User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Going commando

Hi, Dennis Bratland, I noticed your edit, though I do not quite understand your NPOV comment. I added the Exhibitionism because IMO it is a related subject, and looking at the files commons category isn't that exhibitionism? Maybe we should ask the artist what exactly he meant with this piece of art. But it that makes you happy, why not. Lotje (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That image is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia; it presents a prejudiced and disrespectful judgement about a living person. The WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies do not in any way permit this kind of mocking or derisive editorial cartoon about any living person. It's irrelevant what you or I think about Paris Hilton.

The connection with upskirt and exhibitionism is vague, at best. Underwear goes under one's clothes; whether somebody can intentionally or accidentally see under a person's close is orthogonal to whether or not they wear underwear. Trying to make the connection is just juvenile. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The idea is just to help people understand what going commando is; all the rest is original research and soapboxing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis Bratland. If, in your opinion That image is not acceptable, you might ask for a speedy deletion on commons.

You state: It's irrelevant what you or I think about Paris Hilton. I cannot remember having made any comment on Paris Hilton (Did it ever cross your mind there might be many, many people who do not even know who PH is?) ...being junvenile, I take it as a compliment. Soapboxing is an interesting word, but not applicable to me. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Harley-Davidson KR

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! I just saw this on the main page and followed the links here. Brianhe (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Malta

Draft:Malta, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Malta and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Malta during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Laffite's Swamp

Dennis, I suggest you just go ahead and add the CSD G3 tag to Laffite's Swamp rather than PROD. No need to let this article fester for a week. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already did. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Motorcycles

I don't understand your objection, or I don't understand what the page is saying. Judging by the description atop the table, italics are for motorcycles that at some point or another were the fastest then available for purchase new. Given that the Suzuki Hayabusa, with its 194mph top speed, has been available since 1999 (there hasn't been a year when the MV Agusta F4 R 312 was being produced but the Suzuki Hayabusa wasn't), I don't see why italics would be justified. Indeed, it's simple math: 194 is faster than 193.24, and 1999-date includes 2007-date. If I misunderstand something, please let me know (on-wiki, not by email) and I'll try to understand better and respond properly. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A. W. Piper

The article A. W. Piper you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A. W. Piper for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I'll make the corrections listed when I'm able to and resubmit at a later date. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Fastest production car.png

Hi Dennis are you able to update this table when you get a chance. NealeFamily (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I kind of forgot how I made it but I reproduced it fairly close. Let me know if that's OK. You might have to purge caches to make it display right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks NealeFamily (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As noted at WP:AN, this edit is a clear violation of the interaction ban. Let me remind you that WP:BANEX includes asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation). You've asked far more than once: further asking will result in a reblock (or if noticed by me in the next 24 hours, an extended block) for persistent ban violation. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis, technically speaking this is also a violation, since you removed text added by 72bikers ("undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means"). I'm not going to block over it yet, since 72bikers's edit was a month ago and the revert was only partial, but still, you should be much more careful. If you think such care is too much of a burden, well, then you probably shouldn't be editing articles that your fellow iBannees are involved with. For the sake of completeness I'll ping Nyttend to see what they think of this and of my assessment, and if they feel it's blockable, well, there you go (thanks Nyttend). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I was prepared to take my request to have another admin take Nyttend's place, and to request that you cease your involvement in this, to Arbcom, but I got caught up in too many other things to pursue it at that time. I expect that kind of litigation to take hours and hours of time to wallow through. I know it's silly to take this kind of thing to the level of Arbcom, but you guys have decided to dig in and stubbornly refuse to budge on what should be a routine, simple thing. Hopefully the nonsense won't continue and it won't have to come to that.

    In any event, I would ask, again, that you Drmies please recuse yourself from further involvement in this case. Your WP:POINTy desire to prove that ibans never work, and your personal animosity, have clouded your judgement. This iban is in fact working, and you should stop letting that bug you. There are plenty of other admins capable of making good decisions, and so it's not vital that you and you alone hang about looking for chances to block somebody or prove that this iban is unenforcable. You keep complaining that you don't like having to deal with this kind of thing, and I remind you that Wikipedia is not compulsory. If you don't like doing this, and Nyttend doesn't like doing this, then let someone else do it.

    The ostensible goal of all this is to put a stop to the disruption of Wikipedia, and if you take my suggestion, there won't be anybody complaining about any disruption of their building an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

    • I keep complaining? Really? I haven't complained about this in days, even weeks. You don't know much about my desire, but I will tell you that you need to be wary of NPA. Nyttend is a pretty decent admin, and I don't think either of should be accused of having it in for you. One more thing: you were guilty of a violation; you weren't blocked, only warned. You should be happy. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Dennis, if you want to insult me, please don't do it via email. You can do it right here, or on my own talk page. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Have it your way. I can't fathom why you won't take the easy, obvious solution and walk away, let somebody else handle this. See you at Arbcom. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes. We'll set up the C-list, so I won't be privy to the discussion where ArbCom decides on how I should be sanctioned for not having blocked you. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
          • And now I'm supposed to reply to your taunts with my own riposte? Is that the reason for your posts? Why are you still here? You really need to take a breath and walk away from this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
            • As far as I am aware, none of the other editors subject to this ban are exhibiting anything close to your degree of interest in this ban; you're causing us to spend many hours on something that should be entirely trivial. I'm tempted to say to you "no more edits to the fastest-motorcycles list, or its talk page, or you'll be blocked". The easy, obvious solution is to block you for general tendentious editing; that would resolve the situation and require zero hours of litigation and zero hours of pointless arguing. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Drmies: The diff you provided was what appears to be a trivial change to citation parameters. Is that what you meant to link? If it is I'm having trouble attributing this particular cite to the other iban account. All around it's just difficult to understand the motivation for the admonishment. Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thundersport 500, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Ellison, Richard Cooper and Sébastien Charpentier. 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) 10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

NPA

I hatted part of your !vote here per the notice below.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

CarDekho

I checked the prior AfD and the deleted version of CarDekho and I concluded that this current version is sufficiently improved in terms of neutrality, tone and sourcing that it is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version. I think it was probably right to delete at the time. When you nominated you said it "Needs sustained, in-depth coverage in independent sources", and that requirement seems to be met now. If my assessment is off and the article still does not meet notability standards, you may of course nominate again at AfD. Fences&Windows 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 June

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

• On the Glossary of motorcycling terms page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ernst Degner

Dennis,

My whole life does not revolve around Wikipedia. I have made amendments to pages where I consider myself an 'expert' and where I have seen some glaring errors or omissions.

I am currently writing a book about how East Germany's racing two stroke secrets were passed from Daniel Zimmermann to Walter Kaaaden to Ernst Degner and to Suzuki, Japan. Since I have been researching the lives of these three men for almost 10 years (Degner since 1978), I consider myself well-informed on their true stories which are based almost exclusively on primary research of first-hand witnesses and contemporary reports.

Just because a book is published does not automatically confer a seal of truth and authenticity on its contents. And yet you talk of Wikipedia using only 'reliable, published' sources for its entries. In Degner's and in Kaaden's case, this seems to include what I consider to be an ill-researched, fanciful and over-dramatic (though published) account of Ernst Degner's life. I refer to the book "Stealing Speed" whose author, Mat Oxley, undertook virtually no original research and simply repeats the errors, guesses and exaggerations found on this topic all over the web. But since it is published in book format, it must be correct and it certainly seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria.

The fact that virtually every web-site says that Degner's fiery accident in 1963 occurred at Suzuka's Turn 8 when it happened at the exit to Turn 2 (and I have many photographs proving this point) does not validate this incorrect statement. Simply checking other web sites (who have themselves repeated what they have read on other web sites) and which erroneously state that Degner had his fiery accident at Turn 8 corroborates only the misinformation. As Vladimir Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

If you are the final arbiter on such matters, I can provide the necessary evidential photographs of Degner's TWO Suzuka crashes. His first was in 1962 when he crashed his Suzuki 50 at Turn 8 during Suzuka's inaugural meeting. That is when that bend was named in Degner's honour as 'Degner's Curve'. The second crash happened one year later at the 1963 Japanese GP when he crashed his 250 Suzuki on the exit to Turn 2 following a bad start that left him on the grid whilst the rest streamed away. Here's what Degner told me in 1981 (verbatim transcript):

"I had a very bad start – I had a good practice time – but a very bad start and I had to risk a lot in the first lap to get the connection to the top. It was on the second corner. The front wheel tried to slip away, and I caught it again. And then I went off the line and because at the edge of the track there was no grass. There was sand and if you touched the sand you would be off! A danger sometimes if you go over the motorcycle and the motorcycle hits you from behind. So I laid down the motorcycle by myself because I didn’t want to touch the sand and I hit the ground with my head, but not as hard that I was unconscious straight away. So I went up. I saw the motorcycle about ten yards away. I ran up to the bike. I wanted to pick it up. But the motorcycle - inside the cowl (the streamlining) - it was burning. But I didn’t see it because I was a little bit dazed. When I started to pick up the motorbike, then I went unconscious. Then a big flame spread to the tank and the tank exploded. And that was the end…"

So if Degner's BIG FIERY CRASH occurred at the exit to Turn 2 why did the officials at Suzuka circuit name Turn 8 'Degner's Curve'? Answer, because it was named the previous year when Degner had his earlier Suzuki 50 accident there during Suzuka's inaugural meeting!

Incidentally, in 1961-2, Turns 8 and 9 were one continuous bend of almost 180 degrees (you can still see traces of the old curve on Google Earth). Later, the single, long curve was decapitated to put a short straight between two sharper corners that became Turns 8 and 9 and that are now sometimes known as Degner 1 and Degner 2.

Published sources?

1962 Suzuka 50cc Crash at Turn 8

I regret that I can quote only from my own book (TEAM SUZUKI published by Osprey in 1982 and again by Parker House Publishing in 2008). On page 42 when referring to the 1962 Suzuka Inaugural Races I say:

"In the 50cc race...Degner crashed due to strong cross-winds whilst holding 4th place..." I don't identify the Turn but I have since acquired a photograph taken mid-crash.

1963 Suzuka 250cc (Fiery) Crash at Turn 2

On page 44 of TEAM SUZUKI, I report on the Japanese GP and use the same transcript quotation provided above by Degner in which he says that this accident occurred "On the second corner...".

I trust that my book is suitable material for quoting especially since it is based almost exclusively on primary research of first-hand witnesses and contemporary reports. Finally, the Degner family (who I know very well) have always been somewhat reluctant to talk about Ernst Degner. This has left a vacuum of information that writers and journalists have filled from their own fertile minds, inventing some rather dramatic means of Degner's death. Knifing, shooting, drug overdose, car accident to name but four. When I interviewed Olaf Degner (Ernst's eldest son) he told me that his father had died of a heart attack. I have also seen Ernst Degner's Death Certificate that confirms this. Moreover, you will find various newspaper reports of around 12th September 1983 confirming that Ernst Degner died a 'natural' death. For example the Dutch newspaper Nieuwsblad van het Noorden of 12 Sep 1983 has a report on page 19 headed "Motorcoureur Ernst Degner overladen" (Motorcycle racer Ernst Degner dead). In the following article it says: "Degner, 51 jaar, is een natuurlijke dood gestorven" (Degner, 51 years, died a natural death).

If you ARE the arbiter, I am happy to send you scans of these original articles.

Why do I spend so much time working so hard down the truth-mine? Because we historians owe those who gave the world great pleasure, the courtesy of recording their lives with complete accuracy so that later readers can learn the truth of how they enriched our lives.

You have my email address. If you want the proofs I have mentioned, you have only to ask.

Kind regards

Ray Battersby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybattersby (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Over on your talk page, I asked the question Have you read the policy page Wikipedia:No original research? I can't tell from your post above whether the answer is yes or no. I think perhaps not? It really would help clear up so much confusion and avoid so much frustration if you were to please read that policy, and perhaps the related policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. You raise questions that were central to Wikipedia's foundation 15 years ago (see Wikipedia#History).

Just consider the question of whether or not I should believe you really are Ray Battersby, or are an impersonator. Wikipedia is, after all, a medium for all manner of bizarre hoaxes. I could use some sort of authentication scheme to try to figure out if you're who you say you are, but then what? Perhaps I'm not really Dennis Bratland. Just because Dennis Bratland believes you're Ray Battersby, why should any other editor believe I'm telling the truth? There would need to be a system where a trusted group of officials vetted recognized experts like yourself. Obviously a non-profit organization could only pay so many officials to manage their stable of recognized experts, and the growth of such an encyclopedia would be limited. This in a nutshell is the encyclopedia Nupedia, which you can read about in the history of Wikipedia I linked to above. Larry Sanger felt an encyclopedia where literally anyone could edit would not work, so he took a different path.

The other path, the one this encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has taken, is one where I don't need to care whether or not you're really Ray Battersby. The verifiability policy is a workable tool that allows essentially anonymous editors to work together to produce articles with a consistent level of reliability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of "the Truth", rather, it is what it is. It's useful in all sorts of ways, and if a reader takes the time to understand how Wikipedia articles are written, they won't be misled. Much. I don't need to reiterate all this; there is plenty of good material written on these subjects, and if you follow the links I gave above you will find it.

I do think Team Suzuki is a reliable source; at least as reliable as Stealing Speed. Your book has even received several glowing reviews, as has Oxley's book. John Ulrich's mostly critical review of Team Suzukiin the March 1984 Cycle World actually pauses in its criticism to say good things about the parts of the book covering Ernst Denger, so even the naysayer vouches for the quality of the parts we are concerned with here. That doesn't mean Wikipedia articles can simply adjudicate that Book A is "true" and Book B is "false". Instead, we write an article that covers the conflicting points of view in as evenhanded a way as possible. That means we definitely should expand the Ernst Denger article to point our that Team Suzuki contradicts Stealing Speed. We can point out in the article what published sources have said about this disagreement, and we can briefly summarized the arguments on both sides.

This brings us to the issues discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Expert editors. You can read the advice there for yourself and I won't repeat it, other than to highlight the advice "Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest". Other suggested reading: Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Expert retention.

When you find yourself advocating for your own book, and disparaging another author's book (Stealing Speed), your conflict of interest makes it very difficult to write a neutral Wikipedia article. Your contributions are welcome, but it's a difficult situation to manage. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing_yourself, you are advised, "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." That means, it is best if you to to Talk:Ernst Degner and make suggestions, but let others edit the Ernst Degner article itself if they agree with your suggestions.

I am not the final arbiter of anything. I'm merely an ordinary Wikipedia editor, one of thousands, and I have no special authority. All I'm doing is trying to work within the rules established by the consensus of all the other editors trying to work together here. So I'm telling you what I think the rules say, and I strongly encourage you to read those rules for yourself. I didn't write the rules, and your interpretation of their meaning could well be better than mine. An editor, also in the motorcycling field, you might like to reach out to is User:Vintagent, who is author and blogger Paul d'Orléans (The chopper : the real story, The ride: new custom motorcycles and their builders, Café racers : speed, style and ton-up culture, all wonderful books). Perhaps d'Orléans could share his advice for successful Wikipedia editing as a published author and subject expert.

In other words, Wikipedia is written by a collaborative process. It is never enough to just be right; you also have to find a a way to work with others, even when they lack your expertise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please post further discussion about changes to the article Ernst Degner over at Talk:Ernst Degner, not here on my talk page. If you post here, you tend to exclude other interested editors whose input is at least as vital as mine. You are likely to exclude potential allies to your points of view if you confine the article discussion to my talk page, and so the best way to build a consensus for your preferred version of the article is to have the discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Ernst Degner. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2016

In the Seattle area? You are invited to the Seattle Wiknic 2016 on Saturday, July 16, 2016, noon to 3pm at the Washington Park Arboretum, in the meadow area to the south of the Graham Visitors Center, approximately at 47.637435°N 122.293986°W / 47.637435; -122.293986. Click here for more details!

Offenhauser Sales Corp information

Dennis,

I appreciate you interest in Offenhauser Sales Corp. Some of the information you have listed on the Offenhauser Sale Corp Wikipedia Page is factually incorrect.

1) Fred C. "Tay" Offenhauser, Jr. is the second generation President of Offenhauser Sales Corp. His Father, Fred C. Offenhauser, Sr. was the Founder and first President. See

2) Jim Offenhauser is deceased (2008) and no longer in charge of production and quality control. Vince Humphreys has assumed those duties since Jim's passing.

3) Offenhausersales.com is no longer the official corporate website. Although still an active website, www.offenhauser.co is the official company website.

So you know, I am the grandson of George "Ollie" Morris. My grandfather was head of research and development at Offenhauser Sales from 1956 through 1986. Currently I am on the Board of Directors at Offenhauser Sales Corp and serving CFO. Much of the information I have relating to Offenhauser Sales is accurate first hand information. I understand your desire to maintain factually correct information from what you see as credible sources, but those sources are not factually correct.

Thank you. Dmarv89 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

(talk page stalker)@Dmarv89: Those changes should be proposed on the article's talkpage so more people can consider and respond. I'll drop a note on your own talkpage with further information and some guidelines for connected editors such as you. - Brianhe (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry about the harsh language, I just got so sad to see this much time spent on something that is entirely legitimate, when we're barely doing anything to combat undisclosed commercial paid editing. I hope we can strike a truce and leave this behind ourselves. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All right, I appreciate you saying that. I think we can put this behind us now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

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

• On the Motorcycle engine page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Husky Memorial draft

Started Draft:Husky Memorial. - Brianhe (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Yamaha FZ6#"XJ6 Diversion F" aka "FZ6R" --Je suis Nigérian (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yamaha YZF-R7

Hello, it appears that the article Yamaha YZF-R7 is in edit war about the format of infobox images.

Please fix this as soon as possible. Thank you. Sorry for my bad English. Hyperman001 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! First, thank you for you edits to WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. Much appreciated. Second, can you help me understand... Even if a page doesn't implement Module:InfoboxImage yet, what is the harm in just having the image name provided? For example with Yamaha YZF-R7... What is the problem with just supplying the image name? Why does frameless and the upright param need to be included? Seeing knowledge and understanding here... Thanks in advance! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also quick follow up. I just checked out the code for {{Infobox motorcycle}} and it appears that the infobox there is using Module:InfoboxImage. Can you confirm? Doesn't negate your comments that not all templates are using Module:InfoboxImage, just want to make sure that this one is. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The motorcycle infobox implements some of the module, but not all of it. One of the missing parameters is upright=. If you have a portrait image, you don't want it to be as wide as a landscape, so you need upright=yes. And in general, the lead image of an article should be larger than the normal image size, and you can use upright=1.2 or 1.35 or whatever to increase the size. This is what the image use policy, at WP:IMAGESIZE is saying: "Images used in infoboxes are generated by many different means. The most common method used to implement upright is Module:InfoboxImage (see documentation there). Alternatively, infoboxes can use standard image syntax in the form of [[:File:Westminstpalace.jpg|frameless|center|upright=scaling factor]]".

The main point is to use a scaling factor to make the image proportionate to whatever the user's default image width is, rather than hard code it. If you hard code it, it will be too small for some screens and too large for others, but by scaling it the user can make everything they see on Wikipedia fit their screen.

There is no harm in just using the image name and the default width, but there is also no harm in scaling it up a little for the lead article or section image. Since either is acceptable, nobody should edit war something so inconsequential. Nothing in the WP:INFOBOXIMAGE guideline, now or the way it was written before, justifies multiple reverts. Either version is within policy and so going to war over minor difference over a guideline is disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Veloce Ltd./Velocette

I am surprised that you take issue with my edits to the entry for the Velocette Venom, as you yourself in your comment indicate that the point is made elsewhere. The fact is that the trademark Velocette was always only ever a branding and the manufacturing company remained trading as "Veloce Ltd." until its voluntary liquidation in 1971. This is a link to a page on the Velocette Owners Club website the last line of which exemplifies the point You are right though and citation is everything; the fact that Wikipedia makes my point elsewhere for me (by your own admission) is baffling given your objections but I will be providing citation in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.F. W-Venables (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked you twice to explain this on the talk page of the subject, yet here you are. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bicycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dating templates

Hello. When you date a template such as a section to be expanded as here, the relevant date is the month that the template is added, not when the car was designed etc. Le Deluge (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing (moved from Springee's talk page)

(Addressed to Springee) Your habit of wholesale deletion of content and edit-warring is a form of disruptive editing, or gaming the system, described at WP:STONEWALL. You are blocking any forward progress or additions to Wikipedia that violate your arbitrary criteria, i.e. "An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications, is squarely against your ongoing campaigns of deleting content for invalid reasons, i.e. "not notable" and "undue weight". Wholesale deletion of content because it lacks 100% consensus is also invalid. It is an arbitrary standard that is impossible to meet. No content will ever have universal support. Deleting content because it, or the article, is not perfect is another violation of Editing policy.

By instantly reverting any new revision, you are preventing other editors from evaluating a change, and making their own improvements. You have made yourself a status quo gatekeeper, undermining the process of collaborative editing and building an encyclopedia piece by piece.

WP:CANTFIX describes situations where content must be deleted from articles. You are habitually deleting well-cited, undisputed facts for reasons that do not approach the standards outlined that justify removal. Please stop your disruptive editing. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to violate Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I would also ask that you stop your edit warring. The material was removed as part of BRD. We were clearly in the discussion process. Your restoration of material that was under discussion and currently does not have consensus for inclusion can also be seen as edit warring. Please let the discussion play out before adding the content again. Springee (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And now you are engaging in edit warring. What is really stupid about your edit warring is that you are trying to add material back into the wrong article. Even if consensus supports inclusion (and currently it doesn't) why would you add it to the WRONG article. Note that the article you added the material to is for a line of trucks that were introduced in 2000. That's 5 years after the bombing. Please use some common sense here. Springee (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Like you would allow it to be added to some other article. See WP:STONEWALL #2 "Bad-faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm at 3RR over what, 5 days? You are at 3RR in just over 1 hour. Your accusation of Stonewalling is an accusation of bad faith. So far we have two opposed and two for. Stonewalling says "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." There is no consensus here and we are discussing policy. Just because you don't agree with or are misinterpreting the policies doesn't mean we aren't discussing them. Perhaps you should do the right thing, self revert and let people discuss the topic to it's conclusion. Springee (talk) Dennis, we are clearly getting off on a very wrong foot here. Can I ask that we both tone things down and both AGF? As a show of good faith I would ask that you move the disputed content to the B-series truck article (or where ever you think it should go) and we can leave it there until and assuming a consensus for inclusion is reached. Springee (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Already assumed good faith. Now we've gone past that. Your stonewalling is disruptive. You make up arbitrary criteria, ignoring policy, and when anybody meets you half way, you invent some new hoop to jump through. You pretend to offer an alternative, but then object to that too on whatever grounds you can make up. You've decided that you won't tolerate tying the name of a corporation, Chrysler or Ford or Exxon in recent cases, with any negativity, and you proceed to game the system to prevent any forward progress. Your disruptive editing is going to get you blocked if you don't stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm ignoring policy. I'm sorry you think making sure content goes into the correct article (assuming consensus) is a hoop we must jump through. Again, I would ask that you assume good faith. I would also ask that you now revert your recent edit on the F-650 page because it is clear the content doesn't belong on that page regardless of our respective arguments. Springee (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis, this reversion to the F-650 page is clearly edit warring on your part [[1]]. You were at 3RR in just over 1 hour just a few days back. There is no question that the current article's scope is limited to MY2000 and later trucks. Given the scope of the article how can you reasonably claim the material belongs in THAT article? Your accusations related to the Caprice article are also a concern. If you continue to make accusations of bad faith it is clear we will have to seek some type of dispute resolution in this mater. I'm happy to talk with you but I'm not OK with the unfounded accusations. Springee (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• "No question"? Only in your mind. I'm tired of having to say everything to to you twice, three times, before you even acknowledge it's been said at all. The problem is, you ignore what every other editor says and pretend that "we all agree" with whatever Springee thinks is how it ought to be. Have you not noticed that virtually all of your editing consists of edit warring because you unilaterally have decided to suppress content? You lapse into dormancy when you have nothing to fight over. Wikipedia is not a battleground, you know?

  You don't need to keep coming back to my talk page telling me what you're "not OK" with. Let's both take it for granted that you've informed me that you're not OK with what I have to say about your behavior. No need to repeat it.

  Your problem is this: it isn't Dennis Bratland alone who sees what you're up to.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm sorry you have that opinion. I think if you check you will find that I'm not the only editor who opposes the bombing material. I think if you check the scope of the article you will find it clearly states, "The Ford F-650/F-750 Super Duty are medium-duty commercial trucks produced by Ford since 2000." Regardless, I'm going to ask that you refrain from any more accusations. Please WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet another example of your need to have everything repeated to you several times before it gets through. You don't need to post your "I'm sorry that you blah blah blah" bullshit on my talk page a third, fourth or fifth time. I get it. You're real sorry. You know, people like you have made it necessary for the Talk page guidelines to remind editors -- twice! -- that repetition is not helpful. Not to mention a whole series of essays on repetition and bludgeoning: Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, Wikipedia:The Last Word, Wikipedia:Just drop it. Part of the way that you have convinced yourself that consensus is behind you is that 90% of every discussion is Springee agreeing with Springee.

Shut up and let somebody else talk!

I think you've been misinformed that WP:AGF is your magic shield that protects your disruptive editing from ever being called out. You think nobody is ever allowed to finally say enough is enough. Please wp:FOC yourself, eh, bud?

I know nothing I say is getting through to you. You're done here. Please stop posting on my talk page. Good bye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Car lists

Somebody seems to hav e taken a chance and created List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com This seems to be against every wikipedia policy - how do we go about deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.247.26 (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

List of outlaw motorcycle clubs uncited additions

FYI I have asked for a change to the editnotice template. If you have any better ideas, please chime in. [2]. - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

still crowdsourced, still copyright violator, still a scraper site

Sorry, didn't see your corrections coming in tav (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The 50,000 Challenge

Would you care to join The 50,000 Challenge? - Brianhe (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your input requested on Washington state cannabis article

Please see here: Talk:Washington_Initiative_502#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington_.28state.29_or_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Honda VTR1000F

Hi, I have recently made some efforts to improve the Honda VTR1000F page, but most of my edits were swiftly reverted by editor 72bikers. I feel the VTR page needs to progress, but, having made some contributions, I would prefer other biker Wikipedians to have their input. If you have a moment, why not have a look at the page and see what you think? (I’m sending this message to: Dennis Bratland, Biker Biker, Brianhe and Rocknrollmancer). Cheers, Arrivisto

As Brian said, you should post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling in order to include everyone in the Motorcycling Project. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Arrivisto (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dennis Bratland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful advice you gave my student, User:Boulder19952, who was editing Honda_CBR300R_(2015). I felt that the advice you gave him was very helpful and in keeping with the best practices of editing Wikipedia. Even though he decided to try to keep the page separate, and it was merged in to the larger article as you suggested, it was a great learning experience. Thank you for taking the time to write such helpful advice to him. Bob Cummings (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear it. I am going to merge those articles at some point soon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)