User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Kawasaki Triples

I don't understand why you sent me that message regarding changes you make to the page. I didn't write the part you deleted and you let stand the resent deletions I made.

You sent me a welcome message, despite an editing history that goes back to 2006. I know what original research is and I have written no original research on that page. In fact, I've written nothing on the page at all. I did 2 deletions.

If you made your deletion because you consider what you deleted to be original research and you decided you needed to make comment about it, it would have been a better idea to send the message to the person that wrote what you deleted, not the person who just happened to have make the last couple of deletions.

What am I missing? Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The article said "...the H2 became the undisputed king of the streets, even beating legendary muscle cars of the era such as the Plymouth Hemi Cuda.". You removed the maintenance tag and your reason was "you know what it means from the rest of the sentence. It was the drive-in match up street drag racing era. I never lost a race in on my H1 or my H2, car or motorcycle." So you decided the extraordinary claim could stand without citation based on your personal recollection. That's original research -- the justification for your edit was unpublished, unverifiable observation by the editor, yourself. Since this has been tagged for more than two years, the more appropriate action was to delete it and the other unsourced opinions expressed in the article.

Original research isn't only adding content to an article. Removing a tag for unverifiable reasons also violates WP:NOR. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jackhammer111 The "welcome to wikipedia" bit is boilerplate text from the user warning message, I'm surprised someone who's been a contributor as long as you have been didn't recognize it. We often use boilerplate messages in order to not inadvertently offend people with a terse or ill-thought reply. — Brianhe (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm not new to wiki the message came off as terse and ill considered. You deleted a pretty fair amount of material I had nothing to do with. I guess admonishing me was easier than find who wrote what you deleted. I'd expect someone with your experience would have little trouble find out who wrote what you consider original material.

And to be clear, when you say " So you decided the extraordinary claim could stand without citation based on your personal recollection.", you have it completely wrong. I did no such thing. I simply removed the tag "clarify|reason". I said "you know what it means from the rest of the sentence." I contend, still, that if you just read the rest of the sentence the meaning is clear and the tag is annoyingly and petty. It wasn't a citation needed tag related to needing verification of the claim, it was a citation claiming the meaning of king of the streets needed explanation. The idea that I'm responsible for the content because I deleted a tag and left the content is an error in judgement I'd expect from someone with far less experience here than you have. I was not judging the claim that it was the king of the streets, although I know for fact it was, i was saying to tag that phrase "king of the streets" for meaning we absurd and needless. I could easily remove the stuff about my personal experience and it wouldn't change what I said about the rest of the sentence making clear what it meant.

In fact, what you claim as an extraordinary claim is not. It is not only fact, it is one of the most important facts about the Kawasaki triple story. If you doubted it all you had to do was google Kawasaki H2. Motorcycles can drag race on the street nearly as fast as they can on the strip. Because of inconsistencies in street asphalt, cars can not. Cars that may have drag strip races could not on the streets. It is fact and if you went around wikipedia deleting everything you personally claim is extraordinary and not documented you wouldn't have much left. If you want dispute what is written there you should have taken it up with the person that put it there. You overreacted to me writing personal experience in the summary. People involved in street racing at the time knew or came to know the H2 couldn't be beat, with street racing being what it is it is hard to find an acceptable reference in the same manner as finding it's quarter mile test times on a drag strip.

I also have a problem with you removing parts that are in fact true and leaving behind a slew of citation needed tags where the parts being tagged are not true, like breaker points being more reliable that CDI ingnition when CDI is virtually maintenance fee.

There is also a page on the H-2 in particular that makes the same king of the streets line is present with no verify citation and the same 12.0 quarter mile speed with a book as reference so I intend to rewrite the H2 part of the page with refs from the H2 wiki page and what ever else I find.

Also, there is a gross overuse of citation needed tags on this page.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say that if there if it is so easy to Google so much verifiable evidence that the bike was the "king of the streets", then it would have taken you far less time and effort to cite the fact than to write the above half dozen+ paragraphs, over 700 word argument you've presented so far on this topic. Why argue when you can cite? Here again you've re-added that it was the "king of the streets", complete with quotation marks. Whom are you quoting?

I don't know why you think you get special treatment for having edited for X number of years. If you add peacock statements to articles without citations, expect to be treated like a novice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

i made my argument. looks like you've chosen to ignore it. and i just spent my afternoon reading and writing here trying to satisfy YOU. lease read again what I wrote to you in the first place so I don't have to write that 700 words again trying to get it through your head. and why did you re write the other things i added without explanation?

I say again, not every single thing on wiki gets a ref. it would be totally unwieldly. I disagree you on the importance of deleting that section and I will continue putting it back just like i'm putting back the other things I wrote that have nothing to do with sources. I'm not hear to please you with my writing style.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember WP:3RR. Edit warring can get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you THINK you are but why is it ME getting accused of edit warring and not you. This whole thing started with my simply removing a citation/reason tag. you come after me accusing me of original research, wrongly, the go to reverting everything i post on that page.

It is YOU that has gone to war over "king of the streets" and you've not conducted yourself in a respectful matter. I think you are being flip about something I've spent the day on.

You still haven't acknowledged that you wrongly accused me of being responsible for the king of the streets part because I removed a tag instead of deleting it. The only thing i had a problem with was the idea that the meaning of the phase needed explaining.

Last I checked, and I've been around here. My opinion matters as much as yours. I have not history of any kind of vandalism or disruptive behavior here I do NOT recognize you that is in a position of authority here.

I'm putting it back. YOU take it to the talk page if you want to make a case that it's important enough to change.

and the other rewriting I consider to be an insult to the time and effort I put in today trying to fix things.

I see from your talk page I'm not the only one accusing you of being non nonchalant about deleting what others have written.

Checking further, I have a lot more experience at this than you do. I've NEVER been a accused of edit war. You have. I did very little copying from my source material. You have a problem with my sentence structure, address that with me, or try a rewrite that keeps the spirit of what was written. what you do NOT do is delete it.

You've been condescending, accused me of being a vandal, threaten to have me blocked from editing and generally acted like you have authority that you don't have.

I don't react well to threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

some thing or things you have deleted contained references to what you deleted or are now as for citation. this has do stop. I'm trying to fix some references and you keep changing the page.

Look, I written to you at lenght and you blow me off and continue you rollbacks and arbritary deletions. I'm done with you. Do what you think you have to do. I'd be glad to have some neutral party look at this. but you will cease deleting my work until then.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kawasaki triple, you may be blocked from editing. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat that if you an cite a source that verifies that the bike was actually the "king of the streets" and actually was faster than any other bike or car, then all your problems are solved. There's no need for any of this. Just get the source, and cite it. Bam! Problem over. There's also a number of other good sources listed at the bottom of the article. Extracting facts from those and citing them would be a productive thing to do. All this ALL CAPS shouting and exclamation points is not productive.

Please not the reason give by the administrator in the protection log: "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". Re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced material is likely to trigger page protection being resumed after it expires. What to do? Cite. Cite. Cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me Dennis like we're the only dogs in this fight. We, plus whatever admin you went crying to when I wouldn't just lay down for you. My time here has been so squeaky clean I don't even know HOW to do that, you evidently relish in it. I have no interest covering my personal page with banners.

We could really use a neutral part here, and I don't see one appear, so now I have to decide whether my limited time is best spent going through Wikipedia pages look for what's there about dispute resolution, or what I'd rather do which is research and read. But I'd rather have help here because i don't want do this as though it's YOU I need to satisfy and if I don't, well you've proven your better at throwing your weight around. It's not a skill set I really want to learn for myself.

And now you admonish me again like I'm some dimwitted dullard because I occasionally write a word in all caps instead of fooling with the html to bold it or whatever. I don't know who you think you are. Your words don't come to us from on high. I'm not here to serve your tender sensibilities. I don't write sentences or paragraphs of cap locks. If i do it occasionally to create emphasis and I don't want to fool with coding, it's really none of your business. Get OVER it.

This is just more of the same arrogant "i can't possibly have done anything wrong" attitude that you've had from your very first contact with me.

I'm saying for the umpteenth time all I had done is remove a tag that nobody is arguing should go back and then you created this situation by making a deleting a claim not controversial and had been there unchallenged for a long time. And instead of finding the person that put it there in the first place you came at me acting as though I just fell off the turnip truck and admonished me as though I was responsible for it being there in the first place. I was not and it didn't BECOME my responsibility just because i left it there when removing an unseeded and cluttering tag. It's not a controversial claim, the phrase is used in many many places on the net, none of which would probably be a proper source, but repeated ad nauseam. I know it's true enough to be there, nobody but you thinks it's important enough to remove and I didn't think your opinion on the matter was more important than the person that put it there combined with the thousands that have read it, left it there, without comment or controversy on the talk page. Plus, the same phrase is on the Kawasaki H2 page, which AGAIN I mentioned before. You don't seem to be dying to go there and change it, yet when i put it back you had to try and intimidate me with block threats, and worse yet, when I write and document that it was the best performing bike of it's contemporaries instead of correcting links, spelling and grammar you decide in your endless arrogance that you should totally rewrite the actual content I added, plus you make multiple changes in the same edit, changing back performance data that I had changed and documented making the process of fixing the things you screwed over so time consuming to change individually i decided to revert the page, and go back to work fixing it. But you had must have been right over the key board because you immediately unreverted my revert, sent me a fresh round of threats and went running to the administrators that I was vandalizing the page. It was you that had become disruptive, but you know better than I to make accusations so you got to complain about me before I could complain about you.

You started this mess and your attitude and carelessness with a commoner like me upset me. This is wikipedia. People have different levels of involvement but NOBODY'S more important than anybody else.

Yes, but it can be argued that "king of the streets" be sourced. I would hope that with all you've done trying to impose yourself on me, and seeing you did do some reteach, if you'd found it easy to source you would have instead of removing it, admonishing me, removing it again, wagging your finger at me again.. then running to tell on m.

I have already definitively documented that the H2 was the fastest accelerating bike you could buy in 72, and by easy inference 72 as well. I don't know at what point something was faster after 72.

I'll be back to add more yet tonight.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm realizing most of what's on the triples page about the Mach IV should actually be on the Mach IV page. What do you think? Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's not too long. The real question is, does the other article need to exist? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to soon go to the AMA museum and I'll see if they have anything special to say about the Mach IV's and I'd like to write more about why they are as noteworthy as you know I think they are. But another thing is that if you look at articles on Honda motorcycles there isn't a page on inline Honda inline 4 cylinder models that breaks them down. Instead as far as I can tell there is a separate page for every line of inline 4 cyl bikes they ever made. A quick look at the page for the CB750 makes me think it need elaborated, not lumped in with an article about Honda 4's, as is the case with the page on Kawasaki Triples. Also the bike I now ride is a first year Honda Magna V-45 (82) that I restored myself and I see there is incorrect information there to work on. In fact, I'd like you to look at the Honda_VF_and_VFR page and get a look at the near total lack of documentation on the page. I'm not suggesting you go nuclear and go on a deletion binge, just cut me some slack so I don't have to spend days documenting every word I write and maybe point out things you think might be glaring. Also, along the lines of standards on certain pages where it's obviously important to get things as evidence based as possible, and other pages where things might not be so important to argue down to the last wiki rule, I'm asking you to look at the page on 1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protest_activity. It's a almost completely one sided take on what happened and has "citation needed" place over and over again all down the page. While the page about the 68 convention itself has sections about the protest in it that are way more balanced and well cited the page on the protests sits there as a glaring embarrassment about a hugely important historical event. While I recognize that you are more experienced at editing than I am, I hope my point about context isn't totally lost on you. Jackhammer111 (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Honda CB250N/CB400N

Dear Mr Bratland You keep removing the links we are trying to put on the wiki page of the Honda CB250N/CB400N - otherwise know as the Superdream. WHY??? If you would just take a few minutes of your time to check out the link you will find it isnt spam or such - it is a forum run by very knowledgable persons specifically for these motorcycles. The wiki page in question is woefully wrong, dull and just plain innacurate. Let us add to it, correct it and make the page what it should be. Otherwise, leaving it as it is just confirms to many just how bad Wikipedia really is as a source of reference. If you wish to discuss this you may contact me on carl.tunnicliffe@sky.com Check out the forum - you will see we are not a bunch of nerds in our parents basements!!!! Yours - slightly annoyed, Carl Tunnicliffe Global Moderator of the UK Honda Superdream Forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.38.6 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why is in the Edit summary, and on your IP talk page. Please read the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. We don't allow "#4 Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "#10 Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." and "#11 Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Remember Wikipedia is not a directory. That means it is not the function of Wikipedia articles to serve as a guide to finding websites. That's what a search engine is for, or a directory like DMOZ.

Note that if you continue to add these links, you will likely be blocked from editing. I am not an Administrator and I cannot block you; that is somebody else's decision. I am just conveying the warning in the hopes that you will stop before you are blocked.

You are more than welcome to expand the article Honda CB250N/CB400N and to participate in improving other motorcycling related articles. But please do so by adding facts to the article, and citing Verifiable citations to published works such as books, magazines, newspapers and authoritative websites. User-generated or crowdsourced websites normally do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Reliable sources, so we don't link to them and don't cite them. So please use your other resources to expand the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dennis Bratland, I note your reversion on the 250N/400N page & presume you mean that "Honda Motorcycles" is already a member of (parent category) "Honda Vehicles" if so I understand your intent. I stumbled on the page via a rejected draft (not mine!) referring to it, which noted it needed work & as no-one seemed to be working on it, have tried to have a go myself. I haven't got too far as yet but have some books reserved at the library which I hope will provide good info (and refs). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review request

Hi Denis, we were discussing GA reviews the other day. The article that I have nominated for GA, Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, has been waiting for a review since June 4. Would you be willing to do a review? Please be objective in your review and apply the relevant criteria, but I would appreciate having someone review this article, even if the review says that changes are necessary. In exchange, I will offer to review a GA candidate of yours, under the same conditions, if you wish. Thanks in advance, --Pine^✉ 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's allowed: you're supposed to pick articles you're not involved with, and quid pro quo reviewing, as DYK uses, has been rejected by the GA editors, from what I can tell in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ. I think a long wait for GA is just a fact of life: the backlog is huge. However, both of us could help reduce the backlog by reviewing older articles, which would move yours further up in the queue. If I'm being too cautious and it is actually allowed for me to review the article at your request, then I'd be happy to do so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm. We're not involved in authoring each other's articles, and in DYK quid pro quo means, as far as I can tell, that users are allowed and in some cases required to cross-check each other's proposed work, although not necessarily on a one to one basis. I checked the policy on canvassing and that doesn't seem to prohibit people from cross-checking nominations either. However, out of an abundance of caution, I'll check over on a GA talk page. --Pine^✉ 06:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• A response has been posted at Wikipedia talk:GAN near the bottom of the page. --Pine^✉ 00:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, OK. I don't know how long it will take me to do the review, but I'll try. Brianhe has has nominated Honda Super Cub, so it's in the queue. I might have another article ready to nominate in the near future. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you remove that edit I made? It IS correct information, and you practically outdated it. The Bugatti Veryon Super Sport is NOT the fastest car anymore. If you actually heard, the Hennessey Venom GT shattered that record with 270 mph. Complete bullcrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animatory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason is right there in the article. Did you read it? It is also discussed at length on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Caitlin Doughty

Hello! Your submission of Caitlin Doughty 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) 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kawasaki triple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liquid-cooled. 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) 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Lindy West Biography Page, October 22, 2014

You removed today's edit claiming that reliable sources were not cited. However, the primary cited source for the added information was Lindy West's own public website, which per Wikipedia policy is a valid source for bio page purposes. From the guidelines you linked to: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." The information provided is not something "I thought I read on a blog", as you put in the talk page. Also, it is unclear how the edits constitute instruction regarding "what people ought to think."

Accordingly, I have restored the added material.

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 3.25<ref name=MCNSpeedTriple>[2006 Triumph Speed Triple SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the messages you leave. kokododo I want to ask about the external link. why would you remove it? I added the link for the theme that corresponds to a page in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokododo (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia for advertising. Please stop. The guideline is explained in Links normally to be avoided --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello, Dennis. I saw your reports at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism on the IP addresses 70.193.147.142 and 70.193.139.150, and I blocked those IP addresses. Unfortunately, a range block is not possible, as there are many perfectly constructive edits from other editors using the same IP range, so it will just have to be a question of blocking each IP address as it comes up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Caitlin Doughty

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Halloween 2014 Limited Edition Barnstar
		For your dedicated work on this year's Halloween on Wikipedia at DYK. Well done. ≈ Victuallers (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Super Cub review

I'm done for the night, if you want to go fix the remaining GA issues. Brianhe (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of inventions

Hi Dennis, hope you're all well. While I understand this concerning a blocked user, is there any reason to delete the actual content? I think it could be a starting point to extend the article. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason is found in WP:EVASION. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but now what? We're not allowed to restore the content? I don't really get that. It's supposed to be a free encyclopedia. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You can add your own content on its own merits. If you know it's valid, then add it in your own name. Europefan's edits are not kept, and are assumed to be unreliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have a choice: WP:DENY this trolling sock (an editor already banned at the German WP for trolling) or under some narrow provisions of WP:EVADE you can take responsibility for their edits, should you choose to restore them. It's entirely up to you – as a GF editor here yourself, you have that right. However I would warn you that engagement with this troll has so far been "unrewarding" and also that much of what they post is biased and simply wrong. In the beginning, I too tried to engage with this troll and judge each edit on its merits - no more though: they don't deserve it, so let's blanket DENY them and starve them out. Does this reduce WP? No. We have plenty of content already, we also have plenty that's missing. Yes, these additions are a small positive contribution (albeit hiding under a few layers of negative). However they also bring substantial negatives in simply dealing with this troll. That means time lost to people who could instead be doing something useful, and very likely more useful than this.

It's up to you – but I don't think there's anything to be gained by supporting this person. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I never look at a project or article to support single people/editors, I just don't care for them. I only care for content and if it's correct and adheres to WP principles, it has a place. I'll look into that more thoroughly later. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ducati 1199 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a larger displacement {{Convert|1285|cc|abbr=on}} '''1299 Panigale''' for the 2015 model year.<ref>[http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/11/03/2015-ducati-1299-panigale-sportbike-motorcycle-review-first-
• out 205 horsepower! |date=November 3, 2014 |first= Bruno |last= dePrato |magazine=[[Cycle World]] }}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your posts on my talk page

I consider your continued postings on my talk page to be harassment. Now that you know this, if you make one more post on it I will take action against you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody else considers the warnings you've received for personal attacks to be harassment. They're a necessary step leading up to more serious sanctions. I hope you can comment on content, not contributors. If you can somehow find a way to do that, this drama is avoidable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I probably have to make quite clear what my post means to you. Now that you know my opinion, if you continue to make ANY posts on my talk page, other than REQUIRED messages (such as an AfD message if it is an article I created, etc.), then you WILL be committing harassment. And you comment on content on article talk pages, not on editor's talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Adopting a German troll and sponsoring their edits simply to spite Dennis is one of the more self-destructive means of argument I've seen used at WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently, adopting a troll (I like that expression BTW) and the "no harassment" response to engagement is becoming a thing for him. [1] - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your excellent work with Brianhe improving Honda Super Cub. This is one of the best examples of teamwork I've seen on Wikipedia. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Bratland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yamaha R1 weight

Hello Dennis. Can u tell me why u wanna stick with those 'measured' weights of old R1's? There's 'measured' weights for all the other Japanese litre superbikes too, that too r far bigger than the stated ones on their respective wiki pages. Shouldn't u go fix them too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JukkaX (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll fix them as soon as I have time. Please tell me which articles you mean. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanx. Articles I checked were of Kawasaki ZX-10R, Honda CBR1000RR and Suzuki GSX-R1000. But u know the weights given at Sportsrider-page for example can't be trusted. Like the '01 R1, they give wet/dry weight difference of 13 kg, when the fluids in reality weigh 18 kg for this bike. Quite a big error I think.JukkaX (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only permitted remedy in this case is to try to find a better source. As Dennis explained, every article is based on what other sources say, not what we think we know. You may find this article interesting: Motorcycle testing and measurement, where is discussed some of the biases and problems inherent in objective product testing. It says "Inconsistencies may be found between a motorcycle manufacturer's published dry weight and motorcycle press and media outlet's published dry weight," and explains why. — Brianhe (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

And even if we knew the difference between the wet and dry weight is 18lbs -- which we don't, because we don't know if they counted fuel and/or the battery -- both Motorcyclist and Motorcycle Consumer News agree the 2000 bike was 443 lbs wet. That puts the dry weight at 443-18=425. So Sport Rider's 414 lbs might be wrong, but it's not too high! Changing the dry weight to 401 is totally out of the ballpark. But we should definitely go over these articles. The R1's wet weight of 425lbs citing the service manual for 2002-2003 is obviously not including fuel, so that's got to go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Global financial system & Tableau

Dennis, thank you for your recent efforts to deter copyvio edits to Global financial system. I devoted a lot of time and effort toward improving the article and have waited quite some time for a reviewer to pickup the GA review, which as of this week has become a reality. I am eager to continue making improvements and to march the article onward toward Featured Article status.

By happenstance, I viewed your profile and noticed you are an employee of Tableau Software. I am an analyst in the energy industry and have had a particular interest as of late in learning/experimenting with Tableau. However, it is quite a costly piece of software to license. I'm presuming you are familiar with the least expensive options for purchasing or trying the software. Do you have any recommendations? I am aware of the freely available version in which users can upload their content to a cloud, however I am more interested in experimenting with advanced features and perhaps even toying with my company's proprietary data which would prohibit me from uploading to a cloud environment. Perhaps you are familiar with any enterprise-grade trials and/or training available? I am not necessarily the only individual in my company/department interested in exploring Tableau. If you are interested, please feel free to shoot me an email so that we may discuss this off-wiki. John Shandy` • talk 04:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird page view stats

FYI some other active editors have noticed a spike in their user page views recently. Mine doesn't seem to have this effect but yours does. Don't know what it means. — Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird. I don't really know how to track where incoming traffic is coming from. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Laughing Hyenas Page

I thought you might want to understand more about Chunklet- it has it's own wikipedia page , isn't some blog and offered pretty vital information about Larissa Stolarchuk when she died. Perhaps you could reinstate that edit. Jonah Eiers (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia article is not the same as meeting the criteria for being a reliable source. Even if Chunklet (magazine) were a well-sourced and high quality article -- which it's not -- and even if the article had been proven to meet the notability criteria in an Afd discussion -- which it hasn't -- those criteria are totally different than the criteria used to determine if we can trust a source. Most of the content at the Chunklet article was written by a single-purpose account and it hasn't been subjected to much scrutiny. It looks to me like the blogger himself wrote his own Wikipedia article, rambling on with his own recollections and citing few if any sources. I would not bet much that Chunklet (magazine) would be kept if somebody nominated it for deletion.

I would suggest that you go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask if others there agree with you that this link is reliable and meets Wikipedia's criteria. The very fact that the link offers information not found elsewhere makes it look an awful lot like some lone guy's blog, not serious journalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Would http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/kawasaki_gpz_305_belt_drive_1986.php be a reliable source? page without sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_GPZ305 thanks Orendona (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, bikez.com is the same as motorcyclespecs.za. They sometimes copy data from good sources, and sometimes from bad sources. The problem is they don't test bikes themselves, and they don't tell you where they got their numbers. It's much better to leave it blank on the article than to put in an unreliable claim. What's so important about the power and top speed anyway? It isn't as if the bike set any records. It's much more interesting to investigate why Cycle World thought it was one of the 10 best bikes of 1983, yet Visordown said it was a terrible bike. I'd find a copy of the November 1983 Cycle World and get the power, speed and weight from there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is important if you compare motos of less than 400cc urbans or less than 600cc tourism motos. If you want to travel you will need at least be able to run a 70mph top speed moto to run at 60 and be able to conmute. And the power at what rpm will tell you if you will be able to drive the moto depending on your skills: you will try to grap the handles but the moto will keep accelerating until you fall or control your right or left hand (accelerator or clutch)

Ok I will keep on looking Orendona (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)