User talk:Dennis Bratland

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


Motorcycling[edit]

Hello, I'm the guy who removed four words from the Speed appeal section of the Motorcycling article, and which you reverted (19:02, 27 May 2015‎). You are right, my edit was missing an explanation. Sorry for that! I mostly removed references to words that inaccurately compared motorcycles and sports cars costs.

The original text says: Speed draws many people to motorcycling because the power-to-weight ratios of even low-power motorcycles rivals that of an expensive sports car. The power-to-weight ratio of many modestly priced sport bikes is well beyond any mass-production automobile and rivals that of supercars for a fraction of the price.

This is inaccurate, and doesn't reflect the content in the citation.

Low-power motorcycles (most bikes under 500cc) will keep up with entry-level sports cars, such as Miatas and Integras, but don't rival "expensive" sports cars.

In the second sentence, "modestly priced" is vague. Is the price modest compared to other bikes, or to other vehicles? Sport bikes that typically rival supercars, both in straight line and on a track, usually cost upwards of $40'000, which is not "modestly priced", especially for a bike.

I hope this clarifies my change. I went ahead and brought it back to the article, along with a proper edit summary :)

Cheers! Idmadj (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. The article reflects what's in the cited source. It specifically refers to a $12,899 GSX-R (cheaper than a Hyundai Accent) outperforming a $110,000 Corvette in acceleration and cornering, to cite one of several examples given. Wikipedia is not a crowdsourced website; it isn't a vote among editors' opinions like Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia conveys what our sources tell us. If you have high qualtiy, independent published sources that contradict what Dexter Ford wrote in the New York Times, that's great. Cite it. Otherwise, we will stick with what our source said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. That a certain bike is "expensive", or "modestly priced", is relative. $12,899 is cheaper than a Hyundai accent, but compared to other bikes, it is expensive. The source doesn't explicitly mention anything about relative pricing, so it is inaccurate to use the original wording. Saying that low-power motorcycles rival expensive sports car, or that "the power-to-weight ratio of many modestly priced sport bikes is well beyond any mass-production automobile" isn't backed by the source.
The original wording implies that all low-power motorcycles rival expensive sports car. In other words, a Ninja 250 could outrun a Lamborghini Aventador, and that is not true, and not something the cited article mentions either.
In the second sentence, as I mentioned, it is unclear what "modestly priced" refers to. Is it compared to other cars or to other motorcycles? An alternative to removing "modestly priced" would be to add "(compared to cars)" to the sentence.
My changes are meant to remove any false information and ambiguity. If you can come up with a better edit, I invite you to share it. Otherwise we'll simply go with my change, which is in line with the article and doesn't introduce personal interpretations.
Idmadj (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
For less than a cheap economy car, you can go faster than a supercar. Simple. The 12k you spend on a liter bike is a modest sum, compard to what people have to spend on cars. For a pittance, $4,700, you can get a Ninja 500, which does 0 to 60 in 4.7 seconds, much faster than a Miata. You need to spend a lot to get a sports car that goes faster than that. I don't think you have an argument. The plain fact is that bikes are much faster for much less money. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a Ninja 300 vs a Miata, or a sub-5k Nina 500 equaling the 0-60 time of a $183,700 Aston Martin DB9, or the 12k liter bikes in Dexter Ford's NYT article, bikes go faster. You've got this false notion that you have to spend $40,000 on a bike to smoke a supercar. Incorrect. You can blow the doors off a supercar for $12,000 and change.

Sorry. The article as written is correct. I don't know where you're getting your information. The phrase "power-to-weight ratios of even low-power motorcycles rivals that of an expensive sports car" does not mean all low-power motorcycles. It would need to say the word "all" to imply all. Leaving that word out, it only implies this is true of some of them. You're simply reading it in an obtuse way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of incorrect assumptions in your reasoning. $12k and $4k are modest sums in specific contexts, none of which can be inferred in the original wording. You mention that it is modest "compard to what people have to spend on cars". This is an appropriate context, and I suggest we add this to the article if you think it is a better solution than simply removing "modestly priced" as I did.
For a fixed cost, bikes tend to be faster than cars, and while the original wording attempts to convey that information, it does so in a flawed manner, which is what we need to fix.
"power-to-weight ratios of even low-power motorcycles rivals that of an expensive sports car"
Again, this is not true. A low-power motorcycle such as a Ninja 500, does not rival an expensive sports car such as a Corvette. It doesn't matter how you spin it, this sentence conveys the false idea that entry-level bikes outrun solid performance cars. Not true. Not backed by the source. I understand that you appreciate the speed/cost ratio of motorcycles, but there's no need to overstate that benefit through fallacies.
Remember that we need to reach a consensus as to how the content in the cited source gets synthesized in the article. I offered an few alternative, and asked you to share if you had any. The article in its current state isn't going to cut it, a change needs to be made. We can find a middle-ground that works for both of us. In the time being, considering that you didn't bring any valid argument to your revert, I went ahead and restored my change.
Idmadj (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say low-power motorcycles rival the power of expensive sports cars. It says "the power-to-weight ratios of even low-power motorcycles rivals that of an expensive sports car. ." Power to weight ratio is a different thing than power. Your basic problem is reading comprehension. You fail to define terms like "solid performance car" -- it's a weasel term you've introduced to make your weak argument hold water. To get a better 0-60 time than a cheap Ninja 300, you have to spend more than 6 times as much money. A "solid" performance car is expensive, if solid means you can keep up with even cheap motorcycles. Forget about serious sportbikes.

But if you think others will buy what you're selling, go to Talk:Motorcycling see if you can make your case. You're mistaken in thinking we have to strike a middle ground between what's true and your opinions. Your opinions are only your opinions and facts are facts. I suggest you come prepared to cite sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make it any clearer.
The power/weight ratio of a Ninja 500R is ~0.25hp/kg (50hp/199kg) while the Corvette's is ~0.30hp/kg (455hp/1496kg). That's a 20% difference in favor of the Corvette, and the 500R is on the high end of low-power motorcycles. A typical low-power motorcycle such as the Suzuki Boulevard S40 has an even worse ratio of 0.18hp/kg, that any entry-level sports car will have no problem keeping up with. And then there's low-end models such as the TU250X (0.11hp/kg) which would struggle against even a Kia Rio.
You assumed that "To get a better 0-60 time than a cheap Ninja 300, you have to spend more than 6 times as much money", yet in reality, the Ford Focus ST achieves similar performance for less than five times the price of the Ninja 300.
But you're right, this is going nowhere. Can't say I haven't tried. We'll see what Talk:Motorcycling thinks.
Idmadj (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Only five times as much! A bargain, then. So your definition of "expensive" begins with a $110,000 Corvette? Why don't you find the cheapest car on the market that matches the Ninja 500's power to weight ratio? Since that's what "rivals" means. Maybe a Mustang GT, at $31k? Maybe where you live that's what you spend on breakfast, but take a look at Wikipedia's readership. This is English Wikipedia, not United States Wikipedia, and not Upper West Side Wikipedia.

Again, Talk:Motorcycling is where you need to go. See what other editors think. Ask them. I don't own Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Vespa

Hi Dennis, for starters I want to apologize for the edit to the Vespa page. To begin with my friend and I were messing around on the internet after a few drinks and I bet him that he couldn't change wikipedia as it was secure, I kept telling my friend Matt that the editing was locked. But he proved me wrong and used a quote from Jeremy Clarkson on the Vietnam special when he quoted that the Vespa's weight was 960,000 of tonnage. Yes we thought it was funny at first but I knew that I would be the one to get the message as it was my computer he used to perform the edit. I however am a Wiki editor but I am of a constructive nature, I personally work on Heroes Wiki which a non canon page and I also assist with Aircraft on Wikipedia as to check the validity of the information.

I am ashamed but also it's a valuable lesson not to alter that which isn't my work or anyone elses for that matter. Thankyou for correcting it for me and I will make sure no such pages are open as acts like that can jeopardize facts.

Again thankyou for the message, and deep apologies and regards. Heroes Wiki User LoveLuckyFalcore1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.96.170 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Motorcycling 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Mike VTalk 17:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

CBR1100XX[edit]

For the sake of consistency, regarding top speed references, should the stated 170mph not be directly referenced in the same way as the three other top speeds list directly below on the right hand box? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR1100XX — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phil Corbett (talkcontribs) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If it was a sentence then the rule is to group all the footnotes at the end of the sentence, not in the middle. So if we treat this that way then the notes should move to the end. But if we don't call the list of speeds one sentence then we would footnote each one.Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I went with your version for now because I was in a hurry, so now it's consistent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Honda motorcycles (1980s)[edit]

Hello Dennis, Yesterday I added one item to the above. Whilst doing so I noted that the entries for CB900F (etc.) are out of place. I'm pretty hopeless with tables and couldn't see how to fix it. Can you assist? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

New to Editing[edit]

Hello, Dennis!

Thank you for your message. I'm (obviously) new to editing on Wikipedia and am hoping to get some guidance. Maybe we could use The Polyclinic page as an example? I'm hoping to remove the issues at the top of the page. Could you help me identify where the page sounds like an advertisement? I'm also trying to figure out how to add some more citations and photographs. From the research I've done, it looks like Wikipedia wants the information from a third-party source like a news article rather than the organization's website itself. Is this correct? And how do I add photographs? If there's a link you could direct me to that would be awesome!Thanks for your help! Best, Lanet123 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2015

Here are some examples of Featured Articles on companies: BAE Systems, Cracker Barrel, Duke University, London Necropolis Company, Oliver Typewriter Company, NeXT. Do you notice how these articles are not written like advertisements? They are not mere lists of services offered and achievements. They include criticism, and objective discussion of the subject's weaknesses and strengths. This is evident in both the tone of the writing, and in the kind of information contained in the article. The first place to begin is with the sources used in the article. We have little use for press release, mission statements, and PR materials contained on The Polyclinic website. We write articles using Independent sources. Do you have a significant number of objective, independent sources, such as high-quality books, newspapers and magazines, that have written about The Polyclinc? If not, then we should consider the article for deletion. Let me know after you've read the above linked materials and I can help further. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Superbike images[edit]

I appreciate the "Thank You" for my adding an image to Elena Myers' article. I photographed the field of riders for the AMA races at Road America on Sunday May 31, 2015. I'll add images for all current rider articles. Please let me know if, in the future, you run across article that could use an image from a participant. I will upload some to my Flickr account under a free license. I also took AMA Superbike images from Road America on June 21, 2013. Royalbroil 03:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me...[edit]

...but it seems like Wikipedia:Deny recognition is almost applicable. We've both really said all that needs to be said for now. I feel we're both being baited. --AussieLegend () 21:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after the pot has called the kettle black the tenth time it becomes more comedic than offensive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg
Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: AIV report[edit]

I understand your logic in reposting the report about Washington Charter, and I struck my implication of admin shopping; you have my apology for that.

However, the situation is still much too complex for AIV. This is something that is one of my pet peeves, so I apologize for going off on you, but the fact remains that: 1. AIV reports, decisions, and any discussions are not logged short of the page history, and 2. the AIV format does not allow for users to respond to accusations against them.

Both of these factors make it an inappropriate forum for any situation that requires any kind of explanation, evidence, community consensus, or complex decision making. Users being considered for blocks or other sanctions have the right to defend themselves in all but the most obvious cases of disruptive editing, and the AIV format does not afford them the ability to do so.

The rule of thumb I use is, if it takes me more than 60 seconds to figure out as the investigating admin, the situation is too complex for AIV. Another rule of thumb is, if you have to explain why you're reporting with more than a few words or 1-2 diffs, it's too complex for AIV. Hopefully this helps clarify why I haven't taken any action on your reports about Washington Charter. —Darkwind (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. To me it's extremely plain what is going on here; the deceptiveness of the edits is obvious but I spend lots of time with this kind of article and these kinds of self-protion. But it does take more than 1-2 diffs, so I should take this to another noticeboard. Thanks for explaining. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I just saw the issue and added Kawasaki ZRX1100 to my watchlist, FWIW. — Brianhe (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Men of Business MC[edit]

why did u erase those guys menofbusinessmc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.138.78 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 16 June 2015)

As I said in the edit summary, your addition was unsourced. The message on your talk page also said your edit was removed because it is unsourced. Note that when you added the club to the list, you scrolled past a note which says, "Additions without verifiable, reliable sources will be deleted. Additions must have some notability beyond just having their own web site. This should be an independent, reliable source."

Why do you think this club should be included? They have never been mentioned in any newspapers, books, or magazines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kayaktivist redirect page[edit]

Hey there! Just wondered if you were aware that by some kind of truly amazing coincidence, we were both working on creating the redirect page for Kayaktivist at exactly the same moment. I thought it was pretty strange that I got an edit conflict for a page that didn't even exist... I mean, how is that possible?? Never occurred to me that there really was another editor working on it -- I figured it was just some weird glitch in the Wiki software. Only when I went back just now and looked at the edit history to double-check on the categories I had added, did I discover that you had gotten there seconds ahead of me. Crazy, huh?! :) Cgingold (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't realize the term had been used before. Kayaktavist was coined by some Seattle media, but Kayaktivist has been around for a few years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Seattle Arctic drilling protests[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Seattle Arctic drilling protests at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Rocks redux[edit]

Created today: Tamanowas Rock. This has the potential to be a fascinating story of geology, Native American rights, and land preservation. The Evergreen thesis has a lot of material that could still be added to the article. And it needs a picture. Brianhe (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool! We need a list of rocks needing photos, ordered by priority, with locations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If they were listed by size, this would surely be #1! Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Suzuki Hayabusa Spelling of Kilometre[edit]

I'm well aware of the differences in English spelling, but since metre is the official spelling and meter is the American spelling, I would have thought kilometre would be preferred. Why would a regional variation be accepted over the official spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraitorBagel (talkcontribs) 15:54, 24 June 2015‎

You're mistaken about this thing you call "official". There is no "official spelling". Wikipedia keeps whatever national spelling variation an article had to begin with. See WP:RETAIN. You are going to be blocked from editing if you keep doing this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

3RR Notice[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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Nakon 04:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiknic picnic[edit]

Hi, thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/Wiknic/2015. The picnic is a potluck, so on the signup page please say what food or drink you are planning to bring. Thanks! --Pine 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Weather update for Wiknic[edit]

Hi, weather update for Wiknic: the forecast is now for 91 degrees and a high UV index. Peaceray is bringing icewater, but everyone do please take appropriate precautions for the weather, such as sunscreen, hats, sunglasses, and staying hydrated. There will be some shade in the trees. It's ok for those of us who are more temperature and/or sunlight sensitive to come but leave early, or skip the event if you think that you should; people who are very young, elderly, or have other health issues are more vulnerable to heat stroke. Health and safety first. Cheers, --Pine 15:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the group photo! I just increased the contrast. Please let Peaceray or I know about any support that you need from the official Cascadia Wikimedians group for your photography work. Pine 02:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think next time I should try to group them closer in more tiers, so their faces take up more of the frame, less shoes and feet! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DKY[edit]

DYK nomination of Seattle Arctic drilling protests[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Seattle Arctic drilling protests at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Seattle Arctic drilling protests[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Spam link Hedges endorsement[edit]

Answer to question. While there is no blanket ban on youtube, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website, (person) or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." per policy. The video link was explicitly for the purpose of promotion and endorsement, hence removal. Thanks for adding RS refs in the place of youtube! Capitalismojo (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

JBottero Talk Page[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my Talk Page, I will adhere to your advice. Jbottero (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

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[edit]

Official Seal of Seattle.jpg
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
Cascadiawikimedians transparent Gill Sans 155px high.png
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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)