Jackhammer111

Al Jazeera nano revert

Hello, there! I see that you've removed the "relevance inline" tag from one place of the Al Jazeera Channel's article and typos, if any notwithstanding: You concisely explained yourself in the edit-summary. All good. However, I seriously couldn't get what you meant by "preceding line" there, because the latest-revision — as it stands by the time I'm sending this, is referring to the "Berlin Wall"-on-steroids Qatar diplomatic crisis, how does that have to do anything with the attitudes of English-speaking Occidental societies-at-large towards the brand ALJAZEERA? Since all of my internet-connections are on dynamic IP( I'm on this connection because it generally assigns IP address with longer expiry), be mindful that I will most likely be unable to engage with you with this same IP. Wish you well. —203.192.236.113 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

John Henry Browne edit

Hello! Yesterday you removed a line from the page for Seattle attorney, John Henry Browne, I did not write the line and agree with the removal of it, but I would like to ask a question. I nearly removed the line when I expanded the section, as it just seemed somewhat out of place, but I could think of no rule that warranted my removing the text of another author and erred on the side of restraint. The line referenced an ethics violation he faced due to overcharging a client which you removed with comment "improper", what specifically made it improper? It would help me to improve as an author to have this information for future reference. Thanks so much! OneHappyHusky (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you and I could not agree with you more (and, in fact, why I often try to use multiple sources, especially if citing information that is in any way subjective (like opinions)! In many ways, that belief was at the core of why I was expanding the article to begin with! And, a good reminder to check all the links (*blush*), which in this case of that one fact, I had not because I had personal knowledge the claim was true (I am a life long resident of Seattle and here everyone has heard of JHB. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a big fan).

I was only on the article to check his age as a fact from the news indicated he was older than I thought he was. I immediately noticed the article was rather biased in that it listed a few very flattering cases files (both of which I had knowledge about) and while it did note his defending Colton Harris-Moore and Staff Sgt. Bales, it failed to mention he also defended Ted Bundy and several other mass murderers and more unsavory clients. I checked the links to the first claim which stated, "In one widely-reported, influential case..." and the first link was dead and the second was for an article on the case, but failed to mention Browne at all (also not mentioned on the brag page of JBH's website). Being that JHB is big news now and will be milking the national/international press for all it is worth, I know the article is likely to be read more in the near future and like you I wanted the article to be correct and unbiased (It about killed me to add part about him "saving Martin Pang's life", which is true, but I knew one of the killed firefighters and helped care for his orphaned son) In fact, I suppose it was my personal negative bias that made it so easy to justify leaving the negative fact in the article. However your argument for it's removal is entirely reasonable and fair, thus even though I could source the claim, I have no intention of correcting your action.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I found it very helpful!!! OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kawasaki triple, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.

Please use your personal experience with the Kawasaki triples to help locate and verify facts from published sources. Your own experiences are undoubtedly true, but that's not what we do here at Wikipedia. Instead, we research and summarize verifiable facts. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Second request: Please stop adding unsourced content to Kawasaki triple. Per WP:PEACOCK, boasts such as "king of the streets" needs to be attributed to expert sources, and extraordinary claims, such as that the bike was faster than any other car or motorcycle of the time, need specific citations to support them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Help is at hand

It looks like you need some help understanding what is a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia's definition, and which kinds of links meet the External links guidelines. There are many forums, personal web pages, blogs, and other media which are reliable, and which have information which is true. Yet Wikipedia doesn't cite them and doesn't link to them. How it got that way is a long story but for now the best thing is to try to understand it and work with what we can do.

Please discuss the changes and the sources you want to add to Kawasaki triple at the articles talk page, Talk:Kawasaki triple, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. There are lots of other editors who can help you, and we can work together if we discuss it. It's much more productive this way than reverting each other's edits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kawasaki triple, you may be blocked from editing.

• Hey, do you realize your petty reverting here changed things like "Triumph" back to "triumph"? You're reverting simple capitalization corrections because you're not taking the time to read. Please calm down and take a look at what you're doing before you revert. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh... is that the only thing you changed that I changed back? you're going to use a misspelled word to claim I shouldn't have reverted something as though it was the only thing. you found a misspelled word, change it! who's being petty here.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You know the reason Triumph wasn't capitalized? Because somebody copy-pasted it from the source. There's a fair bit of excessively close paraphrasing from that source, if you check the Duplication Detector. Besides the capitalization, you reverted the linking of speed wobble, yet another incontinent use of the word "legendary", mistaking "it's" for "its" (twice) and my repairs to the incomprehensible run-on sentence "Then on the road course despite what had been heard and written about it's ill handling, frame flexing and the supposed tendency to "speed wobble" exiting high speed turns, it was tied for the fastest lap time with the Kawasaki Z-1 to the tenth of a second proving that In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing it will cover a stretch of winding road as fast as any bike of the era, with it's only real competition being it's bigger brother. with it's big brother, the Z-1." I just called out the Triumph capitalization as only one example.

Please try to work together and stop fighting. We're both trying to improve the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kawasaki triple, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Jackhammer, just a reminder that nobody should claim to WP:OWN an article. I noticed on another editor's talk page you said "you decide in your endless arrogance that you should totally rewrite the actual content I added..." You should expect releness and unapologetic editing of content that you add to Wikipedia. It's normal and good that this should happen. If you don't like this, or have challenges in your interactions with particular people, please consider trying to find a way to collaborate, move on to another topic, or take a break. — Brianhe (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know people are allowed to edit each others work. What you quote was just one part of a larger context of what he was doing that I still unapologetically call arrogant. The specifics of "totally rewrite" was to rewrite and delete things I had written without sufficient explanation as to why his way was superior to what I had written.

I'm very familiar with editing content and it should be done with enough explanation as to why it needed to be done.

example... when he removed the King of the Streets reference that he so obsessed with,

(cur | prev) 22:37, 18 October 2014‎ Dennis Bratland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,094 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (see WP:PEACOCK, WP:V. This is the second time these uncited boasts have been deleted. Please stop if you can't find sources to support the claims) (undo | thank)

he also removed sentences in 2 different places with no explanation. Neither had anything to do with the King of the Streets reference.

Stick around. I want your opinion on how I find a way to put those sentences back. I'll make a case on the talk page. I'd rather be working on pages of much more overall importance than this one, but this one is important to me. Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling

the best place to propose new projects like an umbrella article for the four cylinder Hondas is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. There are a number of others besides me editing motorcycling articles, and they would like to hear your suggestions. If you think we should change our approach to verifiability, the place to bring that up is there, not on my talk page. Even if I agreed with everything you say, I'm only one editor out of thousands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is it I think you know I did NOT mean I thought there should be a Honda inline 4 cylinder page? The point obviously is that since they cover Honda and other manufacturers models individually, the Mach IV should have it's own page and the best information about it should be on that page, not the triples page. I see you choose not to bother with anything else I wrote and moved our entire conversation into archive. You talk co-operation but only to serve your own conformation bias. You give lips service to dialog but in the end turn totally uncivil. You haven't heard the end of that bit of profane lowbrow name calling you hit me with. Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't read most of what you wrote. I don't know why you think I don't have better things to do. Brianhe already tried to tell you to post something clear and succinct. Otherwise you get tl;dr. Say what it is you want. Or not. Your choice. Perhaps the problem is really me. Maybe you're right. What to do? Take your issues to somebody else. I'm not the only person on Wikipedia. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and post your ideas, plans, complaints, or whatever it is you're trying to say. There are lots of other editors who are interested in motorcycling. Surely one of them will have no trouble understanding you.

See? Win, win. You aren't required to spend all your time dealing with only me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Scott

Hi. I deleted your edit (and not because of your edit summary, which was confusing enough) because it does not make sense. I assume English is your first language if you have an opinion about the Governor of Florida. Perhaps if you explain what you are trying to convey, we can word something together to our mutual agreement. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jackhammer111. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jackhammer111. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Chick Corea Elektric Band (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Jackhammer111 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You've reverted me 4 times Dennis. Is your out going to be it wasn't in 24 hours? Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

I have asked you multiple times to take your personal complaints to an appropriate noticeboard. I've closed the off-topic discussion you are using as an opportunity for personal axe grinding. Please focus on the subject of the talk page at List of fastest production motorcycles. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have reopened it. I have taken my complaint elsewhere as well. While you might not have liked what I wrote at no time was I off-topic. The topic was first getting the H-2 on the list. (second will be getting the Dunstall off the list but I'll try to have a calmer discussion on that talk page about it) I'm also looking into you removing something I put on the talk page. Remember, we're under the same rules. You quote civility but took none of the steps the policy says about Dealing with incivility. Nowhere do I read that you have to right to outright delete what is posted. I'll find it. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

After I said your sources for this H2 Mach IV record were not sufficient, Rocknrollmancer said the same thing. Then none of the editors at the Admin Noticeboard found any merit in your claims -- though few of them actually read it. I don't think you read the instructions at the top of WP:ANI that said "Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses." After two of us said it, then a third editor, the admin Someguy1221 repeated the same thing: the press release and the dragbike source are insufficient. At some point you're going to either heed what others are telling you and drop it, or you're going to be made to drop it.

Please do not accuse me of "pissing on the grave of a friend" again. That kind of thing is totally unacceptable. I hope you've noticed that this tactic of "you're not old enough", "I bet you weren't there", "You're not a real racer", etc does not work. The admins ignored it, the other editors at the talk page ignored it. Nobody cares. They really don't care. The only thing they care about is whether or not you have a source that meets the criteria at WP:RS. That's it. Every time you write a long digression about your personal experiences and your life story, everyone tunes out, skims over it, and dismisses you. Don't waste your time writing that.

That is how Wikipedia is. It's not my "whims". I didn't make these rules. You don't have to like it. Many people disagree with how Wikipedia is written. There are a billion other websites that are not Wikipedia where you can publish your personal story. Nobody is forcing you to try to publish it here.

I hope you can understand that it's not just me doing this. You have got to let go of this belief that it's all Dennis Bratland's doing. It's not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, you should know by now I could care less what you think is unacceptable. I went to the notice board because you at length accused me of being engaged in an edit War. Two reasons what I wrote there was long. One is I have no experience with these things the other is because appeared to close the talk page on the matter. I had to make my case on the notice board because I thought you had locked the discussion board. Then I came find out it was just another game you play. What I'm seeing on the notice board is that nobody is agreeing with you that I'm engaged in edit warring. So next I'll go back to the Norton references.Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason you know that what I did was merely close the discussion is because an administrator told you that's what I did. If an administrator knows what I did, and what I did was "a game that I play", then why did the administrator do nothing? Do you see how that does not add up?

You're right that it doesn't matter what I think is unacceptable. But I have urged you to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and if you were to ever actually do that, you would find that Wikipedia does consider that sort of thing unacceptable. If you go on not reading these policies and guidelines, you will find out the hard way. Don't say nobody tried to warn you.

Read Wikipedia:Edit warring. Edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." You were edit warring. I was edit warring. Edit warring is allowed. Accusing you of edit warring is immaterial because edit warring is not prohibited, even if some would frown upon it. What I did was use a standard template warning. You can read the text over at Template:Uw-3rr. It merely says "Edit warring is kind of bad, but violating the THREE REVERT RULE will get you blocked." Prior to blocking anybody for violating the WP:3RR, they must be warned. I warned you with the boilerplate warning. That's all. That is why none of the administrators had any reason to listen to your complaints about being "accused" of edit warring. If you keep edit warring so much that you violate the three revert rule, then you will be reported at the WP:3RRN and consequences will be swift and sure. So heed the rule. You were warned

You now have no excuse for being unaware of the 3RR. If you violate it, it is very likely that you will be blocked without mercy.

I understand that you won't listen to me, but you would be wise to listen to others, such as Rocknrollmancer or Someguy1221. Or go to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and ask their opinion on your dragbike source. If you don't believe me, at least believe them.

If there is ANYTHING you don't understand, many editor will help you. Post the template [[tl|Help me}} on our own talk page, and ask your questions. Or go to the WP:Help desk and ask, ask, ask. Many editors are eager to help you. There is no excuse for ignorance, when the information is there for you to read, and there is help if you need it it.

Try to keep it brief, though. Brevity is the soul of wit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You already have 3 reverts. Maybe I should point that out. or do you think i'm not seeing what I see? Stop with the threats. do something or go back to work tring may the page correct. Jackhammer111 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, I repeat, READ WP:3RR. It's highlighted in RED. The important bits of the red highlighted parts are in bold. Would you please read it? Please?

→ → → Click me click me click me → → → <blink> Three Revert Rule </blink> ← ← ← Click me click me click me ← ← ←

Read the words in red. Read the words in red. Read them. Read them. Read them...

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just say what you are driving at. I've read a reread that box. Neither of us has done more than 3 reverts in 24 hours but you have reverted me 4, maybe 5 times now. 3 time on the same part of the same page. You don't have a leg to stand on. Stop wasting my time with empty threats and meaningless warnings. I've made a case for deleting the Dunstall. You haven't responded. Discuss it with me before I delete it again. Unless waiting until I do is a tactic so you claim I'm edit warring. You are the one that started this by reverted both of my main changes and didn't say a word on the talk page. Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning you about the 3RR is mandatory. I have to post that warning before you can be reported for violating the 3RR. Read the instructions at WP:3RRN there's even a blank where I have to provide a diff of me warning you, and it needs to have had a timestamp before you violated the rule. The whole point of the warning is to make you stop, and not make that last edit that crosses the line. Warnings and accusations are not the same thing.

Your repeated accusations and aspersions against me are a violation of the policy of civility and assuming good faith. Multiple editors have told you you are wrong about your sources on the motorcycles list, yet here you are, continuing to behave as if this is entirely me alone persecuting you. The other editors have told you the same simple facts I have told you: Your sources for the H2 Mach IV don't meet the standards for reliable sources. I did actually say I think your most recent source appeared to be adequate, but an entirely different editor objected. I'm not your problem. Your problem is that you're fixated on pushing stuff that is on the borderline of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. You need to convince Someguy1221, not me.

Similarly, Rocknrollmancer is not convinced by your arguments about the Dunstall Norton. I am not your problem. Stop acting like this is about me.

This is your last warning. WP:FOC. Focus on content. My "FOC yourself" joke was hilarious, by the way -- and it does go both ways. We all should focus on content. Do not go back to Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles and post any more screeds about me. If you want to learn the correct way to complain about me at WP:ANI, use {{Help me}} or go to the WP:Help desk and ask someone (briefly, politely) to help you. Your attention should be on the objections the other editors stated about those motorcycle issues, not on me. If you do it again, I'll give you a demonstration of the correct way to take a case to the Admin's noticeboard.

Focus. On. Content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't need any last warnings. Do y think people won't see how many times YOU reverted my work? You accusing me of not being civil is laughable as anyone who looks at your talk page will easily see. It's been less than 2 months since you told an editor to go fuck themselves. No, I better get it exact, you know, your such stickler, you said: "Please go fuck yourself". Rocknrollmancer DOES seem to be arguing against calling it a production bike. " it is incumbent on me as a courtesy to other readers... to confirm that the factory only initially produced 750s (745 nominal), not 810s. The 810 was a Dunstall big-bore conversion available to anyone at 68 GBP (1972) rising to 90 GBP (1975) including by mail-order and was considerably earlier than the factory 850 (830 nominal)." Notice he said it was not a factory bike, it was a conversion. I've been back to the talk page to talk about what Homologation among other things. You're more concerned about continuing to threaten me than you are to talk about the topic. I find that particularly telling that you here again instead of responding to what I wrote on the talk page hours before your latest warnings of doom. I've tried to go back to working the article, you're still on my talk page whining and being dishonest about how others see things. Rocknrollmancer is not arguing against my position, and I've elaborated since his post. Someguy1221 didn't read the whole article and I pointed out the independent verbiage they used. You've read that, but evidently ignored it. I make serval points about the Dunstall, and you are here, not there addressing them. The Dunstall is on its way out. Do what you gotta do. so, the multiple sources on the H2 run are not part of some giant conspiracy to help Kawasaki to sell H bikes. I think they were all written years after the fact. and I may end up with a photo of the AHRA certificate, and possibly fast runs as well. You probably didn't bother looking at the photo of Tony signing posters with the certificate on them. Well see on that. Plus, I'm still digging into my fellow race Pete Grassilli's 11.81 NHRA record, and possibly more, but I think it's a bit too soon to be approaching his family about it, because he just died. The Kawasaki has become a fight against the loss of institutional memory. The H2 was the only factory bike to go sub 12 until 1978. The Dunstall thing is a joke. What have you done lately to make the article better? I have a feeling you have better research skills than I do and you could find what I'm looking for, but won't. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jackhammer111. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Facebook photos

Regarding this, you must realize that Facebook photos will be challenged as a reliable source. Is there anywhere else this is recorded? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  I could understand that if this was the only source. Remember I'm multiple sourced this. there are other photographs of this same certificate all over the place. The problem is they are low-resolution photos and you can't see all the detail. It would be totally ridiculous to think I could find three or four sources for the record and then come up with a fake photograph of the certificate. I said back in August I would come up with a photograph of the certificate. when I commented on his Facebook page about the photo saying I was headed directly to Wikipedia with it he responded in detail. in fact. I now have several messages from him. He actually would prefer that Pete Grasselli's NHRA 11.81 could be found because he knew Pete. If you go to the page you can read Tony's response. Where do I find guidelines on facebook photos? Is someone really going to imply that's a fake? Dennis removed my other sources so it would be an unethical thing to come in the back door and claim the actual photo is not reliable after removing other proof. But thanks for the heads up at least Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. You did this. Your edit changed this:

capable of 124 mph and 12.4 sec.{{Sic}} for the standing start quarter mile".<ref>''[[Motorcycle Mechanics (magazine)|Motorcycle Mechanics]]'', May 1969, p.25 ''Full Chat'' by John Day. Accessed January 17 2019</ref>

...into this:

capable of covering a 1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds an had a top speed of 124 mph.<ref>''[[ I'm here. ''Full Chat'' by John Day. Accessed January 17 2019</ref>

The reference kind of made sense, and you changed it to something that makes no sense. What is this?

''[[ I'm here. 

Is it a typo? I couldn't figure out what you meant, and your edit summary made no sense. So I tagged it, hoping it could be cleaned up or corrected or deleted.

Here you fixed your garbled text, and added an edit summary that carries on the personal attack you posted here, blaming me for the automated actions of User:lowercase sigmabot III, clearly identified in the edit summary.

Stop blaming me for your typos. Stop blaming me for the actions of bots or other editors. If you're confused, go ask for help before you attack me. If you continue to attack other editors in this way, you will very likely be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts: AP and BLP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FYI. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Juice Wrld

Take your comments to the talk page itself, not the GAN page. We will be happy to at least listen to your concerns there. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

1970 vs 2005

You seem confused here where you wrote something about 2005 not being "the release date", yet in the edit to the article where you added a link to a song on YouTube, and I clicked on the YouTube link, the text in the show more section read "℗ 2005 Douglas Music/Released on: 2005-01-01". Another example where you need to learn to read. You also missed the edit notice on my talk page that requests you respond on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Messerschmitt Me 262 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Hohum ^@) 18:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

That's a good catch in this article. Hamiton's driving style in his early F1 days has been criticised; even in the last season the BBC commentary team referenced it in relation to Verstappen's current agressive style. However if we're saying that it needs references. And even then the wording you removed was pretty POV. Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

lewis

Thanks for that. If someone digs back to his early years they should be able to find such criticisms but nobody bothered to do so in this article. As years have gone by he's been increasingly praised for driving "firm but fair", I think is the way he puts it, and IMOP he developed the greatest passing skills in the history of the sport. People digging up those old references, like an interview in 2011 where he said he idolized Senna as a child go-cart racer (he was 9 when Senna died) are just deflecting criticism of Max by creating a false equivalency with lewis. I was never a Senna fan. He and Max are similar in that despite great skills, they lacked patience. They made bullying moves when they didn't need to in situations where clean moves could have been made next corner or next lap because, whether it was the driver or the car, they were clearly faster. Max is much more clearly a bully on and off track. Both Max and Senna liked to inflict psychological damage with their aggressive behavior. I have personal reasons having to do with an abusive bully of a stepfather. Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mustang

Regarding recent reversions at Mustang which seemed to have confused you, the reason is explained at WP:CITELEAD. Since the topic of native vs introduced is covered in detail in section Mustang § Modern issues along with numerous references, such as notes 105, 106, 107, 108, and 109, these same citations do not need to be duplicated in the lead when summarizing the same material as appears in that section. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been meaning to thank you for taking the time to point out the things that I missed and that article. I did a search of the article for a particular word and I picked the wrong word and didn't see what you pointed out. Thanks for taking the time Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)