User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 29

Motocross
Heyo. Just a heads up, I reverted one of your edits on Motocross. I'm pretty sure when you were reverting the vandalism you accidentally reverted a good edit. In other words I think you reverted a revert that was reverting vandalism caused by someone reverting a constructive edit... of a revert... Sorry just had to make that a little funny. Anyway, good work reverting the vandalism!! :-) -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Incivility
I thought I'd try to work things out with you, before taking this further. Your behaviour recently has been uncivil and aggressive, a violation of Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. It appears to me that you are trying to steer me away from editing at Volkswagen emissions violations, where I have been working to keep our article within policy.

Looking at your contributions to my talk page:
 * 0605 27 September 2015: You quote a long sequence of my comments on the article talk page, mostly me asking you for sources for the statements you wished to make in Wikipedia's voice. Ironically, you conclude your post, saying, "If you had once cited a source which shares your novel ideas, your unique skepticism, then it could be argued that you are working to balance the article, seeking fair middle ground between differentiating points of view. But the second point of few has never been shown to exist outside of your own imagination." In Wikipedia, we need reliable sources and we cannot synthesise something out of various different sources to come up with a statement not actually uttered by anyone. My "novel skepticism" is merely wikipolicy. All you need do in response is to come up with a reliable source and my question is answered. Attacking me is not the correct response!


 * 1142 27 September 2015: After a couple more posts from you in similar vein, I wrote,
 * You are wrong in your surmises, Dennis. Please stay off my talkpage with these uncivil accusations. Thank you.
 * User pages belong to the project, rather than the user, but certain conventions have developed. As stated in WP:USER, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request…" Of course, certain administrator notices, ANI or 3RR warnings and so on are always appropriate.


 * 1154 27 September 2015: You posted again on my talk page, again an aggressive note, fraudulently couched as a "warning". You seemed to think that Wikipedia could state in its own voice that corporate behaviour was illegal, even where no illegal behaviour had (yet) been found or admitted. This was also the subject of discussion on the talk page, where after an RfC it was quickly held that your view was incorrect. I removed your post, and advised you here,
 * Please refrain from posting fraudulent "warnings" on my talk page. I have asked you once and yet you persist. Your opinion is at odds with the reality and I see your contributions as uncivil and disruptive. If you wish to discuss an article, please do so on the article talk page. If you have issues with my conduct, please go through the usual channels. Thank you.


 * 1207 27 September 2015: Notwithstanding being politely asked twice over to refrain from posting on my talk page, you decided to edit war on my talk page, adding more personal attacks.


 * 1214 27 September 2015: And again.


 * 0747 28 September 2015: You left a 3RR warning on my talk page, as per the 3RR case you had opened 2 hours and 32 minutes earlier. This was an entirely proper use of my talk page and I even thanked you for it, albeit you had to be prompted by an admin to do so. More on that 3RR case later.


 * 1546 30 September 2015: You left a "warning" on my talk page concerning the civility of a message I had left on yours more than two days earlier. You provided no diff, but it was easy enough to work it out, given the paucity of material there. We'll get to the particulars of that message soon, but you scored high on the irony scale here.


 * 1555 30 September 2015: A similar "warning" concerning my contributions to Volkswagen emissions violations. No diff provided, so I had no way of knowing which of my contributions there you were supposedly warning me about.


 * 1618 30 September 2015: This time, not even the pretence of a "warning". Just launching into abuse. You know that I've asked you to stay off my talk page, but you have taken no notice. If you do not honour the polite requests of other editors, what does that say about how you expect to be treated by others?


 * 0716 4 October 2015: Again a spurious warning, this time with a diff, which leads to a perfectly fine copyedit of some clumsy wording in the lede at Volkswagen emissions violations. This one comes with the advice that if I continue like this I may be blocked. Well, why don't you take your concerns further? Wikipedia is full of mechanisms enabling conduct and content differences to be resolved. You do not take any of these avenues, but instead harass me on my own user page for normal editing behaviour, after you have been repeatedly requested not to. Other editors on the same article seem to find no problem with my behaviour, but I notice a few taking exception to yours. You should heed these warnings.


 * 0753 4 October 2015: You again edit war on my talk page, and add some abuse because I asked for sources for the stock prices listed in the article. It is common practice to supply sources, and in this case I requested them so that other editors could update the table if needed, as the listing stopped four days ago. Again, the correct response is to supply sources, if you have them, not abuse other editors for asking! Again I asked of you,
 * Dennis, I've asked you several times not to harass me on my talk page. If it's about an article, use the article talk. If it's another fake warning, why not take it to ANI or similar. Please stop.


 * 0814 4 October 2015: More edit-warring and more abuse. If I delete comments off my talk page, it's a sign that I have read them and no longer wish to see them. When you have been repeatedly asked not to post on my talk page and you not only continue to do so but post them again and again once they are removed, perhaps you should consider taking your own advice about WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, hmmm?

Please refrain from posting on my talk page. If you wish to advise me of actions taken at WP:3RRN or WP:ANI or elsewhere where it is customary to advise all parties to a discussion, that is fine, but if you wish to attack me under the guise of spurious warnings, you will find your own conduct the focus of wider attention.

Turning to your 3RR noticeboard complaint here, you mentioned my name three times in your initial complaint, which is clearly not a breach of 3RR. However the first mention was not a revert, and the third mention was exactly the same diff as the second. So, one revert. You failed to warn other editors (more irony!), you failed to follow the template for providing diffs, you failed to notify the users you listed until prompted two and a half hours later, you failed to provide any evidence that any of the five editors you named had made more than one revert. Not surprisingly, the complaint was closed as "No violation". I suspect that this was an attempt to shut other editors out of discussion so you could edit the lede to your own preferred wording when advised by several others that we could not state in Wikivoice that Volkswagen had acted illegally.

Looking at the message mentioned earlier, the history there is that here you said in direct response to me,
 * Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********.

I suggested on the article talk page that we should focus on content, but on your talk page I said:
 * Looking at this edit, you use the words "Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********." Could you tell me, here on this private page rather than on an article talk page, what was passing through your mind when you wrote "m*********"? If it's what I think it is, perhaps you'd like to apologise for the grossly uncivil remark? I've suggested before that you might like to slow down and think before posting something, and I'd like you to try doing that. Please.

No apology, just a glib response, but more stalking, harassment and edit-warring on your part, as listed above. Including your "warning" me of uncivil behaviour in relation to your "m*********" comment.

Dennis, this is good advice right here. Stop attacking me and other editors. Stay off my talk page unless you are leaving a legitimate warning. If you want to discuss article content, do it on the article talk page. If you have a problem with my conduct, take it to the appropriate forum. If you are trying to get my goat, it's not going to work; I'll just assemble evidence and let others comment on your behaviour. You were warned about this a week ago. Think carefully about your contributions here. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bertha Benz article changes
You indicated I needed a citation to support the changes I made to the Bertha Benz article... the changes were so obvious and easy to verify I didn't think a citation was required.

A good citation/source is www.daimler.com

http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1322446-1-1323352-1-0-0-1322455-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

I changed the ages of Bertha Benz' 2 sons from 13 and 15 to 14 and 15 as indicated on the Daimler.com page (there was no citation for the incorrect existing information, by the way).

And I changed the date of the journey she made in the Mark III version of the car to 1888 which is the correct year... the existing article says the trip happened in 1886 but there is no citation for that, nor can I find any source that says the trip happened in 1886. The 1886 car was indeed patented in 1886. But that original vehicle was driven by Carl Benz ONE time only (according to a German manager at the Mercedes Classic Center in Southern California as recorded on video in one of Jay Leno's Garage videos). The famous trip from Mannheim to Pforzheim did not happen for 2 more years after the original car as documented on the Daimler.com page and every other reference to that journey that I can find. EVEN THE REFERENCE TO THE BOOK 'WHO DID WHAT FIRST' that is cited on the Bertha Benz article page refers her trip taking place in 1888 (not 1886 as the article currently states). So does the German Government route page for her trip... 1888 and it is also one of the Notes/Citations on the existing page. Not sure I should have to provide MORE citations when the citations already there agree with the 1888 date... but whatever. I have never seen any references to the Mark III car existing in 1886. The caption pertaining to the Mark III car refers to 1886, but the Mark III car did not exist until 1888 and that was the version of the car Bertha Benz used to make the trip to Pforzheim. One of the external links does say the sons were 13 and 15, but I have to assume that Daimler knows the history better than abcteach.org or whoever created that particular document. But EVERY source says the trip happened in 1888... so the changes I made were already covered by existing citations in the Bertha Benz article.

I cannot find "page history" where you said the changes I made were saved, so I can't figure out how to restore what I did. I'm not a frequent Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.151.9 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation you're giving now is totally different than the one you gave then, which was just some wiki. I'm not so sure Daimler.com is the best source for this history; the history of Honda at Honda's website is self-serving and incomplete, for example. Anyway, go to Talk:Bertha Benz and explain what you'd like to do and see if others agree that your sources are valid. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the EMP Museum page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=684816843 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F684816843%7CEMP Museum%5D%5D Ask for help])

Pidgin German
I won't say that my German is top notch, but I spend a fair amount of time there and in Austria and Switzerland as well. Alles in Ordnung is pretty much the German philosophy in a nutshell. I don't have to look up a dictionary to know what basic phrases mean. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read German passably and I'd say a more idiomatic translation of the phrase would be "in spec". Without seeing the entire original passage it's hard to say exactly, but it might have also meant "in compliance [with regulations]". Brianhe (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Others have resolved this now using new sources, but I will accept AGF another editor's claim that they translated it if the English they write is clear and reasonably correct. When they instead write, "VW has proposed that car owners voluntarily return their cars for VW to bring to order [sic]" that sets off alarm bells that they are not certain what the idiomatic meaning of in Ordnung is. And we serve our readers better by saying nothing at all rather than throwing out some garbled version cribbed from Google Translate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Glen Curtiss - See also
Hi there, please point me directly to the style you're referring to so I know where I am? As far as I can see it complies with:

"See also" section[edit] Shortcuts: WP:ALSO MOS:SEEALSO WP:SEEALSO For "other uses" templates (such as this one), see Wikipedia:Hatnote. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists § See also lists Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using Columns-list or Div col if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005 Ischemia – restriction in blood supply Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.Rstory (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a confusing mess. Readers have no idea what to do with that. If there are really that many new topics about Curtiss that need to be covered, then expand the article. Just throwing 34 unexplained links there doesn't help anybody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Confusing is a matter of opinion - it does comply with the style aside from length perhaps and readers are free to click and read information they should be aware of - curtiss' interests were extensive much to my surprise and the links all contain references to Curtiss. I am sure the article could be expanded if you have time to do it? Some of the links might go to the Curtiss company perhaps? Instead of wiping out the list wholesale, why not try some constructive edits instead?Rstory (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One reason it's confusing is there's no clue as to why they're related to Glenn Curtiss. So you pick one and start reading it. In most of the articles, you read half the page and you still have no idea why it's related to Curtiss. It's all a lot of noise. It would be much better to pick one and focus on it to give the reader something that makes sense, rather than 34 links that just leave them saying "What?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, will have a look at it.Rstory (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Beans
I'm trying to figure out how to apply WP:BEANS in cases of pointless disruption. Not sure if it means to go ahead and warn the guy, or not to warn him and let nature take its course. – Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually don't interfere if it's not totally clear what's wrong. Telling somebody to stop doing something because of a future problem usually gets misinterpreted and isn't worth the drama. Even though the outcome is actually worse when you don't say anything. Knowing something bad will happen is no use unless others believe you. If they don't, it's out of your hands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R‎‎
not sure if I am doing this rite its all new to me but I have a question about editing the zx12r page I owen one and would like to add my manufactures manuel as a source on specs like weight and length and such and also how to use internet sites as reference thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 October 2015‎
 * Suggestions:
 * click the preview button, not save. If you see errors or anything wrong, don't click save until you fix it.
 * Spell check
 * Don't link to http://www.zx11.info/zx12r/tests/silverbook.htm. It's obviously a copyright violation -- somebody ripped off a publication and put it on their personal website. Wikipedia doesn't link to sites that do that.
 * Cite independent sources, not company publications. They are not reliable. For example, Motorcycle Consumer News tells us the wet weight is 4 pounds more than Kawasaki claims. Which one would you believe?
 * Once you've found good sources, read Help:Footnotes for instructions on how to add a reference
 * Try these suggestions and let me know how you're doing and I'll see if I can help more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know why you removed the top speed listing from the zx12r and zx14 page? They are both listed here on this site Fastest production motorcycle as being the fasted current production bikes in there years produced as list 2000 to 2005 for the 12 and 2006 for the 14. They did not break the record of the 1999 hayabusa speed of 194 mph but they were faster than later model hayabusa and there was a note stating they did not break that record. But were the fastest in there time produced. Burns, John (April 2, 2012), "Fifty Years of "Do You Have Any Idea How Fast You Were Going?" A brief history of Ludicrous Speed", Cycle World, retrieved November 5, 2012 This is a reference I think you know. To be fair you would have to remove it frm the MV Agusta F4 series page as well. It is on the list as a records holder but I feel that is inaccurate because it only went 193 and as even in its name of 312 witch is to ref yo its speed of 194 that only ties the hayabusa not beat it. but would make it the fasted bike in production for its year but not fast enough to take the title from the 1999 hayabusa. Even on the list it only went 193.24 mph so if this is allowed to stand why not other bikes on the that list? That have a credible source of reference I feel this is unfair! If that list can be posted why are those bikes on the list not allowed to post that information? This site is for facts not opinions rite but just facts as stated in there references so why deny the facts ? You are withholding facts from the encyclopedia if that fact can be listed on one page here then why not on a other page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was barely an afterthought to include the non-record breakers on the list at all. If you look at the other records like Land speed record for rail vehicles or Flight altitude record or any of them, you'll see that List of fastest production motorcycles is unique in having these footnote also-rans. A good argument could be made for removing them completely to avoid all this confusion.But we have had this list like this for a few years, and the presence of the Werner Motocyclette, Excelsior V-twin, Brough Superior SS100 Alpine Grand Sports and others has not caused any huge problems so I think the explanation of why they're on the list is clear enough. Note that in the case of ties, all we have is a footnote for the 1972 Laverda SFC and Moto Guzzi V7 Sport on the BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident, saying these bikes could also go 125 mph, though none of them are record-breakers. For consistency, we should only have a footnote for the Kawasaki ZX-12R, ZX-14, and BMW S1000RR, since they are all in the same bag of non-record breakers that go up to 300 kph and no faster (give or take an insignificant margin of error).The BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident, Norton 650SS, Brough Superior SS100, and the other also-rans don't have a navbox at the bottom. Just the record breakers. So calling out the ZX-12R and ZX14 would be giving them undue attention. It's important to note that bikes like the Vincent Black Shadow, Kawasaki Z1, Kawasaki GPZ900R Ninja and the Suzuki Hayabusa are quite famous for their speed. They're bikes that non-motorcyclists have heard of, read about in books and seen in films, because they are noted for being speed record breakers. The ZX-12R and ZX-14 are not all that famous, because they are not unique. They are just one of several pretty similar bikes with similar performance. We'd be misleading readers if we put a fastest production motorcycle navbox on them as if they were equally important. The only bike that we can honestly call the successor to the 194 mph Hayabusa 1999-2000 is the 2007 MV Agusta F4 R 312.Remember, other editors might disagree with me and support your position. But if you discuss it here on my talk page they won't even know about it. The best place to discuss List of fastest production motorcycles is at Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles so that you have your best chance of including everyone in the discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ok I think most of what you are stating is just your opinion and not based on fact. The list is for fasted production bike for any one year as well as fastest production bike of all time! And there were notes stating these facts. There was no deception ! To deny readers of this information is censorship! there are multiple references that can be read for these two bikes to be on the list. But what about MV Agusta F4 R 312 its references can not be found only motor cyclist and they only make reference to 194 but not that they actually went 194. So how is this left to stand on its page? And on the list here it does not state they tied the hayabusa but beat and surpassed it as to there page! And you are rite this is bigger than the two of us but I am writing here because you are the one that removed these facts from there pages. And the zx12r has been in movies Biker Boyz .And in numerous reviews by many publication. And in numerous user created youtube videos .While its production run was short it was the only competition of the hayabusa .The cbr 1100 xx was only really in competition of the zx11.That has been stated in many reviews. The list here on Wikipedia is not the only reference to these bikes being the fasted available production bike for the year listed. And that is all they stated on there page! Please do not censor these bikes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) The successor to the ZX-11-and continuing a long heritage of Big K roadburners-the ZX-12R has been arguably the most anticipated (and controversial) bike in recent memory.anf often said to be the cause of the brought about gentlemen's agreement.

Lossa Engineering
I proposed the deletion of the Lossa Engineering article, because I assumed it was not really notable and probably some COI self promotion. Judging from the pictures of bikes on your user page, I'm guessing that you know more about the bike industry than I do (I know nothing) Are Lossa Engineering well known enough to have an article? I honestly have no idea. Is it something worth working on and turning into a decent article?Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The bike industry doesn't matter much; it's all wp:gng. The article is promotional but the topic probably would survive an AFD nomination-- only just barely. There's more than 3 articles in good enough (barely) sources. Just needs a rewrite to replace the coi content. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seattle Internet Exchange, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tukwila and San Jose. 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) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How To tag on Battery
I removed it again because if you read the section you will see that it is not even remotely How To. If you insist on putting it back then please add a discussion to the article's talk page. (Not in these private pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.75.118 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Erasmus Prize
Dennis: Feel free to display the 2015 Erasmus Prize userbox I created, shown here to the right. – Brianhe.public (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Image alerts from TinEye
FYI TinEye alerts is a beta feature or something. - Brianhe (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * cool --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Motorcycle training
I edited the image caption in Motorcycle training (693199028 undid with your 693212436) that you reverted. My intention was to reword 'factory-sponsored' since this is not really a correct description of what is depicted. I'm aware of HART's relation to Honda since I've used their services before, and I believed that my rewording came closer to an accurate description without unnecessarily getting into details. I'm curious as to how I might correct the caption without incurring your wrath. --210.153.142.230 (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 14, October-November 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
 * Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

No offence meant
I will disagree with you, when I see (what I consider to be) errors or room for improvement on articles. I do respect the amount of work that you have put into bike related articles, I just think that there is no such thing as a perfect article. I hope we come to the conclusion that with cooperation, debate and dispute, the end result with be better articles for the reader. I'm pretty confident that our goals are the same here, unbiased articles with good content for readers. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just that I can click the revert button just as easily as you. Where does that get us? You have to keep talking until we work it out, or seek dispute resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's all very childish. But I'm at least 50% to blame (maybe more?) I am also confident that the end result is a good article. One thing I am concerned with is the pro-India bias on a lot of articles. I couldn't care less about where bikes are made, however I'm getting the feeling that the content doesn't reflect an international perspective on the market for the bikes in question. When I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_India#Motorcycle_and_scooter it seems very empty. Is there any more content on bikes in India? Given the editors/motivation/content that is on some articles, it might be highly possible to devote an entire article to bikes in India. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2015 (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 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. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Dodge Tomahawk. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ete ethan  (talk)  13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Stephen Powers VAIN gallery graffiti wall in Belltown, Seattle.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stephen Powers VAIN gallery graffiti wall in Belltown, Seattle.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Appearances in media/popular culture"
I've given a response on my talk page about the additions you reverted. I've tried to accommodate you by providing references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.103.197 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Kshama Sawant
What is the issue?

Do you have ny political relationship? I do not. Raggz (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking a street is not a crime, it is a misdemeanor, and Sawant did not block a street. The police did. "Criminal Activity" is outrageous. Keep in mind that Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy does not allow this kind of personal smear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Before we discuss that I need to ask if you are a neutral editor as I am, or do you have a pov or political relationship to defend?


 * Go Ducati. Miss mine. Raggz (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In my state a misdemeanor is a crime and an infraction is not. If this is not true in Washington then my edit was in error. It was dismissed. Was a criminal or a civil charge dismissed? Raggz (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be responding to what the sources say. None of the citations speak in any way shape or form of Sawant engaging in "criminal activity". It's obviously the most inflammatory way possible to present the facts. Civil disobedience is not "criminal activity". Even if blocking a street is a "crime", Sawant never blocked a street. The police blocked the street themselves then arrested other people for it. Being arrested for something you didn't do is not "criminal activity". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

two requests.
1. Please don't undo reverts of mine, on my talk page. If I remove something, it's because I want it gone. 2. Please don't put any comments, or templates on my talk page. If you have something to comment on, do it on the article page. If you have a complaint about my conduct, then file a report.

I have removed that template (for the 2nd time) and as of this moment, I am not filing a report regarding your conduct, however if you revert my on my talk page again, I will file a report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Dennis, if you undo any revert of mine on my talk page, I will report you and request a block. If you post anything on my talk page (after I have requested you not to post there), I will report you for harassment and request a block. It's much easier for both of us, if you don't post on my talk page. If you wish to report me for something, I will accept a notice of the report, but there are no other situations in which I wish to see you post on my page, thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am supportive
…of your N2O/NOx clarification effort. Have posted once, please renew your effort if you wish assistance. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There needs to be an RfC to recruit experts to write this up in an accessible way. I just haven't gotten around to it. So far I've written out these questions to ask:
 * What is NOx?
 * Some sources say it's two compounds, NO and NO2. I think this is because the US EPA limits these two pollutants, while not regulating other forms of NOx
 * Other sources say NOx refers to 5 or 7 compounds of N and O, such as N2O and N2O5, etc.
 * What compounds of NOx does the EU regulate? What about other countries?
 * What is the role of nitrogen compounds in global warming and/or cooling?
 * What are the differences in nitrogen compound pollution between various sources?
 * I'd like to have a complete set of questions and then get a consistent set of answers which can be applied across all the affected articles, along with an explanation that we do see some sources who garble the terminology. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Your recent editing history at Dodge Tomahawk 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you broke WP:3RR at Dodge Tomahawk. There may still be time for you to avoid a block. You can respond at the report and agree to wait for consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year


Merry Christmas and happy new year. (: --Pine✉

ANI report.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dodge draft
Was the removal of the Tilting three-wheeler wikilink [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dodge_Tomahawk&diff=697231516&oldid=697228267 here] intentional? Your edit summary was marked "typos". Just wondering... – Brianhe.public (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No I didn't intend to remove Tilting three-wheeler or streamliner. I thought I was only removing a white space and adding an apostrophe S to the lead. Must have fat fingered something on the keyboard? I dunno. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem thanks for fixing it. You must have been starting with the prior revision without realizing. - Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)