Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/Archive 4

Requested move 8 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: histories switched back to their original places. I'm not sure why Anthony has done a swap here, as several people have noted it is definitely not standard practice to swap out 10+ years of editing history for a draft. If people wish to work on improvements to an article in a draft or user sandbox they are welcome to, but it comes at the expense of having to just copy/paste the finished product in. I will hist-split as much as I can (basically post-April 2016) so that none of the edits since Anthony's swap are lost. The old draft history will be moved back to Draft:Dodge Tomahawk in order to make the history more comprehensible. Jenks24 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Dodge Tomahawk → ? –
 * At 14:58, 8 April 2016‎ Dennis Bratland copy-and-pasted Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version (a longer alternate version of Dodge Tomahawk) to name Dodge Tomahawk, with edit comment "restoring expanded version after violation of interaction ban", and then asked me to history-merge them, which is impossible due to WP:Parallel histories. I reverted the copy-and-paste move. The nearest that I can get to obeying his request would be to move Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version and Dodge Tomahawk each to the other's name (via a temporary third name); but past history compels discussion before I decide whether to make this pagename-swop. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Spacecowboy420 is banned from engaging in discussion of my edits. He needs to walk away and let other editors handle this. We have enough capable people around to make a good decision without him. He isn't indispensable.Nobody voiced any objections to the new version, except an editor who is banned from responding to my edits. He should have ben blocked for his posts on your talk page about me. He is supposed to be blocked immediately without warning if he posts about me, my edits, or responds to me anywhere on Wikipedia.Aside from editors who should not be houndng me, the new version is uncontroversial, and more to the point: it is obviously a much better, well-sourced article, citing dozens of experts in the subject. Per WP:PEACOCK, it replaces vague generalizations about the importance and impact of the subject with specific cited ratings, awards and expert commentary, as it says: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". It quotes well-known publications and expert reviewers, and discusses points of disagreement, criticism, and praise in a balanced way. There are no obvious problems with the version created by User:Vintagent, User:Brianhe and me. It should be kept unless anyone has reasonable objections. The interference on your talk page should be ignored, and the expanded version belons in the article namespace now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is sufficient evidence of "walking away". clpo13(talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the copy/paste move, I had thought a copy/paste was acceptable if you follow it with a Histmerge request. If I'm mistaken about that, then let's go live with the draft version with whatever the technically correct procedure is. I don't know if the histories can be merged perfectly but we should do whatever it is we do in these cases and move on, unless anyone else is objecting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment this is the existing article, the one at "/old version" is the new parallel version duplicate article, so this article is the article that should remain at the base location, since it contains the edit history. Indeed the "/old version" page was created out of this article as a DRAFT. Therefore "/old version" should be sent to DRAFT:Dodge Tomahawk and the copied and merged to templates left to indicate the merger -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently Dodge Tomahawk contains the short version (c.8500 bytes), and Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version contains the long version (c.33,660 bytes). Both have edits by Dennis Bratland and Vintagent and Brianhe, more in the long version. Please hereinafter call them "the short version" and "the long version". Please which version do you want to be kept as the final version? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Long per my 29 Dec edit sum "For the record this rev is superior to the mainspace rev in my opinion and should be fast-tracked for adoption." - Brianhe (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ move the long version to Dodge Tomahawk. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct. That eliminates the edit history and doesn't follow WP:EDIT. Editors should edit the old article, even if it's just overwriting the old page with new content by editing, not eliminate the contribution history of previous editors by moving the old page to some hidden location, and making a new history without the years of editing that happened before. The new page itself claims to use the old page as a base per "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dodge_Tomahawk&oldid=696674575" so, this new version itself already fails WP:CSD speedy deletion criterion for duplication. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought hatnotes aren't supposed to point outside the article namespace, but I can't find anything actually saying that, so I maybe not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for this swapping in of an entirely new version of an article, in the process also replacing the original editing history. The original article was recently discussed and agreed upon by several editors as balanced and accurate, as the Talk history indicates (including an RfC). Changes, including addition of new material, should be made incrementally as is our normal practice, allowing all editors easy access to the entire editing history and participants. That is the basic Wikipedia approach. --Tsavage (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as an editor who has participated in the development of this article, I request that my edits in the last current version of the original article, and historically in that version, be restored. --Tsavage (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Should be made incrementally as is our normal practice"? Nonsense. Please don't make up imaginary policies and guidelines. You waste everyone's time when you make us have to shoot down nonexistent rules. Wikipedia doesn't limit how much you can change in a single edit. All that matters is attribution for author, and that's there in the history.The edits you want restored consist of wholesale deletions of well-cited facts. Several editors objected to your deletions, while you and a few others stonewalled and refused every compromise you were offered by a group of us expanding the article with reliable sources. You dug your heels in and left us at an impasse. That is not stable and there is no consensus for that.I think the next step is to take this to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you really think all that stuff you don't like has to be deleted. Going to that noticeboard with this is the fastest, cleanest way to show how policy applies here. The idea that WP:UNDUE disallows critical reaction to a car company's product, or debunking of outlandish speed claims, will be laughed out of there in no time, and we can all move on to doing something productive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Replacing an article and its entire, multi-year history, is not our normal editing practice. Introducing changes, including new material, is normally done incrementally, which means, by adding to and modifying the existing article, which includes its previous versions and participants.


 * In this move, the article was not renamed, nor was a problem with the original article indicated, such that a move might be the logical solution. The move was unnecessary, and damaging in that it removed the editing history, and for those reasons, should be reverted. --Tsavage (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So this is nothing more than a technical problem, merging the histories of an article with the history of the draft that has moved into the article space? So that the history of the draft edits appears at the top, and the history of the prior article goes behind that? It's complicated and I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's not a content issue. The content of the current article is fine, isn't it? You just want to devise a way to sort out the edit history now. I'm sure that can be figured out in due course. Moving drafts into the article namespace is why the draft namespace exists. It's why workpages exist. We don't create drafts and workpages for nothing. The point of having them is to eventually go live with that content. It is the normal practice to do exactly this with drafts and workpages. I'm sorry the edit history is a pain but that's how it goes some times. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a content editing issue. Having a long-standing article's editing history available to review is integral to the Wikipedia process. In this case, the new version is four times longer than the original, and on a preliminary read, I see for one, problems with the relative weight given to various aspects (NPOV: Balancing aspects}, and cannot compare the changes because the history has been removed. And there is no good reason for a move, which is usually done to rename, and is not the case here. --Tsavage (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a hatlink at the start of Dodge Tomahawk, telling readers to go to Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version to see the other version. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the problem of removing the history for no reason. The article was not renamed, the significantly different new version was not discussed. What is the purpose of replacing an article by moving while retaining the same name? This seems straightforward, so I'm not sure why it's so hard to get an answer. Is this common practice? Is there a more appropriate forum to address this? --Tsavage (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that conforms to WP:HATNOTE -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I seem to be again caught in a dispute between various users. Please discuss the matter with Dennis Bratland and others to get this sorted out. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm requesting that you reset the situation, so that the original article and its history are in place, and not leave the article with a new history and an unusual "other version" tag. If editors want to change content, the usual way is to simply edit the article, not to have it changed by requested admin move. Thank you. --Tsavage (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I will wait a bit and see what other users say. The long version may have started as a copy-and-paste (not cut-and-paste) of the short version. A history information section will have to be put in its talk page. This problem with history attribution often happens when a page has spawned a daughter page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone edits the new version, the problem multiplies with a fork in editing histories. The fact that three editors - Spacecowboy420, 70.51.45.100, and myself - have already contested the move should be sufficient for leaving the original version in place, particularly considering that there is no rename and no other good reason for the move. Thank you. --Tsavage (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Losing the extra information added to the long version would likely cause complaints. Neither version has been constructively edited since 5 April 2016. It is midnight here; I will go to bed and look in the morning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no loss of information, new content in the draft version can be added to the original article, which preserves the editing history. This is our normal editing process. Since no rename is involved here, there is no need for a move, and a move only hinders editing. One significant consideration is that there is no consensus for this major edit, and there is no way to compare the diffs with the previous version. --Tsavage (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These changes did not happen for "no reason". I made the history merge request in order to go live with a draft article. Since multiple editors had contributed, I couldn't just post it in a single edit. I had to move the content, then merge in the history. This is a thing that is sometimes necessary when you have created content outside the article namespace, in a Workpage or draft article. It isn't the best solution to have the prior history located at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version, but given the technical issues and the chronology problems with the edits, it's probably the best we can do for now.Discussion about better technical ways of handling this sort of thing could be taken up at Village pump (technical) or similar noticeboard. The history and merge stuff does not in any way urgently require reversion back. One editor says he doesn't like it, but his only substantive objection was that the history can't be seen, and Anthony pointed out that in fact it can, and there is a prominent link to it at the very top of the article. Immediate problem solved.Regarding the other issue -- a completely separate issue -- that Tsavage thinks some or all of the content violates WP:UNDUE, we have gone round and round in circles on that. The time has come for the next stage in dispute resolution. As I said, Tsavage, please go to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and detail which content you want deleted (I assume your goal is still only deletion of some content, because you have nothing to add, right?) and then enumerate the specific reasons why the content you want to delete violates the WP:NPOV policy. The NPOV noticeboard will quickly resolve it. This is a fast, easy, non-distruptive way to end this standoff. Given that Tsavage has rejected again and again every other compromise that has been offered to him, it would be disruptive editing to insist that the article simply revert to his preferred version when he will not take any steps to move us closer to a solution to the content dispute.If Tsavage refuses to speak for himself at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, then in a week or so I will start a new thread where I will do my best to describe what I think are his POV issues here, and ask for a resolution. But really, the best thing is for Tsavage to speak for himself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis, continuing discussion over the history merge is non-productive and a disservice to volunteers who are not involved in the content, specifically Anthony. - Brianhe (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus for replacing the article and its history. If editors want to record their edits, they should edit in the article namespace. Every time multiple editors work on an article in a subpage, we cannot then MOVE that draft to preserve that history, which is what was done here. It seems to be a disruptive use of the Move tool. I suppose this should go to AN/I. --Tsavage (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can move the draft to preserve the history. No rule against that exists. An admin just did it; twice over. And there is no requirement that I have to seek permission or consensus every time I want to make an edit. I make edits all day without asking permission.You are citing Wikipedia rules that nobody but you has ever heard of. If you do decide to go to AN/I (and I think that's not the right noticeboard, and you'll very likely get no conclusive result from a long discussion there), please try to stay focused on one issue at a time. I gather you object to Anthony's history merge solution (I'd start a discussion at Village Pump (technical), if I were you), and (separately) you think some of the content violates WP:UNDUE. AN/I is definitely not the right board for the second issue. WP:NPOV/N is the place for the second one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or we could end this and, I don't know, build an encyclopedia maybe. Brianhe (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with Tsavage that the oldest history version starting in 2005 should be the one placed at the base article page, no matter what content is retained; I therefore support the swap to the original state, even if the contents of the draft are then pasted as the new version. We don't need to merge both histories to keep the attribution of the changes made in the draft; a simple link to the draft in the edit summary that performs the content merge is enough. In any case, the hatnote pointing to the alternate history should be placed at the talk page, not the article space, per MOS:SELFREF. Diego (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2016 :: break-point 1

 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279 for how edit history continuity when a page spawns a daughter page, is handled in the German Wikipedia; sorry, it can't be done in the English Wikipedia. History-merging pages Dodge Tomahawk and Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version would need cutting one history to repair the other history, which is not productive. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The new article started with content from the old article. This is a draft. The existing content should never have been moved away. The new content should have been edited into the old content history page. The new draft should have always sat in the DRAFT space locations (userspace, DRAFTspace, or a sandbox subpage) Thus, this article would have continuity with its actual history, instead of being severed from its actual history. Displacing the old article to replace it with a sandbox draft is, in my opinion, the wrong way to introduce new content into an existing article. Instead the new content, or draft version, should be written on top of the existing page history, especially, since this new draft seems to have been based on the old article, per the edit summary that started the new history. WP:CSD has an option to delete newly created articles that duplicate the topic of existing articles. The new draft is exactly that when it was introduced into articlespace, so should not have usurped the edit history of the old article, since it qualified for speedy deletion. This applies for all cases of requests to replace a current article with a draft article, not just this particular article. There are several years worth of edits, and the indicator of how old this article is (which may be a proxy for what biases exist on Wikipedia for areas of coverage and content creation). We lose indication of content population histories with replacing old articles with new drafts that have no history. Any studies by WMF predicated on article creation will lose out to these kind of moves. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There was no consensus for major changes
Why did the article undergo such a major change from to ? I assumed this article was the work of multiple editors who gained consensus over time for the current version, but I was wrong. You took it upon yourself to copy/paste your own version of the article, wow. I guess that is BOLD. It's also totally unacceptable. I wasn't so wrong when I suggested you might think you own this article. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We usually post a diff like this: . The change was described by its edit comment, and was replacement with a well-discussed draft. My quotation above was part of the consensus building. Using a draft is a normal and acceptable way to reach an agreement on new content. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennis made that edit not you. This article is suffering from WP:OWN issues and no amount of targeted harassment against me will change that. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you should go to WP:ANI and suggest having me blocked or banned for violating the WP:OWN policy. "This editor has worked on an article! This same editor objects to blanking half the selfsame article! WP:OWN violation! WP:OWN violation!" That's definitely going to play well. Why not go do that now? Or drop it and focus on using this talk page to discuss how to improve this article? It is a policy violation to go on casting aspersions in inappropriate forums, especially given that you've been warned. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we edit and interact in different ways, Dennis. While you find constant disputes and visits to various admin report boards to be productive, I prefer discussion and respect. I find the idea that someone would try to get someone blocked for merely forming an attachment to an article to be ridiculous. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Speed and undue weight
I'd suggest going to WP:UNDUE and carefully reading all of it. The issue throughout is not giving disproportionate weight to minority views. So this section blanking by doesn't seem to take the sources overall into consideration. The importance of its speed isn't found only among the minority; it's the overwhelming majority. The Tomahawk's speed is covered as the first and often only topic. If one was going to remove content because only a minority of sources discuss it, then the main targets would be the development process, the design, the aesthetic reviews, the Detroit Auto Show. Speed is the one topic virtually every source covers. The extreme speed claims are in fact the only reason this concept vehicle can even be considered notable. Take that away and the topic probably wouldn't survive an AfD. — Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Devoting 50% of the article to some petty squabble over tongue in cheek comments regarding hypothetical top speeds of a vehicle that never made it past the concept stage, is undue weight. End of story. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The quantity of content reflects the content in the sources. I don't see how you can even be saying this without mentioning any sources at all. Things like the Detroit Auto Show devote one or two paragraphs to the Tomahawk. Entire articles of hundreds of words discuss nothing but the speed claims. Journalists continued to press company officials for answers, first at Chrysler then at Daimler. Do you dispute any of that? Read the sources yourself any show me how this topic isn't this significant. Since you don't base your claims on sources, to me it appears that you just don't like it. But you liking it isn't a factor. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you have made a lot of edits on this article and feel that gives you some form of control over it, but I'm afraid that isn't how Wikipedia works. I agree that the article needs to mention the top-speed and the fact that it has never been proven. But, it's highly delusional to expect 50% of the article to be spent on that bullshit. Take a look at similar articles, for example the Bugatti Veyron article which far more press concerning its top speed, now look how much space is devoted to the highly publicized and discussed top speed of the Veyron - not 50% buddy. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Bugatti Veyron isn't similar at all. The idea that the car could possibly reach 250+ mph was never disputed, and it was in fact tested multiple times. It wasn't a mere boast. There can always be questions with production car speed records whether a sufficient number of units were built to qualify as production, was the test performed correctly, and so on. But everyone knew it was a supercar and a contender for the record, and that it was a good faith effort to set the record.The Tomahawk is not remotely similar. First, 420 mph!!! Not remotely comparable to 250 mph, not remotely comparable to the speeds any similar bike could do. And experts are pretty sure the bike couldn't even go 100 mph without crashing; it's slower than a Kawasaki Ninja 250. If experts were saying Bugatti Veyron couldn't even go 100 mph, it would be a big deal, and much attention would be given to the controversey.The reason this article needs to spend that much space explaining it is that the details are specific to the Tomahawk. On other cars, you don't need to explain how an engine works or how speed tests are done. We have other articles on that and they apply to all relevant cars. Bugatti Veyron can just link to those articles. This is a case of the sources (not me) spending a great deal of time asking could the bike ever possibly go 420mph? How do we know? Why would the even say such a thing? Dodge Tomahawk can't link to any other articles explaining why the Dodge Tomahawk's speed claims were questioned or what suppositions were made about the subject by various experts.The bottom line is other stuff exists. It's great that other articles are what they are, but this topic is this topic. I'm beginning to suspect you haven't even looked at the sources at all. You're stubbornly refusing to mention them at all. Your entire argument is based on WP:UNDUE and the undue weight policy is all about sources. What do the sources give weight to? An undue weight NPOV violation means giving more weight to something than the sources do. When I say we are giving a proportionate amount as the sources, I'm referring to the citations in the current, stable version of the article. When you claim we are not doing that, then your job is to show how the sources don't devote that much weight to the speed dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"First, I know you know how to indent a comment." That's good to hear, now indent your own comments and leave mine alone. "it's slower than a Kawasaki Ninja 250" that's great original research, can I use you as an official source on the article? "The idea that the car could possibly reach 250+ mph was never disputed" Did you read the article? The Guinness book of records disqualified and then reinstated the Veyron's record, there was considerable controversy about the Veyron's top speed, so it's a very good article to compare to this one. "Sorry to be short with you" no, I don't think you're sorry in the slightest, but it's okay - I understand you are taking this personally, so I won't hold it against you, buddy. " If you think I have violated the Ownership of content policy, then go to an appropriate noticeboard and make your complaint there, not here." why should I? Are you unwilling or incapable of holding a polite and productive discussion here? Talk pages are where we can solve issues like reasonable adults, rather than wasting the time of admins on various noticeboards. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Bugatti Veyron isn't even a WP:Good article. How is it now the gold standard we have to aspire to? It's filled with overlinking, it has edit notes warning off editors over controversial changes, a history of edit warring... Wikipedia has millions of articles where editors are still hashing it out. They're not model articles. And now you're arguing that Bugatti Veyron fails to give due weight to the sources? If what you say is true, your time would be better spent over on that article adding more content on this Veryon speed controversy, which you're telling me was given more attention by sources than Wikipedia currently does. There's your WP:UNDUE problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved party
As an uninvolved party, albeit a former content contributor, I feel the balance is good in the status quo revision (Special:permalink/917800467). There was a lot of industry observers asking questions not only about speed but about industrial design and marketing generally, and the former motivates the latter. What was Chrysler's goal? Publicity. How did they get it? By making outrageous claims and presenting an interesting-looking prototype. Sources definitely back this interpretation. In the end, this is an article both about the artifact and about the human behavior before and after its creation: namely, design and development engineering, and marketing. Leaving out details concerning the latter would be a mistake. Quoting myself (January 2016, talk Archive 3): What makes this vehicle notable (and you'll find this in virtually every source) is partly the styling, partly the place an outside-the-box halo vehicle has to play in modern auto shows, and partly the specific performance claims. These are all well covered in the draft and poorly covered in the mainspace article, to its detriment. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A quick search of the edit history casts a little doubt on your claim to be uninvolved, but that won't affect my comments. I agree that the article should most certainly reflect the performance claims made and the reaction to those claims, I don't however think that should take 50% of the article. In the article's current state it reads as if it was written by a fanboy who got personally offended by this bike and decided to go on some form of crusade against it. There needs to be balance in the article, which right now it is sorely lacking. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the article is 3,010 words, and only 710 words discuss speed, we're actually only talking about 23%, not 50%. You're demanding we delete 652 words of the 710, reducing the content on speed from 23% to less than 2%. The Doge Tomahawk is famous for supposedly going 420 mph, and you can say you agree the performance claims and reaction should be covered, yet we devote only 52 words to it? The current version easily meets your (arbitrary) standard of less than 50%. 710 is less than 25%. Problem solved!You did also blank the critical reception section, but that doesn't cover the speed claims at all. The article is about a design exercise, a corporate statement of its vision, and yet you don't want any weight given to the reaction to that? Zero space given to any discussion of the merits of the design, or how it succeeds or fails at enhancing Chrysler's image? When that's the whole point of making the Tomahawk in the first place? Did you blank the critical reception section by mistake? The only way we can even reach this magic 50% threshold you're claiming is to confound the speed claims with the reactions to the design and the branding value, yet you've made no argument for why that's even relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me ask something really nicely, please don't indent, edit or change my talk page comments in any way. No threats, no insults, just a politely worded and respectful request, thanks in advance. The critical reception section is as much of a hatchet job as the speed claims section, but as we are attempting to compromise, I guess a little of it can stay, for example the first paragraph. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Talk page guidelines suggest that we ignore you henceforth: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards." By ignore, I mean remove the undue template and cease attempting to reach consensus with you. Is that what you'd like? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

My comments are perfect legible, the fact that you have been able to reply to each and every one makes it abundantly clear that they do not "render material difficult to read". Your constant reformatting of my comments (along with constant "take it to ANI" comments) just demonstrate a combative and disruptive attitude. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we're done here. Sennen gotoshi doesn't want to engage seriously, per Talk page guidelines and nobody else has expressed support. Please start a new discussion if anyone has undue weight issues related to sources, and wishes to follow basic talk page decorum. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't wish to interact with me on this article, then it's your call not mine. I will just proceed with my edits in line with Wikipedia rules. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Walters not a "cycle guy"?
Regarding designer Mark Walters, himself not a "motorcycle guy": I recently reverted a change made by an anonymous editor. However this might be a mis-quote. Cycle World quotes Kirt Bennett saying "I'm not a motorcycle guy...". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)