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 page. 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.

I am sorry to cause a problem.

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. And that the ban admin would not recognize this as a new comer I did not know what to. 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. 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 that i was only repeating because I got no response from him and further stated I would not bring up again. Now with that said The issue I was bring up. And I was not even stating that dennis needed sanction. If it came off that way I Apologize. But what I was bringing up was basicly it was not dennis job to bring up any copyright infrindgment 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 looking for input for who 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 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 never 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 way. And just goes on to cause more drama for everyone as if he gets some enjoyment from this. Truly not the behavior or thinking of 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 third party opinion editor User:Robert McClenon does seem like editor User:Dsandlund who I recently had conflict with over the very same content on cbr600f this ip editor is vandalizing. 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 contributing anything to Wikipedia. He has only been around for about a year and a year under a different ip and seems to have a pattern of conflict. But he has taken to start vandalizing 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 notice board to have me blocked[11]. So any input on how to deal with this matter would be helpful. Also thanks for your input I see on notice board. I would prefer no more contact with this editor as it seem he is trying to goad me into bad behavior, is it just me or is this editor just playing head games. As it seems on the notice board that he is more interested in having someone make me respond to him more than trying to block me for removing his vandalism. 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)

Harley-Davidson VRSC

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Harley-Davidson VRSC. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Harley-Davidson VRSC, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Harley-Davidson VRSC, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. 32.218.47.69 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)