about this a week ago. Think carefully about your contributions here. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bertha Benz article changes

You indicated I needed a citation to support the changes I made to the Bertha Benz article... the changes were so obvious and easy to verify I didn't think a citation was required.

A good citation/source is www.daimler.com

http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1322446-1-1323352-1-0-0-1322455-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

I changed the ages of Bertha Benz' 2 sons from 13 and 15 to 14 and 15 as indicated on the Daimler.com page (there was no citation for the incorrect existing information, by the way).

And I changed the date of the journey she made in the Mark III version of the car to 1888 which is the correct year... the existing article says the trip happened in 1886 but there is no citation for that, nor can I find any source that says the trip happened in 1886. The 1886 car was indeed patented in 1886. But that original vehicle was driven by Carl Benz ONE time only (according to a German manager at the Mercedes Classic Center in Southern California as recorded on video in one of Jay Leno's Garage videos). The famous trip from Mannheim to Pforzheim did not happen for 2 more years after the original car as documented on the Daimler.com page and every other reference to that journey that I can find. EVEN THE REFERENCE TO THE BOOK 'WHO DID WHAT FIRST' that is cited on the Bertha Benz article page refers her trip taking place in 1888 (not 1886 as the article currently states). So does the German Government route page for her trip... 1888 and it is also one of the Notes/Citations on the existing page. Not sure I should have to provide MORE citations when the citations already there agree with the 1888 date... but whatever. I have never seen any references to the Mark III car existing in 1886. The caption pertaining to the Mark III car refers to 1886, but the Mark III car did not exist until 1888 and that was the version of the car Bertha Benz used to make the trip to Pforzheim. One of the external links does say the sons were 13 and 15, but I have to assume that Daimler knows the history better than abcteach.org or whoever created that particular document. But EVERY source says the trip happened in 1888... so the changes I made were already covered by existing citations in the Bertha Benz article.

I cannot find "page history" where you said the changes I made were saved, so I can't figure out how to restore what I did. I'm not a frequent Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.151.9 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The citation you're giving now is totally different than the one you gave then, which was just some wiki. I'm not so sure Daimler.com is the best source for this history; the history of Honda at Honda's website is self-serving and incomplete, for example. Anyway, go to Talk:Bertha Benz and explain what you'd like to do and see if others agree that your sources are valid. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the EMP Museum page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pidgin German

I won't say that my German is top notch, but I spend a fair amount of time there and in Austria and Switzerland as well. Alles in Ordnung is pretty much the German philosophy in a nutshell. I don't have to look up a dictionary to know what basic phrases mean. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I read German passably and I'd say a more idiomatic translation of the phrase would be "in spec". Without seeing the entire original passage it's hard to say exactly, but it might have also meant "in compliance [with regulations]". Brianhe (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Others have resolved this now using new sources, but I will accept AGF another editor's claim that they translated it if the English they write is clear and reasonably correct. When they instead write, "VW has proposed that car owners voluntarily return their cars for VW to bring to order [sic]" that sets off alarm bells that they are not certain what the idiomatic meaning of in Ordnung is. And we serve our readers better by saying nothing at all rather than throwing out some garbled version cribbed from Google Translate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Glen Curtiss - See also

Hi there, please point me directly to the style you're referring to so I know where I am? As far as I can see it complies with:

"See also" section[edit] Shortcuts: WP:ALSO MOS:SEEALSO WP:SEEALSO For "other uses" templates (such as this one), see Wikipedia:Hatnote. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists § See also lists Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005 Ischemia – restriction in blood supply Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.Rstory (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a confusing mess. Readers have no idea what to do with that. If there are really that many new topics about Curtiss that need to be covered, then expand the article. Just throwing 34 unexplained links there doesn't help anybody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing is a matter of opinion - it does comply with the style aside from length perhaps and readers are free to click and read information they should be aware of - curtiss' interests were extensive much to my surprise and the links all contain references to Curtiss. I am sure the article could be expanded if you have time to do it? Some of the links might go to the Curtiss company perhaps? Instead of wiping out the list wholesale, why not try some constructive edits instead?Rstory (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One reason it's confusing is there's no clue as to why they're related to Glenn Curtiss. So you pick one and start reading it. In most of the articles, you read half the page and you still have no idea why it's related to Curtiss. It's all a lot of noise. It would be much better to pick one and focus on it to give the reader something that makes sense, rather than 34 links that just leave them saying "What?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, will have a look at it.Rstory (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Beans

I'm trying to figure out how to apply WP:BEANS in cases of pointless disruption. Not sure if it means to go ahead and warn the guy, or not to warn him and let nature take its course. – Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually don't interfere if it's not totally clear what's wrong. Telling somebody to stop doing something because of a future problem usually gets misinterpreted and isn't worth the drama. Even though the outcome is actually worse when you don't say anything. Knowing something bad will happen is no use unless others believe you. If they don't, it's out of your hands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)