User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dennis Bratland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Pie graph
Hi Dennis, I don't mean to hound you. I've laid out a very strong case for the conventional maps on the WA State election talk page PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikihonding his exactly what you are doing. Please stop. If you persist you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologize as I had not taken into context the meaning of the word "hound". I will admit I have done this before. However, I find it to be of mundane impertinence that you say I have no prior history of editing Washington, California, and Oregon page. As I have a long history of editing election pages, and I hope you do not continue to assert hounding, as we both just want to improve Wikipedia, and if we could have a civilized discussion about the pros and cons of such graphs, it would be much appreciated. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if I sounded like a pompous jerk, and by no means have sinister intentions regarding maps or graphs. But I hope you do not take anything personally. I'd also like to say that the argument of preserving the status quo is a powerful one, as it shows consensus amongst editors. I think the idea of visual biases, while compelling in theory, falls under speculation as well. As you have shown to me great interest in the political pages here, I'd love to try and aid you on your goal of making this community a better place PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I never called you any names. I don't know where that came from. I never called you a pompous jerk, and I never implied any such thing. I don't see that as the issue at all. The issue is resistance to change, resulting in a biased POV. I'm interested in fixing that problem; it has nothing to do with personalities.
Community is a great thing, but when innovation is crushed by those who cling to the status quo, what good is community? Sounds more like biting the newcomers.
From what policy are you getting this "powerful" argument to preserve the status quo? There is no such policy that I know of. I'm well aware of how much a group of editors will fight to maintain the status quo, but that's a pernicious aspect of human nature. We aren't even talking about a dispute over facts, or removing information. We're keeping all the information; in fact I'm adding information that wasn't there before. It all comes form teh same sources. This is all about preserving a particular format for presenting information, based on no policy, and no facts. Just a need to control pages. This is why the ownership policy explicitly prohibits such behavior. WP:Editing policy spells out that Wikipedia cannot be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" if you have a group of gatekeepers who rush in to squash any change that deviates from their pet style. Substance matters more than style, and openness to editing matters more than an imaginary policy of protecting the status quo.
If we were at least talking about a WP:GA or WP:FA, you could claim that the old version was considered quality work. But it's no such thing. It's just an ordinary article struggling to find it's way to being "good". you have no basis to be so protective of a particular style.
Candidates do not win counties in US presidential elections. It's false and misleading to create graphs that give a strong impression of that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if we can resolve this issue by having both graphs on the page. Maybe put either one further down, but on the page as it can only strengthen the content as they are both factually accurate PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, wondering what you thought of my most recent edit on WA election. I believe this would qualify as a compromise of sorts, and I hope we can go further with this PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Gratitude
Dennis, I'm just commenting to say that I will no longer engage in our editing discussion involving maps. We have argued to a stalemaye, and further discussion would only escalate things. I think it is only fair to give you and your graphs a chance, and I will let it run its course, and maybe there will be a new consensus or a theoretical reversion. Whatever the result, while we've had viibrant dialogue, I mean nothing personally, and I thank you and I'm incredibly grateful that through you, I've learned more about policy and that's helped to me to be a better editor. If you ever want help with anything just post something on my talk page! :) PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
|
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: University of Washington Communications Building, Room 126, 4109 Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA 47°39′25″N 122°18′19″W / 47.6570676°N 122.3054000°W
Please go to the door on the north-northwest side. The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing and bringing the membership registration form and $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2017 at the meeting as well. Also, we are pleased to announce that the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is now a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
California (finally) certified their results
I thought you would be interested in CA's official results, which were released today. Bernie Sanders managed to break 2% in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties as a write in. He topped 1% in several others. Results from the CA SoS. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot to include the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teak the Kiwi (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm on it. Will update soon. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, it's updated to the latest certified numbers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm on it. Will update soon. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
OK Election Page
Hi Dennis, I saw you put a tag on OK Pres election page. I was going to update the results box, but would you like me to update county results as well?PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI
Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 1000#Disruptive editing אֲנִינוֹצְרִי (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
- Partner resource expansions
- New search tool for finding TWL resources
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikidata Visiting Scholar
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Military stress card urban legend, or is it?
I just started on Draft:Military stress card. It's kind of interesting research. - Brianhe (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cool subject. So far I haven't found anything more than what you've already got. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Found one. - Brianhe (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Felix Kramer
My name is Narayan Gopinathan and I just edited the page for Felix Kramer. I have been editing since 2008. As I describe in his talk page, I met Felix in 2015 and volunteered to clean up his Wiki page. If you can edit it to improve its neutral point of view, and consider removing the COI tag, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
1RR
Your recent editing history at Executive Order 13769 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The article is under a 1RR restriction. You've now removed - reverted - the added tags TWICE, which means you've broken 1RR. Since you may not have been aware of the restriction (despite the fact that there's a big fat message at the top of the talk page), I'm asking as a courtesy that you self revert and put the tags back in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions notification
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Barnstar
|
Valued Picture Barnstar | |
| For File:Visas to 7 countries in immigration ban by type and number 2016.png, which is both exceptionally well done and exceptionally informative. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) |
Editing as Activism: Black WikiHistory Month Workshop and Edit-a-thon at UW Bothell
 |
Social Justice Organizers at University of Washington-Bothell are hosting a two-day editing event for Black WikiHistory Month on Feb. 22 and Feb. 23, 2017.
|
|
Art+Feminism March 2017 at UW Seattle
 | |||
 |
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) | ||
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ugly Presidential Maps: Montana
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to the United States Presidential Elections. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed.
Since I take it that you enjoy proper maps, I have a project you might be interested in. From around 1892-2000, Montana has had some rather ugly presidential maps. But, one of the more important ones, the 1992 one (the historical flip) is too ugly in comparison to some of the other maps demonstrated in that election, Such as New York, Virginia, and Washington just to name a few.
If this would be something you'd like to work on, your contributions would be greatly appreciated. But if you don't really feel like it, feel free to leave it as is.
Thanks once again,
The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not just ugly. It's grossly inaccurate. Montana in 1992 was a three way race, but this filled map only shows two candidates. And it fills in the county land area as if that were a meaningful piece of data, ignoring how many actual votes were counted in each county. It's impossible to tell from this kind of graph even who won the state. It needs to be something that shows you how many votes each candidate got. Filling in land area with color because they got the most votes in that county makes it look like they won something that way. It actually looks like Bush won the state.
To fix that it needs to be a pie map overlaid on a state and county map. Then you see the geography, while also seeing all the candidates, and how many votes they actually got. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- That graph cleans up that page a lot. Thank you for your contributions. The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triumph Bonneville Bobber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard tail. 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) 10:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, as best I can tell, you have nominated Nissan Leaf, a Good Article, to a new Good Article review, which you are conducting. This isn't how the process works.
If you believe the article no longer meets the GA criteria, the thing to do is to begin a Good Article Reassessment. There are two types of reassessments: individual and community. If you wish, I can arrange to convert your current review into a reassessment. The WP:GAR page explains the differences between the two, and how they are done. Basically, if you want to conduct a complete reassessment yourself, you can do an individual reassessment based on the GA criteria, provided you are not a significant contributor to the article or were involved in the original GA review, and there isn't a controversy surrounding the article. Otherwise, a community reassessment would be in order.
Whatever happens, the current GA review cannot affect the GA listing of the article; only a GAR can do that. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would probably be best is someone other than me did the review, so a community reassessment is the way to go. The notes I've made are there for anyone to see, and the reviewer(s) are welcome to use them as they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Nissan Leaf
The article Nissan Leaf you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Nissan Leaf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dennis Bratland -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Tullock Paradox
Err...the article as it is today may have benefited from an undiscussed merge, but that's because it was recently stripped of much of its content. See [1] and [2]. My inclination is to revert both your merge and JzG's edits. I had been biding my time for the discussions on his talk page and the ANI noticeboard and Wikiproject Economics to reach a clear conclusion. But perhaps I've been waiting too long. jhawkinson (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking me for here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm asking you to evaluate my intention and tell me what you think. I wanted to talk to you before reverting your edit. jhawkinson (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would focus on Rent-seeking. It's going to be the parent article on the topic regardless of what happens to sub-topics like Tullock's Paradox. So first make sure rent-seeking is comprehensive and balanced, and you're likely safe from any controversy. At some point, the Tullock's Paradox section might have so much we'll-sourced content that it will be undeniable that a separate article is necessary. If the section remains only a couple paragraphs, then a separate article wasn't needed after all. This approach avoids conflict and is constructive. Your work is unlikely to be deleted, and the encyclopedia grows instead of shrinks. Trying to expand the sub-topic Tullock's paradox before completing Rent-seeking's coverage is the more difficult, wasteful and divisive approach. That's my advice: path of least resistance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced, but done :) jhawkinson (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would focus on Rent-seeking. It's going to be the parent article on the topic regardless of what happens to sub-topics like Tullock's Paradox. So first make sure rent-seeking is comprehensive and balanced, and you're likely safe from any controversy. At some point, the Tullock's Paradox section might have so much we'll-sourced content that it will be undeniable that a separate article is necessary. If the section remains only a couple paragraphs, then a separate article wasn't needed after all. This approach avoids conflict and is constructive. Your work is unlikely to be deleted, and the encyclopedia grows instead of shrinks. Trying to expand the sub-topic Tullock's paradox before completing Rent-seeking's coverage is the more difficult, wasteful and divisive approach. That's my advice: path of least resistance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm asking you to evaluate my intention and tell me what you think. I wanted to talk to you before reverting your edit. jhawkinson (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amisom (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Tullock's spike. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. I have started an RfC on your behaviour at Talk:Tullock's spike. Why do you think you are allowed to do things and refuse to discuss? Amisom (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't the same apply to you, Amisom? Your behavior is identical to mine. If what I have done constitutes a violation of WP:OWN, and you have done exactly the same things as me, then you have violated the ownership policy exactly the same. The moral of this story is this: you get back exactly what you give. With this edit right here, you began an edit war. You did that. I gave you your edit war, and you see what happens? Not so great, huh? If you'd rather discuss than revert, then you need to discuss rather than revert. Be the change you want to see. Try it, and see if that works out better for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Amisom:, I don't think you understand what a revert is, if this is anything to go by. My first diff there is not a revert. It's an example of BRD editing, not unlike your prior edits. After that, you made 3 reverts, as did I. If I've done anything wrong, you have too. If you disagree, why didn't you report me to 3RR/N? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- I guess you need to read WP:3RR again because you made two misunderstandings of it in your comment. Amisom (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
2016 California Presidential election
I don't use talk on Wikipedia, I don't know how to use it. Regarding the 2016 California Presidential election page. Trump lost the state, meaning he got ZERO electors. That person who posted that fringe post is clearly biased towards Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerretalogan13 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- I imagine you're going to have a lot of difficulty if you don't learn to use basic tools like edit summaries, or article talk pages. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 21
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikipedia Library User Group
- Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
- Spotlight: Library Card Platform
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Billy Lane
Hi, Dennis, I'm not sure why you keep deleting my well sourced additions to the Billy Lane page, including photos I've taken myself. And you've done so minutes after I submitted my changes. On what basis are you deleting all my additions? -- Krystynlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystynlo (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't delete the photo you claim you took yourself. I tagged it because it matched a published, copyrighted photo, found on the @choppersinc instagram account. An administrator saw that I tagged it, and verified that the photo was copied from instagram, and they deleted it. I don't have the power to delete photos from Wikimedia Commons because I'm not an administrator. You can read all this at your talk page on Commons, as you can read on your talk page here on Wikipedia.
Your last addition to Billy Lane was copied from http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2016/10/11/exclusive-interview-with-billy-lane-about-the-inaugural-sons-of-speed-board-track-racing/ There is a copyright notice at the bottom: © 2017 Cyril Huze.
If you continue to copy-paste text that is copyrighed, you will be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk Page policy nonsense
Judging by how quickly you reverted the talk page, and on that topic in particular, you've proven my point of the futility of trying to get involved with pet articles with personal interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Proven". You guys keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You can't defame any living person anywhere on Wikipedia, even a talk page. Citing your opinions about how many likes or dislikes, or how many positive or negative comments you think you've surveyed counts for nothing on Wikipedia. It violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. You seem to be aware of the concept of anonymous accounts gaming the system on Wikipedia. What if I told you... The same thing is possible at YouTube!
All you have to do is attribute the opinion that X living person is guilty of Y transgression to a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's really important if you hope to accomplish anything at Wikipedia. You need to cite a source who is published (not self-published, like a YouTube like/dislike or comment or a forum post). It has to be in a respectable, mainstream book, magazine, journal, TV show, radio program, or website. It doesn't have to be online, but it must be verifiable. Somebody else has to be able to find it and check it. It's allowed for the person you cite to be biased. If somebody has a negative opinion about X living person, that's fine, as long as that somebody is considered a respectable source (not some random anonymous YouTuber nobody cares how many likes or subs Mr. Rando has). Read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Go to the talk page and post your source, where to verify it at (name, page, date, title, URL if online, etc), who they are, and a calm, neutral description of what this reliable expert thinks Francesca Ramsey or whomever has done which is so terrible.
Never forget that if you defame or libel a living person in Wikipedia, you can be blocked from editing, so do your best to cite real evidence for any negative claim of this nature.
There, I was extremely nice and offered you a lot of kind help even though you don't understand what "proven" means. Godspeed, 75.72.74.25! I pray you create an account. You'll be glad you did. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, if that's how you want to play it
Blocked for 72 hours for i-ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- See you at arbcom. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Lead Acid Battery articles
I apologize for the copyvio. Not intentional! Would you be willing to restore the main later part of my comments, suggesting more coverage in the Lead Acid Battery articles about voltage vs. temp? Feeling afraid to return to those talk pages, in light of Red Jay interventions...-71.174.185.30 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Someone may well have copied that content inappropriately from some source -- but I did not; I only harvested some old article contents, without considering whether there were relevant copyvio issues - unfortunately!)-71.174.185.30 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- ((I got confused by old Red Jay msg on my page, did not realize it was not about this! So if you would be OK with my old comment coming back, without the offending copyvio content, I guess either of us could do it?))-71.174.185.30 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can't tell which a parts of your post are copy-pasted. Some of it was copied from Bill Darden's personal website (which he seems to have copy-pasted from many different unnamed sources) and some was from other Wikipedia pages. How am I supposed to sort all that out? You don't use any quotation marks, quote boxes or anything to identify the sources.
See Help:Diff for how to use diffs to indicate specific content that has been added or removed from Wikipedia. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and WP:QUOTE for help on formatting quotations. Using Template:Talkquote
{{talkquote|text=text|by=by|source=source|ts=ts|oldid=oldid}}is also useful on talk pages. Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources has a good FAQ on copying too.You should probably go back to Talk:Automotive battery#lead acid battery voltage vs temperature and explain in your own words what you'd like to say; I don't think I can do it for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can't tell which a parts of your post are copy-pasted. Some of it was copied from Bill Darden's personal website (which he seems to have copy-pasted from many different unnamed sources) and some was from other Wikipedia pages. How am I supposed to sort all that out? You don't use any quotation marks, quote boxes or anything to identify the sources.
Art+Feminism, Saturday, May 6, at Jacob Lawrence Gallery, UW Seattle
| Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Despite its wide reach, content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors: white, technically inclined, English-speaking men that live in developed, majority-Christian countries. This represents an alarming absence of voices in an increasingly important repository of shared knowledge. In an effort to change this, the Jake is organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Saturday, May 6th, 1 - 5 pm. Our mission is to bring together diverse communities to participate in Wikipedia editing, and improve its coverage of queer people and women of color in the arts. We will provide childcare, snacks, and tutorials for the beginner editor. Bring your laptop, power-cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. No previous Wikipedia experience required! RSVP at and stay tuned to our Facebook page for updates. What: Improving Wikipedia's coverage on queer and women artists of color -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
Defamation
Clearly you're not aware of the fact that for something to qualify as defamation it has to be false. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Edit warring over this is not going to work. Please discuss and seek a consensus at Talk:Franchesca Ramsey. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you should've thought of that first. Start the discussion instead of reverting. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Your email
I will not release you from the interaction ban. Not because I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of the ban being ended (see the end of this message), but because this is a community-imposed ban and one admin mustn't just decide that the community's decision can now be ignored. If you want to see this thing ended, we'll have to go to the community for an unban request. You're free to start the request and participate in the ensuing discussion (remember that WP:BANEX explicitly permits you to appeal a ban), or I can start the request for you. Bear in mind, however, that a successful request will not affect the ban from "winningest" (unless you request that ban's removal too, of course), and the lower points of the ban are definitely still in place:
If any of them report the others for violating this, they had better be scrupulous in adhering to CIV and NPA, because if the report contains anything that remotely approaches a comment on the other person's character, honor, intelligence, motivations, etc., the reporter will be blocked for a month.
We've all basically had enough, so next time this won't be allowed to spiral so far out of control as this dispute has. If any of you move on to other disputes and edit war, or are rude to other editors, then you will be given no slack, and will be blocked more harshly than someone else would be who did the same thing.
So basically, any unblock will be under WP:ROPE conditions; if you're willing to accept that, I would be happy to support an unban. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, if you don't mind starting the request, please do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Lube Page
Hi There, I am trying to update the current information on the Mr. Lube corporate page. Specifically the number of locations we now have and the foundation section as we have new $ amount figures to update. I keep getting reverted back to the original info on the grounds of the changes being promotional. I don't understand what is promotional about updating the current information? Could you please explain this to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeldmcleod (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have you ever opened up Encyclopedia Britannica and read a copy-paste of a press release from McDonald's or General Motors? Would an encyclopedia article about Budweiser say "We make beer and we're so good at it"? Any press releases in Cracker Barrel? Or Boeing 747? Are encyclopedia articles written in the first-person voice of the subject? Would an encyclopedia article about Abraham Lincoln say "Hi, I'm President Abe Lincoln, and I'm dead..."
Nope, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written.
Also, please read the copyright notice attached to the material you are copy-pasting. Mr. Lube forbids what you are doing, and Wikipedia doesn't accept copyrighted text.
You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to better understand why it's so difficult to edit Wikipedia articles about yourself or topics you are connected to. Your best bet is to find other things to edit on Wikipedia, unconnected with this company. You're violating so many policies at such a high clip that you're likely to be blocked from editing before you have a chance to learn the ropes. Switch to articles about football or Byzantine architecture and you'll have some room to experiment and grow. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 22
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017
- New and expanded research accounts
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for purging the adverts from Carver (automobile)! I figured if I did it as an IP editor, ClueBOT would tag it as blanking. I hope I didn't leave too much clerical work for you. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Harley Sportster - deletion
Dennis,
You recently deleted the link I added on the Harley Sportster page.
The OSKRG (Old Sportster and K-model Research Group) is much more than a "fan club". We are the technical experts on the 1952-1956 K-Models, and the 1957-1969 Sportsters, and as such, provide valuable information on the subject of Harley Sportsters to the public free-of-charge.
Please take a thorough look at the Technical section of our website. http://www.harleykmodel.com/technical/index.html
In each of our technical articles, we present thorough documentation on technical subjects relating to these models. You will have a difficult time finding any antique motorcycle groups/websites that provide owners with more detailed technical information on any motorcycle marque. We provide this information to the public free-of-charge.
Members of the OSKRG regularly participate with the Antique Motorcycle Club of America - http://www.antiquemotorcycle.org - in judging these motorcycles for originality. The AMCA is a 20,000 member organization that has existed since the early 1950s. This is not an insignificant organization. For the past two years, we have facilitated, and provided Subject Matter Experts for "Virtual Judging" at AMCA meets. See, http://www.harleykmodel.com/gallery/oskrg/2016-oley/index.html See, http://www.harleykmodel.com/gallery/oskrg/2017-oley/index.html
If you are not familiar with the AMCA, you should be. We suggest that you contact the Chief Judge of the Antique Motorcycle Club of America, Don Druzick, at dondzu@hotmail.com for information about our efforts in this regard.
We acknowledge that you have made significant contributions to Wikipedia. We request that you present your credentials as a Subject Matter Expert on Harley Sportsters.
We respectfully request that you immediately reverse your recent action.
David M. Hennessey
President, Highlands Chapter, Antique Motorcycle Club of America
Webmaster, Henderson KJ website, http://www.HendersonKJ.com
President, Harley Hummer Club, http://www.HarleyHummerClub.org
Webmaster, OSKRG website, http://www.harleyKmodel.com
David M. Hennessey (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Wikipedia doesn't depend on contributors' personal credentials, but rather reliable sources and collaborative/consensus based content creation. The link didn't conform to either. If Dennis hadn't removed it, I would have. - Bri (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harley-Davidson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. It appears that you have removed 1,233 bytes without citing any sources. It has been reverted by another user. Speak As Muslim (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:QUOTENAME before reverting my edits. 92.26.167.157 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you should actually read it? Even better, follow it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Wiknic today
Hi, didn't see your name at the Wiknic signup ... I'm going to be there at noon if you want to drop in and chat! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I wish I could. This is the busiest time of year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions, Dennis, but can the candidate descriptions be pared back to where they were? Usually, the section is meant for very short descriptions of the candidate's occupation and any past political positions, and explicitly not for positions and issues (that should be described in a separate section). SounderBruce 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UT
- I'm not sure what you mean by usually. Neither Seattle mayoral election, 2009 or Seattle mayoral election, 2013 have a separate section with details about the minor candidates. Where else can we give any information about them? I think it's important to distinguish between a Republican who wants fiscal discipline (i.e. typical) and a Republican who wants the city to combat cell phone cancer and build wind blocks (i.e. unusual, to say the least). Or one who paid $2,000 and never said or published one word more (i.e. WTF?). Most of these minor candidates are going to drop off the radar soon, and this is the only section of the article where we could give any detail about them before we move on to the main event. The bulk of the article will eventually consist of details about the top candidates, and events during the campaign.
FAs like Philadelphia municipal election, 1951, United States Senate election in California, 1950, United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898, etc start with a prose background section, then give long profiles of the two or three main candidates.
Regardless of what we hope the article will look like some day, we don't delete relevant, verifiable, cited content on the grounds that some hypothetical future version of an article will have a home for it. This is what Wikipedia:Editing policy is all about: we don't nuke things because they aren't perfect. We keep them around, rearrange, split, merge, reorganize. But if it's something we think we might ever use, and it's not causing harm, then we keep it.
If someone wants to add a new section where they put all the candidates positions below the one with only their names and occupation, that's fine, but if they haven't done it yet, then this is a good intermediate stage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhnjoy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
ANI reports
Just a friendly bit of advice. ANI reports should be as short as possible, and only list the problematic behavior, not lay out the entire content dispute that led up to the problematic behavior. Now that the other party has posted a rambling 8-point reply, patrolling admins are going to look at this long report and say "no way am I reading all that!". But thanks for bringing this to ANI, and I hope the outcome is appropriate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I try -- I really do -- to keep it short, because I know you're exactly right about admins skipping right past long threads. But when I delete the details and just lay out the bare minimum, then they complain there's not enough specifics, not enough diffs, etc. AN/I is a crapshoot. That's why I started at Requests for Closure. A simple "Resolved, follow MOS:UNITS", preferably by an Admin, would probably have put an end to this. Backing up further, if the original question had been quickly reformatted to look like a proper RfC, or otherwise "set up to explicitly require closure", as Deryck Chan had said, then there would have been a much greater chance of bringing this to a quick end without all the unnecessary discussion.
If you or anyone else wants to re-submit their own 100-word-or-less ANI report on this to supersede my report, I will just withdraw mine, if it looks like that will get the job done better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Something you could try is to include the details but wrap them with {{Collapse top}} - {{Collapse bottom}}. I've seen it done before at noticeboards. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've attempted that in the past, or using <small></small> to focus attention on the meat of it, but I still often got "tl;dr" from admins. Apparently I don't always know which parts to collapse. I'm still open to anyone who wishes to give it a try. Feel free to edit my comments to collapse the excess if that will work. I could probably figure out how to tune it myself, if I spent a week on it, but I only have so much time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Something you could try is to include the details but wrap them with {{Collapse top}} - {{Collapse bottom}}. I've seen it done before at noticeboards. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I share your frustration but try to be patient and civil and beware the boomerang. This will all end favorably. When you are being baited, don't take the bait. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- All true. But when you have an individual who doesn't respond to the usual approach, and ignores the main alternative approach, and ignores every other attempt to get through to them, then it begins to become reasonable to give the lesser-used ways of reaching people a try. Some people never listen until you yell at them. Probably won't work but it's worth one try.
Most likely it is nothing but bait, and in fact that this is all a big troll designed to get everyone wound up while he sits back and laughs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Message
I have replied to your em. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Dennis Bratland, how are you? I have re-closed the current discussion and updated the closure wording to broaden the ban/address the proposal by EEng. I have spoke to EEng and hopefully it's fine with you too. Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 04:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's all good. I spent too much time on this and made it seem like it was about me. There are several others who see this more or less the same as I do. It's probably best if I try to step away and let others wrap this up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis! Would you kindly add any useful information from the sources that you mentioned to the Karole Vail article? Thanks very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
List of long-distance motorcycle riders
Hi Dennis,
I hope all is well,
Forgive me if I have used the wrong form to communicate (new to submissions). I am gathering evidence regards the long distance rider (360 Global circumnavigation on the same Motorcycle) Henrik Loman as feel he has earned to be in the list. I have found an article from a reputable magazine where he features both in their on-line version but also in the printed version:
https://www.adventurebikerider.com/battling-nature-on-the-road-to-kathmandu/
Happy to collect more material and would be grateful if you kindly guided me in the right direction regards what is needed.
Thank You, EricGunnar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGunnar (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The place to post this information is at Talk:List of long-distance motorcycle riders#Henrik Loman. Bri has already started a thread on the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Plural of "ABS" is the same as plural of "ATM" ("ATMs"), etc.
I started a discussion about pluralizing "ABS" as "ABSs"--that is, "anti-lock braking systemS" the same way as we pluralize "ATM" as "ATMs," etc. Will you please show this other editor why that's correct with me?
Thanks if so, 174.23.105.242 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
Hi, Regarding changes made by Tvaerskaegg to Laci Green article. My changes are not point of view but a point of fact. Read the link provided. Nowhere does it say:
"far-right media" responded with what Newsweek's Alexander Nazaryan called "celebration", "praise", and "glee".[26]
That quote is untrue. The link provided says what I say it said. Read it. The revision you reverted to is untrue. It is factually incorrect and the article should be changed back to my factual version. If the articla stands as it is then it is lying about the external link it provides and it reflects badly on the people who created it. I am not going to get involved in an editing war, if the article creators let their untrue version stand then it can remain as a monument to the unreliability of Wikipedia and the incompetence of certain editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is my talk page. The topic of edits to Laci Green is being discussed at Talk:Laci Green. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I intend to carry the Laci Green matter further. See the talk page. Tvaerskaegg.
About the edition I did to Honda CBR250R (2011)
About the edition I did to Honda CBR250R (2011)
I did some editions to the article about CBR250R 2011 because I found the information given there was wrong and I have proofs to support my claim https://www.honda2wheelersindia.com/assets/pdf/cbr250.pdf May be you should check this link. I own a 2011 CBR250R repsol model and I know that the details mentioned in that article are wrong..... I mean Specs...
Pawanshakya563 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's just a manufacturer brochure. The citations in the article are from independent tests. The Honda brochure you have says "the specifications and design may vary". So they aren't really even claiming it has 26.15 bhp. They're saying maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. They even shaved a few kg off the weight. Is Honda lying? No. Are they telling the truth? No. What are they saying? Nothing. Cycle World and Motorcycle Consumer News tested the bike a dyno and those are the results. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean?
What do you mean by "no"? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- What am I supposed to think? You just say "no" and you refuse explaining that? I pointed out an obvious mistake there, do you want me to explain it? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Don't post about this again on my talk page. If you have reasons to dispute the sources already cited, and new sources that you think are better, then go to Talk:BMW and cite them. You've already been warned (again) over nitpicking about units and measurements. If your new game is to pick big fights over little translation questions, you will likely be banned from that topic too, if not blocked altogether.
Go. Away. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Don't post about this again on my talk page. If you have reasons to dispute the sources already cited, and new sources that you think are better, then go to Talk:BMW and cite them. You've already been warned (again) over nitpicking about units and measurements. If your new game is to pick big fights over little translation questions, you will likely be banned from that topic too, if not blocked altogether.
Ninja 300 speed review!
Hey Dennis, In the Ninja 300 article [1] the top speed is different in performance box and paragraph, and I suspect the real top speed is around 180[2]. Anyway, one is wrong, and we should fix that. So please undo my change if I am wrong. One more thing, thanks for clarification on Honda CBR300R, I will keep tabs on it. Navinsingh133 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Utah
I'm not sure how coloring county results to match Presidential election counts as "stonewalling progress", but whatever, you're obviously more invested in this outcome than I am. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: this edit - It looks like to me that an archiving/search box was already present in the previous version of the talkpage, within the talkpage header. The reasons the archiving hasn't been running are
- because the auto-archiving timespan is 60 days and
- the auto-archiving bot is supposed to leave 1 thread on the talkpage.
Until there is another thread, the May 2017 InternetArchiveBot post will just stay on the page. Myself, I find having two separate archive boxes to be confusing, I would like to remove the standalone one if that's alright with you. Shearonink (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm confused here. Please go ahead and straighten out the talk page and archives if you can. I collapsed the list of links the bot put in to make it easier to read. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC
Hey Dennis,
I accidently posted the comment in the wrong section, no need to worry about it. I think that the three "options" all lack a comment for the general audience that explains that several different sources were used and that source A tells something which is different from what source B says. That's what I usually do if different sources give different information on the same thing. To me it seems like you would want other users to comment on which option fits the article best. But choosing any of these options would always be one-sided since the article wouldn't show (or make clear) that there are several sources that say different things about the year in which the motorcycle was speed restricted to 299 km/h. Or do I get this entire thing wrong and you would explain that somehow in the text below the infobox?
My problem with the English language Wikipedia is not that I don't understand English, the problem is that there are so many Wikipedia specific things you cannot know immediately. And it gets weirder if you are used to a different Wikipedia. For instance, in the German language Wikipedia, there is no consensus and the RfC works differently. Even administrators are different and there are no topic bans or interaction bans. In German, you would not use "You" but "Thou" instead for talking to other authors, however, the discussion atmosphere is different and people would get banned (or blocked?) for things like: "Get this into your thick head"; also, there is no difference between a block and a ban. I think there is a difference between the word Edit-Warring in the German and English language Wikipedia; (hp and PS are not the same either even though a lot of people assume that).
Sorry, but did you seriously write: "your limited understanding of English"? Honestly, I don't want to be impolite but you have proven several times that you don't understand several things. For instance, you made Mercedes-Benz a manufacturer and an RWD-vehicle an AWD-vehicle. You were the one who asked me to cite a source that proves that "Bayerische Motoren Werke" is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make sense in German. (Zugegebenermaßen macht mich das schon ein wenig sprachlos, aber glaubst du ernsthaft, ich wäre nicht dazu im Stande, einen Deutschen Satz bzw. Namen adäquat im Bezug auf grammtikalische und sprachliche Richtigkeit zu bewerten?) I really hope that you wouldn't do the same with "Rauh Welt Begriff". (Makes as much sense as BMW: No sense at all.) You don't even know how to spell the name Johannes.
Honestly, I assume that our different culture and mentalities are incompatible. I never meant any offense or disrespect, though I often considered your behaviour inappropriate and I didn't understand why you were so mad at certain points in the past. But this has become way too long, I apologize for any inconvenience. Anyways. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)