User talk:Dennis Bratland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seattle mayoral election, 2017[edit]

Thanks for the additions, Dennis, but can the candidate descriptions be pared back to where they were? Usually, the section is meant for very short descriptions of the candidate's occupation and any past political positions, and explicitly not for positions and issues (that should be described in a separate section). SounderBruce 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UT

I'm not sure what you mean by usually. Neither Seattle mayoral election, 2009 or Seattle mayoral election, 2013 have a separate section with details about the minor candidates. Where else can we give any information about them? I think it's important to distinguish between a Republican who wants fiscal discipline (i.e. typical) and a Republican who wants the city to combat cell phone cancer and build wind blocks (i.e. unusual, to say the least). Or one who paid $2,000 and never said or published one word more (i.e. WTF?). Most of these minor candidates are going to drop off the radar soon, and this is the only section of the article where we could give any detail about them before we move on to the main event. The bulk of the article will eventually consist of details about the top candidates, and events during the campaign.

FAs like Philadelphia municipal election, 1951, United States Senate election in California, 1950, United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898, etc start with a prose background section, then give long profiles of the two or three main candidates.

Regardless of what we hope the article will look like some day, we don't delete relevant, verifiable, cited content on the grounds that some hypothetical future version of an article will have a home for it. This is what Wikipedia:Editing policy is all about: we don't nuke things because they aren't perfect. We keep them around, rearrange, split, merge, reorganize. But if it's something we think we might ever use, and it's not causing harm, then we keep it.

If someone wants to add a new section where they put all the candidates positions below the one with only their names and occupation, that's fine, but if they haven't done it yet, then this is a good intermediate stage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI reports[edit]

Have one of these. On me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly bit of advice. ANI reports should be as short as possible, and only list the problematic behavior, not lay out the entire content dispute that led up to the problematic behavior. Now that the other party has posted a rambling 8-point reply, patrolling admins are going to look at this long report and say "no way am I reading all that!". But thanks for bringing this to ANI, and I hope the outcome is appropriate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I try -- I really do -- to keep it short, because I know you're exactly right about admins skipping right past long threads. But when I delete the details and just lay out the bare minimum, then they complain there's not enough specifics, not enough diffs, etc. AN/I is a crapshoot. That's why I started at Requests for Closure. A simple "Resolved, follow MOS:UNITS", preferably by an Admin, would probably have put an end to this. Backing up further, if the original question had been quickly reformatted to look like a proper RfC, or otherwise "set up to explicitly require closure", as Deryck Chan had said, then there would have been a much greater chance of bringing this to a quick end without all the unnecessary discussion.

If you or anyone else wants to re-submit their own 100-word-or-less ANI report on this to supersede my report, I will just withdraw mine, if it looks like that will get the job done better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Something you could try is to include the details but wrap them with {{Collapse top}} - {{Collapse bottom}}. I've seen it done before at noticeboards. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've attempted that in the past, or using <small></small> to focus attention on the meat of it, but I still often got "tl;dr" from admins. Apparently I don't always know which parts to collapse. I'm still open to anyone who wishes to give it a try. Feel free to edit my comments to collapse the excess if that will work. I could probably figure out how to tune it myself, if I spent a week on it, but I only have so much time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I share your frustration but try to be patient and civil and beware the boomerang. This will all end favorably. When you are being baited, don't take the bait. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All true. But when you have an individual who doesn't respond to the usual approach, and ignores the main alternative approach, and ignores every other attempt to get through to them, then it begins to become reasonable to give the lesser-used ways of reaching people a try. Some people never listen until you yell at them. Probably won't work but it's worth one try.

Most likely it is nothing but bait, and in fact that this is all a big troll designed to get everyone wound up while he sits back and laughs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhnjoy (talkcontribs) 00:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Message[edit]

I have replied to your em. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jojhnjoy and IDHT[edit]

Hello Dennis Bratland, how are you? I have re-closed the current discussion and updated the closure wording to broaden the ban/address the proposal by EEng. I have spoke to EEng and hopefully it's fine with you too. Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 04:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all good. I spent too much time on this and made it seem like it was about me. There are several others who see this more or less the same as I do. It's probably best if I try to step away and let others wrap this up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Karole Vail[edit]

Hello, Dennis! Would you kindly add any useful information from the sources that you mentioned to the Karole Vail article? Thanks very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

List of long-distance motorcycle riders[edit]

Hi Dennis,

I hope all is well,

Forgive me if I have used the wrong form to communicate (new to submissions). I am gathering evidence regards the long distance rider (360 Global circumnavigation on the same Motorcycle) Henrik Loman as feel he has earned to be in the list. I have found an article from a reputable magazine where he features both in their on-line version but also in the printed version:

https://www.adventurebikerider.com/battling-nature-on-the-road-to-kathmandu/

Happy to collect more material and would be grateful if you kindly guided me in the right direction regards what is needed.

Thank You, EricGunnar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGunnar (talkcontribs) 08:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The place to post this information is at Talk:List of long-distance motorcycle riders#Henrik Loman. Bri has already started a thread on the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Plural of "ABS" is the same as plural of "ATM" ("ATMs"), etc.[edit]

I started a discussion about pluralizing "ABS" as "ABSs"--that is, "anti-lock braking systemS" the same way as we pluralize "ATM" as "ATMs," etc. Will you please show this other editor why that's correct with me?

Thanks if so, 174.23.105.242 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Hi, Regarding changes made by Tvaerskaegg to Laci Green article. My changes are not point of view but a point of fact. Read the link provided. Nowhere does it say:

"far-right media" responded with what Newsweek's Alexander Nazaryan called "celebration", "praise", and "glee".[26]

That quote is untrue. The link provided says what I say it said. Read it. The revision you reverted to is untrue. It is factually incorrect and the article should be changed back to my factual version. If the articla stands as it is then it is lying about the external link it provides and it reflects badly on the people who created it. I am not going to get involved in an editing war, if the article creators let their untrue version stand then it can remain as a monument to the unreliability of Wikipedia and the incompetence of certain editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talkcontribs) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is my talk page. The topic of edits to Laci Green is being discussed at Talk:Laci Green. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I intend to carry the Laci Green matter further. See the talk page. Tvaerskaegg.

About the edition I did to Honda CBR250R (2011)[edit]

Template:About the edition I did to Honda CBR250R (2011)

I did some editions to the article about CBR250R 2011 because I found the information given there was wrong and I have proofs to support my claim https://www.honda2wheelersindia.com/assets/pdf/cbr250.pdf May be you should check this link. I own a 2011 CBR250R repsol model and I know that the details mentioned in that article are wrong..... I mean Specs...

Pawanshakya563 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just a manufacturer brochure. The citations in the article are from independent tests. The Honda brochure you have says "the specifications and design may vary". So they aren't really even claiming it has 26.15 bhp. They're saying maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. They even shaved a few kg off the weight. Is Honda lying? No. Are they telling the truth? No. What are they saying? Nothing. Cycle World and Motorcycle Consumer News tested the bike a dyno and those are the results. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean?[edit]

What do you mean by "no"? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What am I supposed to think? You just say "no" and you refuse explaining that? I pointed out an obvious mistake there, do you want me to explain it? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Don't post about this again on my talk page. If you have reasons to dispute the sources already cited, and new sources that you think are better, then go to Talk:BMW and cite them. You've already been warned (again) over nitpicking about units and measurements. If your new game is to pick big fights over little translation questions, you will likely be banned from that topic too, if not blocked altogether.

Go. Away. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


Ninja 300 speed review![edit]

Hey Dennis, In the Ninja 300 article [1] the top speed is different in performance box and paragraph, and I suspect the real top speed is around 180[2]. Anyway, one is wrong, and we should fix that. So please undo my change if I am wrong. One more thing, thanks for clarification on Honda CBR300R, I will keep tabs on it. Navinsingh133 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Utah[edit]

I'm not sure how coloring county results to match Presidential election counts as "stonewalling progress", but whatever, you're obviously more invested in this outcome than I am. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

Re: this edit - It looks like to me that an archiving/search box was already present in the previous version of the talkpage, within the talkpage header. The reasons the archiving hasn't been running are

  • because the auto-archiving timespan is 60 days and
  • the auto-archiving bot is supposed to leave 1 thread on the talkpage.

Until there is another thread, the May 2017 InternetArchiveBot post will just stay on the page. Myself, I find having two separate archive boxes to be confusing, I would like to remove the standalone one if that's alright with you. Shearonink (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused here. Please go ahead and straighten out the talk page and archives if you can. I collapsed the list of links the bot put in to make it easier to read. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Hey Dennis,

I accidently posted the comment in the wrong section, no need to worry about it. I think that the three "options" all lack a comment for the general audience that explains that several different sources were used and that source A tells something which is different from what source B says. That's what I usually do if different sources give different information on the same thing. To me it seems like you would want other users to comment on which option fits the article best. But choosing any of these options would always be one-sided since the article wouldn't show (or make clear) that there are several sources that say different things about the year in which the motorcycle was speed restricted to 299 km/h. Or do I get this entire thing wrong and you would explain that somehow in the text below the infobox?

My problem with the English language Wikipedia is not that I don't understand English, the problem is that there are so many Wikipedia specific things you cannot know immediately. And it gets weirder if you are used to a different Wikipedia. For instance, in the German language Wikipedia, there is no consensus and the RfC works differently. Even administrators are different and there are no topic bans or interaction bans. In German, you would not use "You" but "Thou" instead for talking to other authors, however, the discussion atmosphere is different and people would get banned (or blocked?) for things like: "Get this into your thick head"; also, there is no difference between a block and a ban. I think there is a difference between the word Edit-Warring in the German and English language Wikipedia; (hp and PS are not the same either even though a lot of people assume that).

Sorry, but did you seriously write: "your limited understanding of English"? Honestly, I don't want to be impolite but you have proven several times that you don't understand several things. For instance, you made Mercedes-Benz a manufacturer and an RWD-vehicle an AWD-vehicle. You were the one who asked me to cite a source that proves that "Bayerische Motoren Werke" is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make sense in German. (Zugegebenermaßen macht mich das schon ein wenig sprachlos, aber glaubst du ernsthaft, ich wäre nicht dazu im Stande, einen Deutschen Satz bzw. Namen adäquat im Bezug auf grammtikalische und sprachliche Richtigkeit zu bewerten?) I really hope that you wouldn't do the same with "Rauh Welt Begriff". (Makes as much sense as BMW: No sense at all.) You don't even know how to spell the name Johannes.

Honestly, I assume that our different culture and mentalities are incompatible. I never meant any offense or disrespect, though I often considered your behaviour inappropriate and I didn't understand why you were so mad at certain points in the past. But this has become way too long, I apologize for any inconvenience. Anyways. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for starting the request for comments on the Monster Page, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know the methods to get others engaged. I'm happy to see the conversation expanded beyond me and 72, who does not seem willing to play with others. Mustangs6551 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's often helpful to involve others. First try to work it out between you, and if you arrive at an impasse, seek input from outside. You might want to read Dispute resolution for a rundown of the tools Wikipedia has for this. Often requesting a third opinion, or starting a thread at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard are the first steps before a Request for Comments. In this case, I happened to be of the opinion based on experience that an RfC had the greatest chance of success, and that the first two would lead to more unresolved debates. One good rule of thumb is that the first time one editor makes a personal comment about another editor, rather than strictly commenting on article content, sources, and the article subject, is when a dispute resolution step is needed. It is virtually never a good idea to reply back in kind to a comment about oneself. Either ignore it, or seek help, but never escalate. Easier said than done, but in a perfect world that's what we'd all do. If you are sure you really do need to say something about the other person, it's best to do it on their talk page rather than any article talk page.

Always remember that good outcomes are not guaranteed. Wikipedia's consensus process works pretty well overall, but you should expect to not get your way every time. No matter how certain you are that you're right, you have to be willing to accept the "wrong" outcome and walk away with no hard feelings. Often later down the road a consensus decision you disagree with might be re-examined and you'll have another chance to see something better. Most of the time the best you can hope for is a compromise where you get half of what you want along with some bad stuff that you have to live with. But then the other guys have to live with a compromise that they aren't so thrilled about either. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

NJ Presidential Election 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is [1]. Thank you. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on Radial brake caliper[edit]

Hey Dennis, is the requested article Radial brake caliper important enough(should I write this). If I write this, it will not be a very large article. I will like your opinion on this. If yes then I will write it on my userspace first. Navinsingh133 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You could, but I would start at Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques Disc brake#Motorcycles and scooters and Disc brake#Calipers. Fill in missing references, tag or delete unsourced material, how-to advice, shopping advice, or original research. Consider moving some of the motorcycle caliper content around in Disc brake. Once you figure out where the main section on motorcycle radial calipers is, start expanding it. If you reach a point where you've got such a long section on radial calipers that it's overwhelming the article, then create a new one. For the moment we should probably redirect radial caliper and radial brake caliper to Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques.

Following a process like that is easier and more foolproof. If you have to stop at any point, the encyclopedia is still in good shape. Others can easily pick up where you left off. If you go straight to making a new article without looking at the associated articles, it can create an ever-growing tangle of stubs and contradictory articles for someone else to clean up. Wikipedia:Summary style describes this process in more detail.

But if you feel like you've got enough to start a new article, go right ahead. Using either the Draft namespace or your own userspace like your sandbox or whatever it a very good idea to get started. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Check Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques now! Following your advise I added data, and also made an database on Radial brake caliper(Why settle for one when you can have both). Navinsingh133 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle history report spam[edit]

Dennis

This is user cmkuhn5. Chris Kuhn is my name.

You recently removed my edit when I added my vehicle history report website to the vehicle history report page.

You asked to write you if I had concerns. My problem is that I only added my website LemonChecks.com to the list of websites that sell or provide NMVTIS certified vehicle history reports..which is the only product my site sells.

However you removed it stating it was spam? I understand the whole commercial website thing however, my site is the same as all the other 8 websites listed where I added mine. Therefore it is relevant to the page as where I added the site it says "here are sites where you can purchase a vehicle history report at online.."

Therefore since it's listing sites where you can buy a report, I feel a commercial website is relevant as long as it is selling what the listing says, which is vehicle history reports, and that's the only thing my site sells making it relevant to the page and category.

My website is the exact same and sells the exact same product as the other 8 listed where I placed mine. So if mine is not allowed then all the others should be removed as well as all our sites being the same with all things considered equal.

I thank you for your time and consideration and am asking you to please allow my edit to allow just adding my website to the same place/list as the other same vehicle report sites on the page.

Best regards

Chris Kuhn LemonChecks.com User: cmkuhn5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmkuhn5 (talkcontribs) 21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of the other 8 spam links. Somebody hasn't been paying attention to vehicle history report. My advice is for you to edit Wikipedia articles on topics unrelated to vehicle history or any other website or business you are associated with. Editing Wikipedia on a topic on which you have a conflict of interest is extremely difficult and usually ends in tears. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Overlanding edit[edit]

There was nothing about my edit to the overlanding wiki that was spam or advertising. It was 100% informational and I am in the process of compiling a list of all the overlanding groups in the U.S. and was going to add them to the wiki.

I would very much appreciate you undoing your delete of my edit.

Best, Dan Danwboles (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to provide information about overlanding that is in independent sources, which are reputable and meet Wikipdia's standards for reliable sources, that's great. But that is not the same as a list of links to some companies. Please carefully read Wikipeda's policy on this: WP:NOTADVERTISING. A list of links is also a violation of the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

You appear to be in the process of writing an article about your own company. This is usually a mistake, and almost always ends in tears. Please carefully read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Editing Wikipedia while keeping within the bounds of these guidelines is not easy, and it is not very much fun. I would advise you to not edit any article topics related to your company, or to overlanding in general. You're allowed to, but I'm telling you, you're better off if you don't. There are millions of articles on thousands of thousands of topics, from books to sports to history to art. You would find working on any of these subjects rewarding, while any work you do on the subject of overlanding is very likely to be a constant battle, leaving you feeling bitter and abused.

If you were to go spend a few months editing articles about 15th century Chinese art, or women bicyclists of the Unites States, or Colorado restaurants (to name a few), and then you happen to run across a dealer in Chinese art or an agent for a bicyclist or a Colorado restaurant owner, you will know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't care that much about Chinese art, and you are going to do a good job of researching the topic and writing something that is neutral and encyclopedic. That art dealer is going to be nothing but a pain in the ass to you. Try it and see if you don't believe me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Common selection criteria is good guidance on what belongs in such a list (or table). Like Dennis said, independent sources are absolutely necessary. When other people talk about something we know it's notable beyond mere existence. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Belated thanks for having the knowledge to identify the vandal at the Beatnik Bandit article! THX1136 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Naked vs standard[edit]

"Naked bike: These used to be the standard roadster motorcycle, with no fairing, medium-height handlebars, and an exposed engine" – How Your Motorcycle Works.[1] Which means "naked" is just a new name for an old idea. Right? I'm trying to understand this before I make a dumb comment at the RfC. My knowledge as a reader (can't back it up at the moment) says that "naked" usually implies a model that once had, or is concurrently available as, a full fairing. Examples, Ducati sportbikes/Ducati Monster, Honda CBR/CB series, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-9R/Z1000 , BMW R1200ST/R nineT (maybe). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Henshaw's is one definition and it's fine. But I don't think we're trying to create the best definition; we're trying to find consensus on the most defensible definition. To weaken the definition to the point that it doesn't contradict too many reliable sources.

The Monster never had fairings. Some Honda CBs were CBRs with fairings removed, but they built many CBs decades before they made any faired bikes. CB is just Honda's term for a general purpose street bike. Usually. Honda breaks its letter code convention regularly.

There are some who want to say the M900 was merely a 900 SuperSport with the fairings removed. But I think when you've taken the only the front half of the 900SS frame, designed a new rear end to give different geometry, substituted the fork of 750, and designed an all new fuel tank, seat, and rear bodywork, then you've done more than just take the fairings off a sportbike. It's not a "naked 900SS". When the M900 debuted, they didn't call it that; the most common phrase was "parts bin special".

The Monster is important when talking about "naked bike" as a category because that's what mainstreamed the term. Carrithers wrote: "Ducati's 1993 M900 Monster started this whole naked-bike thing, at least on the production side of things. A fast and agile alternative to plastic-wrapped sportbikes, the original II Monstro was Bologna's daring little detour from the super-sport path and became an instant bestseller, inspiring an entire genre. Here was an elemental, engine-and-wheels Italian for riders who didn't give a pepperoni about road-racing." (1993-2002 Ducati M900 monster. Motorcyclist, July 2005, p. 124+)

It's not that they actually took the fairings off a sportbike (that is still what streetfighter means), it's that they no longer felt obliged to follow racing bike style in producing a sporting street bike. And most important, Ducati promoted the term. It's our good friend positioning (marketing). Like when Suzuki said the Hayabusa isn't just a sport bike or open class bike. It's a "Hypersport". They love to make up a new term for a new product to grab consumers attention and convince them that the new product is not just a little better than the old one. It's a whole new thing! Suzuki failed to make 'hypersport' catch on, and "Ultimate Sport" went nowhere too. But Ducati sold us on naked bike. But they also saw the term diluted because it's applied to everything that doesn't have a fairing.

I guess my thing is to emphasize that nobody agrees on the definition. You often hear that there's a minimum engine size or power. That there's no such thing as 125cc naked bike. That's merely one guy's opinion. Many others use naked to describe small bikes. But people want to say "that's not a true naked bike", and they want to come to Wikipedia and see an article that helps them win that argument.

I'm not saying these definitions, such as Henshaw's above, are bad, or wrong. I think the logic is sound. If it were our job to issue rulings on the best definition, I'd support one like that. But that isn't what we're doing. We're describing what everybody else uses the term for, and everybody else is inconsistent. People want Wikipedia to fix that for them: to rule out the contradictions and give them a consistent logical definition. We shouldn't. We should make weak statements that are consistent with all the evidence. A defensible weak statement is that naked is a standard bike. Standard meaning 'general purpose', as in, not specialized. Not giving up one thing to achieve a relatively narrow function, like a sportbike or touring bike does.

That is all a lot of complicated stuff. The bottom line for me is that I oppose Wikipedia lending support to anybody who says "X is not a true Y". The idea of a true anything is not defensible in vernacular speech. You have to limit yourself to a narrow context for the "true" to mean anything. It's safe to say, "naked it applied generally to standard bikes, but some use the term in a more specific sense, such as..."

You shouldn't worry you'll say the wrong thing; I imagine you'll say it more clearly than I have. I'm probably overthinking it and maybe there's a consensus we can find that is more straightforward than my way of looking at it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm so happy to see that somebody already started Parts bin special :) ... regarding the topic at hand though. I'll have to digest this for a bit. Maybe in the end I won't jump in to the discussion, as it's really just about nomenclature, not substance, and that doesn't exactly thrill. BTW did you notice that Glossary of motorcycling terms is really thin and could use a lot of the terms we just discussed? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It bothers me a lot that we apply these terms anachronistically. Henshaw calls the new retro Bonneville a naked, but the 1960s Bonneville was never called that, nor was the CB750 or Kawasaki triple. They called them sport bikes. Terms like 'enduro' or 'scrambler' had very different meanings in the 1920s to 1950s than they do in the 2010s. But coming up with rules for how we can use the correct contemporary terms across many articles? And what about categories? Best not to think about it. Other than I like every article to tell the reader to take this stuff with a grain of salt. A bike having a chain or shaft drive is a fact. Being a sport bike or standard is an opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Identifying PR in motorcycle articles[edit]

Inviting you to add to Wikipedia:Identifying PR. I'm sure there are some patterns at List of long-distance motorcycle riders and elsewhere that could be mentioned. And the non-motorcycling things you've gotten acquainted with too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Rent seeking[edit]

So you really think there is a benefit in having this single-paragraph section? 93.142.96.39 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The other editors who are also working in the article don't watch my talk page. You should explain what you're trying to accomplish at Talk:Rent seeking and see if others agree with you. And don't forget to write an edit summary so they can see the reasons for your edits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Other editors did not undo my edit. Do you disagree with it or not? I'm not sure what you're saying here. 93.142.96.39 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying go discuss it at Talk:Rent seeking. That's it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It's just one silly section heading. You can keep it, I don't want a second conversation about it. 93.142.96.39 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

About your requests for page protection[edit]

Hello, Dennis! You will notice that I turned down all your requests for full-protection of articles related to the Seattle mayoral election. Sorry about that. In some cases the disagreement had not progressed to actual edit warring; in one case the only person edit warring was you. (Consider this to be a 3RR warning for that case.) In only one case had you posted on the talk page. I know you believe that your position is the correct one, and you may very well be right. But 1) protection does not exist to enforce your side in a dispute, and 2) edit warring is prohibited even if you are sure you are right. It looks to me as if you and the other people will be able to come to a reasonable way of explaining the situation - and virtually already have at one of the articles. I'm confident you will be able to work this out within Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am very surprised this is considered even remotely an editorial dispute. If a number of IPs and SPAs were declaring the winner of the 2018 NBA championship or what a Mars lander that hasn’t landed yet will find, there would be no question that the pages should be protected. If there were any guidelines or an MOS section that said we treat election outcomes this way, I could understand. But we only have WP:CRYSTAL, which is unambiguous. —-Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on calling results at WikiProject Elections[edit]

Please participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns?. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suzuki RF club links[edit]

Hi. I recently edited the Suzuki RF series page to include the RF owners club in the UK. You sent me a message it wasnt appropriate to link to them. I did read the guidelines. The RF owners club is not a profit making organization and there is no cost to join the forum. It's a club that owners can join for help and information on their Motorcycles. We have some of the most in depth information on the history of the RF, and pages of maintenance information. Im sorry if it wasnt ok, i meant no harm. I wouldnt call it spam as we are just trying to help owners. BadAnimal (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@BadAnimal:, you should re-read the rules more carefully at WP:ELNO. It says avoid...
It does not say only avoid for-profit or commercial sites. It means any website, including non-profits. If you click through to WP:LINKSPAM, it says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." The club site rfownersclub.co.uk is a website. Promoting a website is not allowed. Scroll down to How not to be a spammer it says "Contribute cited text, not bare links." Cite the source for facts you added. Note that this website is self-published social media, and as explained under WP:SPS, the club website doesn't qualify as a source. BAck at WP:ELNO aka WP:FANSITE (and rfownersclub.co.uk IS a fans site), The list of disallowed links goes on to...
  • 10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
  • 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
This club is social media. It's a forum/group. It's a fansite. Note again that whether these forums/clubs/social media are non-profit or for-profit is irrelevant.
At the important policy page What Wikipedia is not, under Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, it says "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."
As a Suzuki RF enthusiast, you are welcome to add facts and improve the writing on articles related to this bike, motorcycles in general, and any Wikipedia article. I would bet you have on hand books and magazines not easily found online that contain good information about the Suzuki RF. You could expand articles with your resources, and cite them. I bet your experience means you know where to find other books, magazines, journals, and other sources that have quality information on motorcycles, and how to avoid sources that are unreliable. You can use this expertise to improve the RF article and any article. You are welcome to contribute, and you can make valuable contributions. Just not links to fansites and forums. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)