User talk:Dennis Bratland
- 1 Pie graph
- 2 Gratitude
- 3 Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
- 4 California (finally) certified their results
- 5 OK Election Page
- 6 FYI
- 7 Books and Bytes - Issue 20
- 8 Military stress card urban legend, or is it?
- 9 Felix Kramer
- 10 1RR
- 11 discretionary sanctions notification
- 12 Barnstar
- 13 Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon at UW Bothell
- 14 Art+Feminism March 2017 at UW Seattle
- 15 ANI
- 16 Ugly Presidential Maps: Montana
- 17 Disambiguation link notification for March 26
- Wikihonding his exactly what you are doing. Please stop. If you persist you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologize as I had not taken into context the meaning of the word "hound". I will admit I have done this before. However, I find it to be of mundane impertinence that you say I have no prior history of editing Washington, California, and Oregon page. As I have a long history of editing election pages, and I hope you do not continue to assert hounding, as we both just want to improve Wikipedia, and if we could have a civilized discussion about the pros and cons of such graphs, it would be much appreciated. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if I sounded like a pompous jerk, and by no means have sinister intentions regarding maps or graphs. But I hope you do not take anything personally. I'd also like to say that the argument of preserving the status quo is a powerful one, as it shows consensus amongst editors. I think the idea of visual biases, while compelling in theory, falls under speculation as well. As you have shown to me great interest in the political pages here, I'd love to try and aid you on your goal of making this community a better place PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never called you any names. I don't know where that came from. I never called you a pompous jerk, and I never implied any such thing. I don't see that as the issue at all. The issue is resistance to change, resulting in a biased POV. I'm interested in fixing that problem; it has nothing to do with personalities.
Community is a great thing, but when innovation is crushed by those who cling to the status quo, what good is community? Sounds more like biting the newcomers.
From what policy are you getting this "powerful" argument to preserve the status quo? There is no such policy that I know of. I'm well aware of how much a group of editors will fight to maintain the status quo, but that's a pernicious aspect of human nature. We aren't even talking about a dispute over facts, or removing information. We're keeping all the information; in fact I'm adding information that wasn't there before. It all comes form teh same sources. This is all about preserving a particular format for presenting information, based on no policy, and no facts. Just a need to control pages. This is why the ownership policy explicitly prohibits such behavior. WP:Editing policy spells out that Wikipedia cannot be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" if you have a group of gatekeepers who rush in to squash any change that deviates from their pet style. Substance matters more than style, and openness to editing matters more than an imaginary policy of protecting the status quo.
If we were at least talking about a WP:GA or WP:FA, you could claim that the old version was considered quality work. But it's no such thing. It's just an ordinary article struggling to find it's way to being "good". you have no basis to be so protective of a particular style.
I was wondering if we can resolve this issue by having both graphs on the page. Maybe put either one further down, but on the page as it can only strengthen the content as they are both factually accurate PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, wondering what you thought of my most recent edit on WA election. I believe this would qualify as a compromise of sorts, and I hope we can go further with this PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, I'm just commenting to say that I will no longer engage in our editing discussion involving maps. We have argued to a stalemaye, and further discussion would only escalate things. I think it is only fair to give you and your graphs a chance, and I will let it run its course, and maybe there will be a new consensus or a theoretical reversion. Whatever the result, while we've had viibrant dialogue, I mean nothing personally, and I thank you and I'm incredibly grateful that through you, I've learned more about policy and that's helped to me to be a better editor. If you ever want help with anything just post something on my talk page! :) PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA
Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well.Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083.
California (finally) certified their results
I thought you would be interested in CA's official results, which were released today. Bernie Sanders managed to break 2% in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties as a write in. He topped 1% in several others. Results from the CA SoS. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot to include the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teak the Kiwi (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
OK Election Page
Hi Dennis, I saw you put a tag on OK Pres election page. I was going to update the results box, but would you like me to update county results as well?PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
Military stress card urban legend, or is it?
- Cool subject. So far I haven't found anything more than what you've already got. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
My name is Narayan Gopinathan and I just edited the page for Felix Kramer. I have been editing since 2008. As I describe in his talk page, I met Felix in 2015 and volunteered to clean up his Wiki page. If you can edit it to improve its neutral point of view, and consider removing the COI tag, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Your recent editing history at Executive Order 13769 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.
The article is under a 1RR restriction. You've now removed - reverted - the added tags TWICE, which means you've broken 1RR. Since you may not have been aware of the restriction (despite the fact that there's a big fat message at the top of the talk page), I'm asking as a courtesy that you self revert and put the tags back in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions notification
|This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
|Valued Picture Barnstar|
|For File:Visas to 7 countries in immigration ban by type and number 2016.png, which is both exceptionally well done and exceptionally informative. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)|
Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon at UW Bothell
Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017.
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/Editing as Activism
Art+Feminism March 2017 at UW Seattle
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ugly Presidential Maps: Montana
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to the United States Presidential Elections. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed.
Since I take it that you enjoy proper maps, I have a project you might be interested in. From around 1892-2000, Montana has had some rather ugly presidential maps. But, one of the more important ones, the 1992 one (the historical flip) is too ugly in comparison to some of the other maps demonstrated in that election, Such as New York, Virginia, and Washington just to name a few.
If this would be something you'd like to work on, your contributions would be greatly appreciated. But if you don't really feel like it, feel free to leave it as is.
Thanks once again,
- It's not just ugly. It's grossly inaccurate. Montana in 1992 was a three way race, but this filled map only shows two candidates. And it fills in the county land area as if that were a meaningful piece of data, ignoring how many actual votes were counted in each county. It's impossible to tell from this kind of graph even who won the state. It needs to be something that shows you how many votes each candidate got. Filling in land area with color because they got the most votes in that county makes it look like they won something that way. It actually looks like Bush won the state.
To fix that it needs to be a pie map overlaid on a state and county map. Then you see the geography, while also seeing all the candidates, and how many votes they actually got. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triumph Bonneville Bobber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard tail (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.