User talk:Ducati88M5

Welcome!

Hello, Ducati88M5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Bimota DB1 have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bimota DB1, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Adam: If you have a lot of useful original info, self-publishing a book is a real option, and it's as accessible as writing a Wikipedia article. Some would say easier because you don't have other editors looking over your shoulder. Some examples are createspace.com, Third Place Press, Kindle Direct Publishing, etc. Cheers and good luck. — Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a one page book, hence the theoretical beauty of wiki. It's alive and the world can edit it. I don't mind editors. I want what I write to be edited but only if appropriate and true. Anyway, I have better things to do. I was trying to help and have waisted too much time with this already. If interviews with racers and employees isn't good enough for wiki I'll just keep my mouth shut and enjoy my motorcycle. Buzz officially killed. Thanks, Adam

I see that the DB1 article is currently unreferenced, so there wouldn't be a huge bar raised on future, referenced changes. E.g. you could you cite your own Bimota Newsletter. Hope you change your mind and decide to contribute. — Brianhe (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken me 25 years to learn what I know about DB1s. All that information is far from being included in a Bimota Newsletter that wasn't around but for a few years. Back then we knew very little about DB1Rs for example. I could lie and reference something but I'd rather just share my first person experiences from traveling the world. Why this doesn't hold water is beyond me. I can't reference a phone call I made last year but it still has incredible value that I can't post. Most Bimota books have tons of incorrect statements. Should I repeat misinformation? Or just lie and change it to what I know to be true? I thought the point of wiki was to avoid this catch 22 situation. References are great, if they're not just people making things up. For the life of me I can't believe anyone cares what I write about DB1s when it's overly obvious I just want to tell the story of the model that very few know about. Why is what's on there more reputable than me? That info doesn't have any references but it's still up there. Shouldn't it just be blank? Thanks, Adam Ducati88M5 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that there is no practical way to verify what you say. How do we know you're not making it up? Are we supposed to have a team of specialists who exchange a series of phone calls and documents with you to prove you're telling the truth? Imagine multiplying that by the hundreds of thousands of others who contribute to Wikipedia. Instead of Bimota, imagine the problem of thousands of people who claimed to have first-hand knowledge about Michael Jackson or Global warming.

The practical approach is to demand verifiable sources. We don't care who you are. We only care that you cite the name, date, author and other information from the book, magazine, newspaper or other source. Then, anybody else can go and check that same book, magazine or newspaper to see if it is accurate. If not, they can fix it because they have the source in front of them. This is explained in detail in the articles Verifability and No original research.

Consider the harm caused by hoaxes, such as those described in Wikipedia:Death by Wikipedia and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. This is why we ask for verifiable sources, and don't allow original research or merely citing yourself as a source.

If you want your experiences published, you can either post them yourself on a blog or other web site, or you can contact motorcycling media, magazines and websites, and ask them to publish them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You edit accordingly. But my info will only have minor tweaks over the years and then become extremely stable. Bimota DB1s aren't CBR600s or dinner forks. You're not going to find any info on them. I have to publish something to share knowledge. I can totally make something up in one way but not in one step. I would think if someone has real life experiences that should count for something. Having interviewed a famous racer for the purpose of this information should count for something. If they can explain themselves it should be considered in a case by case situation. Like this one isn't obvious. Ducati88M5 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if the whole page is reference-less why isn't it blank? I add the most valuable accurate info and you question me? Why aren't the other posts removed? Ducati88M5 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion is to put everything you know into the Motorcycles Wiki (or a new wiki of your choosing) at Wikia. There are no rules on Wikia (or at least relatively few compared with here) and you could use all your knowledge to expand the Bimota content there - and then share it with others. Buzz officially reinstated? --Biker Biker (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. What if someone references the source and the source is wrong and they made 3 motorcycles and I own all 3 and wiki is wrong? I know, not a reliable source. That makes a lot of sense. And someone can always challenge me. Isn't that the point? To agree upon history so it's accurate? But if "following the rules" is so important this page should be blank, no? Or was there a cutoff date? Ducati88M5 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out adding references to the page. I know the book most the info up there came from. Ducati88M5 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the page is so wrong that it should be blanked then please go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Either that, or remove the unsourced/wrong information (with appropriate edit summary explanations) and reduce the article to a stub. --Biker Biker (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to have my edit reviewed first but I think I meet all the requirements. Sorry I edited without references, thought I would just make a quick improvement. But now the page is updated, somewhat thorough and has references. What was originally took me 30 minutes has now taken several hours but it's been worth it. Thank you Brianhe, Dennis Bratland and Biker Biker for being patient with me. Kind Regards, Adam

License tagging for File:1986 Bimota DB1.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:1986 Bimota DB1.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture that you have uploaded are not free. You are not allowed to publish non free pictures. This picture have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Dédélembrouille (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Why is there a problem with 2 photos I myself took? Thanks, AdamDucati88M5 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ducati88M5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 172.18.2.17. Place any further information here. Ducati88M5 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That IP is not blocked. If you've disabled your VPN, and are still getting the block message, you will need to either wait 24 hours, or try another browser. SQL ^{Query Me!} 01:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.