User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

It afects

It afects if you take it out because the variable, ground_distance: the max height of an obstacle the motorcycle can cope, is a variable that wikipedia in english does not have. The problem with that variable in the programing code was already solved, so to not affect any page. Please let wikipedia expand and evolve in a positive way :D

[1]

Orendona (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest this change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling see if other editors agree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Dennis,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. It's a few days early, but I wanted to post this now in case I'm away from Wikipedia later this month.

Best regards, Brianhe (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Geeze. I'm old. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 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:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 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 tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Response

I've responded to you on my talk page cherkash (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ariel Ace data

Hi, I've started a page on the Ariel Ace, which you may care to peruse. Arrivisto (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tire

Hi. Please could you explain the reason for this edit[2] and the associated comment. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.50 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GXSR600 power figures

Hi Dennis. Just a quick note to explain why I've changed "power" to "rear wheel power" in the spec sheet. In Europe, there's a license category breakpoint at 70kW net engine power. Many riders are reading the Wiki page and exclaiming "Huzzah, the early bikes are under 70kW," when that's the measured figure, not the calculated or manufacturer claimed crank power that (sadly but actually) matters for licensing purposes. I'd appreciate it if we could try and make this clear at a glance - which is all that some readers will take - without getting too (as you fairly said) hectoring about it. Rogerborg (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

CBR600RR edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Please go to Talk:Honda CBR600RR or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling to discuss this topic

Dennis, it is unclear to me as to why you said it appears to be not constructive. I deleted the power figure as it was wrong. I cannot check the source directly as it appears to be from a book or magazine. However, it was incorrect.

That power figure contained the term "bhp" -- which stands for brake horse power, this has a specific meaning; the power measured at the output shaft of a motor or engine. A lot of people accidentally mistake brake horse power to mean the power at the brakes of a vehicle or the wheel. However, misunderstanding and ignorance doesn't mean it should be encouraged in encyclopaedic articles. Shortly put, that 101.53bhp which was initially listed is actually the horsepower developed at the rear wheel of the motorcycle, not at the engine. In otherwords, "rwhp", not "bhp". I test edited that abbreviation, but the in-built convert function didn't understand rwhp and gave an error.

This kind of inconsistency between bhp and the general imperial symbol for automomtive power (hp) is prevalent throughout a lot of the motorcycle and car technical datasheets in Wikipedia as some editors don't seem to be aware of the difference.

There are plenty of dynamo-meter readings of motorcycle power outputs at the wheel which is consistent with the 101.53 hp figure, it is however at the rear wheel, not the crank. These can be found on Google images either through individuals having tested their power outputs at workshops or from various magazines. Unfortunately even some of the more reputed sources mix up bhp and rwhp.

What I suggest is either having all the different years from 2003 onwards with a power figure that is consistent with each other, or have none at all.

Edit: It appears you have another user you've corrected, you've also undid my edit claiming it's "utter nonsense":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower

http://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-difference-between-bhp-and-whp-explained/

Here are some more examples:

http://wallpcars.com/sportbike-peformance-dyno-charts-honda-cbr600rr-horsepower-photo-88.html/honda-cbr-specssportbike-peformance-dyno-charts-honda-cbrrr-horsepower-photo-qdsw

Note, that's a dyno reading, at the rear wheel. It's roughly 105hp, that's more or less consistent with 101.53hp measured at another dyno as dyno's can vary in their measurement accuracy from location to location and climate.

Another with a slight variation

http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/c/e/a/95418/0704-0.jpg

The power at the engine is different, that would be bhp and it is always higher. For the CBR600RR it is in the 115bhp - 119bhp range, depending on the year and where it was dyno'd.

Example, a correct use of the term "bhp":

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/honda-cbr600rr-428043.html

It appears from a test edit I just did, that the convert function accepts "whp", I assume that this is the correct designation for rear-wheel horsepower, please confirm.

Veritas Blue (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a copyright violating scraper site. It appears to be stolen screenshot of a dyno test of a 2006 CBR600RR by Sport Rider, but their article index shows they never tested the 2006, only the 2007. I don't know what this is. Where did it come from? This is a 2007 CBR600RR, not a 2006. It was published in December 2006, and the weight, 155 kg, clearly refers to the lighter 2007, which is confined by the text of the article that notes the changes to make the 2007 lighter. Right now the best source we have for the 2006 is Cycle World which clearly says 105 bhp. They used bhp for all the bikes in that test, and they know the diffrence between hp and bhp. You need to find a better source if you think the July 2006 Cycle World article is wrong. And the place to discuss it is at Talk:Honda CBR600RR, not here.

Also, over at Talk:Honda CBR600RR (not here), can you explain where you got the idea that the convert template doesn't work for rwhp? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Go to Talk:Honda CBR600RR#BHP for 2006 and other years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC) }}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yamaha YZF-R6, 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) 08:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP: PEACOCK

Val Page & WP: PEACOCK: Fair enough, up to a point: I had used "notable" to replace another editor's words: "Described as Britain's greatest motorcycle designer ...."; but perhaps even "notable" is puffery! Arrivisto (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely an improvement over the older version, but really all such adjectives are generally not helpful. There are tons of Wikipedia biographies with words like 'notable' and 'important' and 'iconic' and 'great' in the first sentence. It's uninformative, and our real goal is to give the most specific possible reason why the person has a biography in an encyclopedia. Words like that in quotes from people whose opinion matters are fine, down in the body of the article, but outside of quotes we want just the facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Arrivisto (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

FS1E & Yamaha pages

Hello Dennis Bratland,

Noting your recent edits on the FS1E page, I am slightly confused by your actions. Your edit summary says remove unsourced performance claims whereas all that has actually been removed is the fuel tank capacity and the dry weight. All other dimensions sourced from the same site have been left in place, albeit with minor re-formatting. As for motorbikespecs, I have found when comparing their data with other sources I have available (manuals etc.) that it has been reliable and accurate; so I suppose it is just a matter of personal opinion (POV). I wouldn’t necessarily take their info. as wholly accurate when it comes to actual performance etc. for various reasons. With regard to italics in respect of capacity I was advised that their use in infoboxes was incorrect but understand the need in respect of “generic” capacities. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't cite open Wikis, per WP:SPS, and we don't link to them per WP:ELNO. I'm not too worried about basic dimensions, and we don't always demand citations for them, per WP:MC-MOS. We do delete uncited performance claims, such as power, torque, speed, weight, and fuel economy. I meant to only delete dry weight, not fuel capacity. I probably misread it as fuel economy. I've fixed that now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I'm still (relatively) new, at least as a regular editor, so like most people, will get things wrong quite often! Could you clarify what is meant by "open Wikis"? I assume you mean the type of site where anyone can edit the information? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an open Wiki is where anybody can edit. The link you added to the FS1E page is actually takes you straight to the editing window. So anybody can anonymously write whatever they want there, then go to Wikipedia, copy the info, and cite motobikespecs as if that gave it any weight. That tends to fool readers into thinking the information is more reliable than it is. At least if you anonymously put whatever numbers you like into the Wikipedia article with no citation, readers can see it's not sourced and can be more cautious before believing it.

Cites like bikez.com and motorcyclespecs.co.za are even worse, because at least with motorbikespecs you know it's all crowdsourced. With bikez.com, you have no idea what is user submitted and what comes from good souces. I think most of it is copy-pasted by bots, in violation of copyright, typical of scraper sites. motorcyclespecs.co.za is just some website run by a guy named Tony. Who is Tony? Where did he get his data? Nobody knows. Suzukicycles.org is the same thing. Some guy's personal website, Jarmo Haapamäki. Who is Jarmo? Is he a reliable journalist? Who knows? The point of Wikipedia's citation policy is to give readers confidence that somebody has found this information from a good source. Any reader can google "bike specs" and will easily find bikez.com or motorcyclespecs.co.za or motorbikespecs.net or .motorcyclespecifications.info and find a table of numbers which may or may not be trustworthy. If you've cited or linked to any of these sites in the past, please remove the links. Wikipedia cannot vouch for these sites and so we shouldn't be adding to their credibility. The minimum standards for WP:RS don't gurantee "truth" but they set the bar somewhere, and these websites fall below that bar.

You say you have printed manuals for these bikes. Please remember that sources are not required to be online. If you have a reputable published book or manual, you can cited it, per Citing sources. The requirement is verifiability, which means somebody else could find the same published book and check your work. If they have to go to ta library or puchase a printed book, that's fine. Please read Offline sources -- it's a very important essay. So instead of citing unreliable Wikis, crowdsourced sites, scraper sites, or personal websites, cite your printed books. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for taking the time to respond comprehensively. I'm always trying to get more info., to do the right thing!! I agree entirely that citing books is far better and would be my first choice for references; in fact I have some on reserve at the library for articles I wish to improve if possible, (I don't have any for these machines) & I have always used what books I have to reference articles I've created...mainly about football (round-ball game). In the meantime I have removed a couple of links from articles as you suggest. Maybe I should stick to football and motor racing which I have more knowledge (& info.) about as my edits seem well received in those subjects! Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Chopper

Hi Dennis,

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I've made a few very minor changes to the article choppers, mostly I have been trying to add sources, as the article is flagged for not having sources. I've been working on the section of the article which is flagged for not having sources, about the old school movement.

I also removed what was essentially an ad for an individual building in Colorado, that had been spammed into the article. Asssuming you are not that person it's hard for me to believe that I did anything remotely objectionable to this article.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

I have been editiing on Wikipedia for a long time. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The post http://www.bikernet.com/pages/story_detail.aspx?id=8282 looks an awful lot to me like somebody's blog, a self-published source. Who is TBear? If you think there is evidence that it meets the criteria in Identifying reliable sources, post it at Talk:Chopper (motorcycle). The problem with weasel words that I tagged is vague generalizations like "common", "famous", "many", and of course the classic weasel terms "considered", "often credited". The basic problem is that this is a terrible article. It is somebody's rambling oral history, stuff half-remembered, and not at all well-researched. Much of it is based on blogs, forums, and commercial websites that have not done the hard work of digging up source material from the periods being discussed. The weasel word tag isn't only about your edits; the problem was there before you started making additions. But I would try to find some better sources. One thing I have read multiple times from authoritative sources on motorcycle history: don't believe anything you see on the Discovery Channel.

The best place to discuss this is at Talk:Chopper (motorcycle) so that the other editors watching the article know what's going on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

If you want to discuss changes, start a discussion but better still, go find some references.

Unfortunately, doing things the way you have done, instead of just starting discussion, would make anyone think they are dealing with an unreasonable person who makes false summaries, and is trying to control an article, by running around trying to engage other people to do his dirty work.

That it is some kind of power game for you.

There were other improvements you are also removing. --Salty Batter (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop all the moaning and go to Talk:The Wild One and explain the purpose of your changes, as I and others have told you to do a half dozen times. If you can't do that then you have only yourself to blame. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Husqvarna promotional link

Hi Dennis, Regarding your comment on our link being promotional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husqvarna_Group - One of our competitors does the same thing on their wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stihl The second external link goes to their USA website. Why are they allowed to link to their country specific website and we are not? -Husqvarna USA

I'm sure there are many other flawed articles. Please read WP:OSE. I don't expert you to to understand. The problem is that you're not here to make Wikipedia better. You're here to promote your company. That prevents you from understanding how Wikipedia works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice when I look at, e,g. Makita or DeWalt, and numerous other pages, they have a number of links to different regional sites or divisions.

Why not Husqvarna? --Salty Batter (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please read Other stuff exists. It is not a valid argument to point to any of their competitors' poorly constructed Wikipedia pages. The governing rule here is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website." — Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, go clean up Makita and DeWalt and Stihl. I know there are many articles with spam on them. The answer is not to add more spam to yet another article. The answer is for you to go and remove the spam yourself when you see it. Nor is the answer to come to Dennis Bratland's talk page and confront me with the spam. As if I'm responsible for every page on Wikipedia. The point that Brian and I are trying to make about OSE is that no one person can be aware of every bad article, and nobody should be guided by a need to conform with what bad articles contain. I'm not going to drop all the projects I consider a high priority and go chasing spam on articles that are not in my area of interest. If you were pointing out Featured Articles, that would be a compelling reason to imitate them. Some random bad article I've never looked at? Don't care. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One man blog used as reference.

Try addressing the actual comment instead of playing games to push your point of view..

That reference is merely a one man blog, no editorial, run as an advert for a pay television service marketing on classic films.

Consequently it is not acceptable.

Please discuss. --Salty Batter (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

It strikes me that what you really mean by "consensus" is what you think and reflects as much as you understand.

Rather than just discussing with me, and my criticism of you would be that you do not appear to understand the point I am making about the use of language, it seems the first thing you did was run off to try and stir up some kind of hornet nest and draw others into support your point of view or agenda.

I have voiced my concerns about your judgement that Idiots' Guides are excellent references. They are, of course, intended as idiot guides and are humorous not deep. I have a copy and as entertaining as it is, it is widely inaccurate.

Please do not do what you did again dumbing down the article by removing the two academic references regarding the portrayal of masculine values in 1950s America, not use it to push your gang agenda. It is inaccurate and misleading.

Thank you. --Salty Batter (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So your theory is that I somehow recruited not one, not two, but three different editors to revert your edits. And not one of the 31 editors who have the Wild One talk page on their watchlist have noticed this conspiracy, and not one of these 31 has been swayed by your sources or arguments. If all this is true, obviously I would never admit it. Because I love evil, right? You should present your theory to an appropriate board, ANI or the RS/N perhaps. Surely somewhere on Wikipedia there must be an objective editor who can see what dastardly schemes I'm getting away with.

Sarcasm aside, I don't think your accusation passes Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that your arguments have failed because you lack the sources to justify them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You are being immature. I clearly never suggest such a thing. In fact, you're coming across as unhinged. --Salty Batter (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing related to motorcycle clubs

Dennis, you appear to be POV pushing on numerous topics relating to motorcycle clubs.

Inaccurate overuse of the pejorative word gang is simply bad writing, damaging to the credibility of individual topics as well as the Wikipedia on the whole. What is your beef about this based on? If BRMC stands for Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and Jackals MC for Jackals Motorcycle Club, what is the problem with referring to them as that so reader know what is being referred to?

I appreciate that you are obviously just trying to provoke me, presumably to report me somewhere else, but let's put that aside for a minute. You seem to be the one making this personally and disrupting the Wikipedia to make your point. I am trying to improve it. --Salty Batter (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)--Salty Batter (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I know Salty Batter is a sockpuppet account. You're evading your block as Bridge Boy (talk · contribs). You edited previously as Triton Rocker (talk · contribs). You did the same kind of edits under those accounts. You've been disrupting Wikipedia for years under still other sock accounts. It's what you do.

This club/gang nonsense is like saying we can't call Darth Vader evil because it's unfair to amputees. Like saying we can't say anything bad about Voldemort because it would offend herpetologists. Voldemort and Darth Vader are fictional.

The Wild One and Beyond the Law are fiction. They depict Hollywood biker gangs. Not real biker gangs, or clubs as you insist. Our sources all call these fictional organizations "gangs". Even your sources call them gangs. Marteau (talk · contribs) and Clarityfiend‎ (talk · contribs) already explained to you that what you're doing is ludicrous, like pretending The Cheyenne Social Club is a social club. This is the same kind of nonsense that you were blocked for before, refusing to stop fighting over what to call a straight-twin engine. Or your past fight over terminology for Great Britain. You're going to be blocked again, for the same disruptive behavior, and for block evasion.

Good day, sir. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Motorcycle Clubs.

Hi Dennis, I tried adding a section for our beginning motorcycle rider club. Once I saw it come up red I quickly realized that I had no idea what I was doing so I deleted the edit. This all seems to be way over my head right now, but I guess everyone starts out like that. Thanks for contacting me, and perhaps you can point me to a document or article that explains Wikipedia article writing for the user who doesn't even understand how to use the tags. So new in fact that just getting my name to appear at the end of this post seems like an accomplishment. PeterPoggi (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you'd like to create an article about the Slow Riders Motorcycle Club, but I don't see any evidence that they've been the subject of significant coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, and so on. I wouldn't recommend trying to create a new article without a little practice. In this case, I don't see how the lack of notability can ever be overcome. Our goal isn't to write about every single club in the world; just a select few where we have lots of independent source material to work with.

What if you start smaller and take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do. There's a long list of articles needing some work. Pick one that interests you, where you can get your hands on quality source material, online or offline. Use the article talk page to ask questions, or go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and ask. There's lots of pages you can read to get started, such as Wikipedia:Tutorial or Help:Getting started.

You can take it slow, or dive right in. Just remember if you dive in, you can see your edits reverted, and that is frustrating at first. That's a good time to stop and ask what's going on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm Brian, also an editor on the Motorcycling project. Welcome aboard! I'll echo what Dennis said and add that it's customary to write a little bit about yourself on your user page. That's currently a red link on this page that you can click on where you signed the last comment. It will help other editors to know you aren't quite brand new here, once you do that. Some folks put fancy graphics on theirs, lists of accomplishments or whatever, but it's up to you. — Brianhe (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Space Needle in Infamous Second Son

Good evening sir,

I was looking for a source that was needed to indicate that the Space Needle is a prominent landmark in the game, Infamous Second Son and to a lesser extent, its dlc, First Light. The source I included was a how-to on the mission that heavily involves the space needle. If that is not good enough, there are plenty of youtube videos with independent players playing the game and that mission pops up. Would I be able to use that? Osh33m (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If this was important, then independent newspapers, books, magazines -- even gaming publications -- would be telling is it is important. Nobody cares that the Space Needle was important in the game. The question is, did this have any influence on anything outside the game? At the very least, you've got to find one quality source that says, "Wow! The Space Needle! Amazing." Not an open wiki, not somebody's YouTube. A reliable source.

It sounds like you're telling me the Space Needle was important in the game, so that information belongs in the article about the game. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm scratching my head over this. It's also a landmark in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but so what? — Brianhe (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I also like to be guided by WP:FAs. There are many famous landmarks that have been in dozens of films and TV shows and games. Look at the Tower of London which has appeared hundreds of times, to take one example. Not one pop culture mention in the article. That kind of information is usually not relevant to the subject, it's relevant to the medium with the ref. There are exceptions, when the sources clearly say that there was real world influence outside the medium. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit on List of common misconceptions

Why did you revert my edit on the List of common misconceptions? All that I did was create a link to a page within Wikipedia that gives more information about that particular misconception. I'm sure that that particular page is a popular target for vandalism, but I believe that my edit was both minimal and constructive.

Sorry for posting this on your user talk page, by the way, but I wasn't sure what would be a better place for it.

Thanks, Bob the ducq (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason is in the edit summary. You added a duplicate link and the original one was better because it's not an Easter egg. The best place to discuss this would have been the article talk page.Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gang?

Wait, what, I'm a gangster? Can I dub us The Bad Wikipedians M.C.? Hooee, I can already feel the seductive rush of power seeping through my veins, look out world. It's going to be RSN vs Bad Wikipedians, switchblades in an alley at midnight. Is that how gangs settle things? — Brianhe (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a theory that any topic on Wikipedia has a normal distribution of editors' time and attention devoted to it. So you're bound to have a small number of editors who seem to spend inordinate amounts of time on that topic, and a larger, more diffuse group who spend an order of magnitude less time, and a much larger number or editors who only occasionally edit that topic. So if you happen along and start editing some article, you'll suddenly find yourself working with what seems to be a "gang" who "own" the topic, simply because nobody divides his attention equally among all topics. It can create the misperception that these editors are unfairly rebuffing others from editing, when in fact they are simply the ones who are most familiar with the topic's articles and the Wikipedia policies and well-worn paths of debate that are most relevant to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit - List of fastest production cars

Thanks for your constant patrolling - I must say I found that contribution you reverted amusing though. At least it was more intelligent than most. NealeFamily (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:List of common misconceptions

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Draft:List of common misconceptions, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of common misconceptions. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)