User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 30

Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club
Was the move of the Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club to the Triumph Motor Company category intentional? It's not really the right category for a motor cycle club as it's really more concerned with cars. I've moved it back to the Triumph Motorcycles Ltd motorcycles and placed it outside the list of Triumph motorcycles so it appears alongside the Triumph Motorcycles Ltd and Triumph Engineering links. WyrmUK (talk) 02:56, 05 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Triumph Motorcycles Ltd motorcycles contains bikes. Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club is a club, not a bike. All the other categories in Category:Motorcycles by brand are structured on this premise too. We just need a generic category for topics (not bikes) associated with Triumph. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Category:Triumph Motor Company is the place for it and I don't think it is generic as it stands, and I also think those categories/sub-categories really need cleaning up a lot. Triumph Company Ltd produced cars and motorcycles until 1936 when the company was split into two separate independent companies (cars and motorcycles) so I don't think that it should really be a sub-category of Triumph Motor Company as the main article for that really just deals with the car side of things when it could equally be argued that the motorcycle (or indeed the cycle) business was the primary focus. Really I would suggest that you need something like Triumph Vehicles or Triumph Vehicle Manufacturers as the root category with Triumph Cars and Triumph Motorcycles as sub-categories. That's all I have to say on this. WyrmUK (talk) 03:38, 05 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, these categories should be rationalized. Aren't you the one to do it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Potentially, but I really don't know enough about editing on Wikipedia to dare attempt it. WyrmUK (talk) 04:16, 05 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of being part of a cabal for talking here (jeesh), Category:BMW is a good precedent. See BMW Car Club of America listed there. Then a subcategory for Category:BMW vehicles, under which is Category:BMW motorcycles. – Brianhe (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 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.

MfD nomination of Talk:Liter bike
Talk:Liter bike, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Liter bike and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Liter bike during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 meetup and celebration
Consider joining other Wikipedians at the meetup in Seattle next weekend. Regrettably, I won't be there. Cheers – Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it!
I think I fixed, you better double check. I must have stepped on their edit in an edit conflict. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page harassment
I have asked you multiple times to stay off my talk page, Dennis. This was recently at ANI, so it cannot have slipped your mind. If you want to discuss something, use the talk page of the relevant article or take it to the appropriate noticeboard so it may be discussed in public. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're so irritated with me, stop following me around. Find something to work on that isn't about getting Dennis Bratland. There's a whole encyclopedia out there yet somehow you find your way back to me again and again. That's a choice you make. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I respond to your (unwanted) intrusion on my talk page and I'm following you around? That's rich. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of 3RR breach
I noticed, through research on your ANI incident, that you recently made four reversions within a few minutes on Harley-Davidson XR-750. I have commenced a discussion at WP:3RRN. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's me again, Margaret
There is a discussion on ANI concerning you. --Pete (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

MotoGP bike weights
I have reverted the MotoGP bike weights - reason being is that the pages already make mention of the weight in the body paragraphs or tables. I'm just duplicating that information in the infobox to make it easier. Sources are usually from the manufacturer, but in any case can be reliably sourced since all MotoGP bikes are the same weight, due to FIM sporting regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.26.165 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 January 2016‎
 * If you want to say that bikes in this class are limited to X weight, you can say that, if you can cite your source. If you want to assert your surmise that this bike weighs a specific amount, you need to cite an independent source. Wikipedia is better off without any data for this than repeating crowdsourced or hearsay information. Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I consider all manufacturer performance claims to be suspect and I dispute all of them unless there's a source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Baited breath
Dennis, looking at your recent edits here, it seems as if you are deliberately trolling for off-topic comments, so you can run to ANI or elsewhere saying that I'm not F****ing on C*nt*** or similar. Perhaps you don't see it this way, but it's kind of obvious to anybody else. WP:BOOMERANG is the obvious danger for you. Also, you may wish to tone down the remarks about meat and sockpuppets. From where I sit, you have the most to lose from any deep investigation along those lines. Just sayin'. --Pete (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fastest production cars
Hi Dennis I would like your input in a discussion I am having on the talk page about factory fitted options. I want to check our thinking is right, NealeFamily (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your Hawaiian Islanders edits
I don't mind that you're going everywhere and making sure no one removes the term "winningest" from any article, but on this page you undid a rather large edit that fixed what had been a mess of a page, and the term "winningest" was the least of the concerns. There were factual errors, uncited dubious statements, and a ton of other grammar/structure problems. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look before undoing that much work. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. Sorry about that. I will say that a number of the articles I reverted to the status quo had errors introduced, such as "second winninest coach in history" changed to "most successful coach in history". So it goes. Thanks for fixing that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I do mind that you're doing it. For the sake of total disclosure, I should mention that I don't feel like the word has any place on a Wikipedia article, but let's set that aside. WP:BRD seems to suggest that you ought rather to discuss first, wait for the consensus, and only then go around and undo the offending edits. Reverting an editor many times over multiple pages is bad form, and I was frankly surprised to see your name attached to it. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you have a policy as unmistakable as WP:NOCONSENSUS, don't be surprised to see me trying to adhere to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, that policy is pretty unmistakeable. I'll have a read of it, and I'll invite you along:
 * Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:
 * In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
 * Few things here. First, notice the word "result." The pending discussion is not over. We haven't reached the point where you can observe whether there is consensus or not. In the meantime, the general principle is Bold, Revert, Discuss &mdash; not Revert, Re-revert to Consensus Version, Discuss.
 * From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:
 * The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
 * Your actions constitute a large-scale edit war, and I'm disappointed that you don't seem to see it that way. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also, WP:DRNC.
 * I waited a few days and did nothing, in the hopes that the ship would right itself. I consulted with other experienced editors to see if they read the situation the same as I did. Then I took action to restore the status quo and invite in a broad selection of editors to help find consensus. I think keeping the articles in the state they rested in for something like 6 years, and bringing in more voices to the discussion, was the most peaceful and fair way of approaching the problem. If others disagree, they can act if they wish, but from where I sit it looks like the MOS discussion is moving toward a conclusion we can live with.I completely understand if you see it differently, and maybe others will want to correct my actions. I have no plans to revert anything again -- I think if consensus supports the mass reverts to status quo, then other editors will show it by their actions. If not, that's fine too because either way the discussion will reach a decision. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I didn't see your actions that way, but I appreciate you clarifying. I also appreciate your civility in getting it settled. I'm considering this matter closed with a good outcome. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DRNC that you referred to above is a different source of "no consensus" than is present here. DRNC refers to editors who procedurally revert solely on the grounds that there was no evidence of past consensus/discussion, not because they have an actual objection themselves to the content of the edit.  In this case, Dennis believes that the original wording was better (not sure if his edit summaries communicated that fact or not).—Bagumba (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs needed
It would be helpful to a reviewer if you could add diffs to substantiate your claims at AN3. Otherwise consider self-reverting, as it just adds more text, and you risk having more admins reluctant to take it on for fear of being wrong and missing something (or just lack of time). As it is, AN3 is a crap shoot. Issues that sit there too long risk having no action because blocks are meant to be preventative, and blocking an editor who has temporarily ceased warring can be seen as punitive, especially if past block history happens to be glossed over. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted. Putting up all the diffs isn't going to make any difference; I've posted diffs showing the pattern of disruption and Wikihounding before and it's not enough. It's better if I stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with your specific case. However, a lot of incidents only get action because another admin is already familiar with the situation. Often reports don't have the detail for an unfamiliar person to easily follow, so it sits there lest an admin takes a "wrong" action and more drama ensues.  Or it takes an admin with time on their hands to volunteer to dig in and read between the lines.—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest
Regarding this edit, winningest means "having the most wins", not "best win percentage". One of the arguments against "winningest" is that its meaning is unclear and that it is misused, so if the argument to keep it is that it clearly means "most wins", then surely we need to fix these isolated articles where that is not the case? --Jameboy (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The community discussion of this topic is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I haven't found any usage gudes, books of slang, new words, troublesome words, etc. which indicate this word is ambiguous or a source of confusion to anyone. If you've found evidence that this word is unclear, please share it with other interested editors in the discussion over there. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Dennis, discussion on this topic remains ongoing at WP:MOS. You have made three quick reverts to your preferred wording, including this one. You are well aware of the issues surrounding this word, and, as the wordingest contributor, the ongoing discussions in various places. It is with dismay and disappointment that I have commenced a report at WP:3RRN. Please contribute there. --Pete (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another disappointing day the notorious sockpuppeteer, harasser, and Wikihound Skyring, and his puppets, huh? Better luck next time, right? You and all your puppets should be blocked indefinitely. You're not here to build an encyclopedia, you're here to hound editors and use pages as a battleground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All this to defend the use of a crap non-word like "winningest"? It's a bit pathetic though. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just as much a word as cat or tree. This is about defending basic facts, like the fact that winningest is perfectly good English. How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.You know, Andy, I just figured out for certain that Bridge Boy was a Skyring sock. Remember how obsessed Bridge Boy was over fine points of wording? He just had to move Straight-twin engine to Parallel-twin for no reason except it's more British, and it's something to fight over. Remember how Bridge Boy would post utter nonsense, that directly contradicted the sources you just cited, and when you called him on it, he'd whine about incivility and personal attacks. Exactly like Skyring, who was blocked for running 30+ sockpuppets back before Bridge Boy was even a twinkle in his eye. Yep. Bridge Boy is back. Enjoy. I think he's going to be around forever, no matter how many times he's blocked. The guy is just part of the furniture around here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If he is socking, it's grounds to reinstate his 2005 ban (see WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-22/Arbitration report). Maybe for more than a year this time. Something to think about. Brianhe (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be American English, and it might even be a good word to describe some Harley Davidson, but it's still ugly.
 * As to an obsession with Bridge Boy, I think you're seeing dead horses under the bed and are desperate to thrash them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Your recent editing history at Harley-Davidson XR-750 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 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. SQL Query me! 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Kshama Sawant - edit war
I'm just another editor. Rather than hiss, spit, and threaten, why not just edit? The article is improving. Some of your points are valid and other (in my opinion) are not. You don't like my edits, then fine, just fix them.

Kshama Sawant is a member of a revolutionary Marxist political party. If this is not true of your friend, please just say so. Is she is just a garden variety socialist - or is she a revolutionary Marxist political party member?

I don't really care which she is. I'm just editing here. What is your role? Are you a revolutionary Marxist political party member of the Socialist Alliance? If so, please disclose this now. Oh, and stay off of my talk page. Use this one or the Article. Raggz (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No probs with your reversion
Hi, having fun with photos in the monthly competition. I look and then load if I see something to go into an article. Still learning the ropes about what is a good photo and what is a blah or unsuitable photo! Ta for comment and assumption of my good faith edit. Johnscotaus (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Milk courtesy of ... Brianhe (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks most thirst-quenching.
 * You may have read this before but, in case you haven't, here's some prose you might also enjoy, Dennis: https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=673442096#Ownership BushelCandle (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

AN discussion
I have commenced a discussion at the Admin noticeboard in which you are mentioned. --Pete (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that was fun. Now. Please stop Wikihounding me. Stop inserting yourself into everything you see me involved in. You've been told "no" in every noticeboard you've tried. Do not go to yet another forum in the hopes of some other answer. Stop forum shopping. Drop. The. Stick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You could request an WP:IBAN, which would have more weight if you are willing to do the same yourself and personally make the request at WP:ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But is it worth it? I've reviewed this history again and again, at AN/I in two different threads, at 3RR, and at AN. He's come at me in every one of these and never got boomeranged for the harassment. But now, if I re-litigate the entire case again, re-run the whole set of diffs, and of course have 72bikers and Spacecowboy420 jump in and "yap yap yap" their same old complaints, will anyone take action? I'm really much happier writing article content than getting drawn into these endless debates that amount to nothing. I suppose I'll have no choice if he keeps this vendetta going. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the noticeboard threads I've seen involving either of you, they've all gotten too long and unwieldy.  BOOMERANG requires an admin to look at the other side, which they may not have time to do, especially if the thread is TLDR.  Keep it simple for an uninvolved admin to follow, don't make it a wall of text, and aim to write it so that it requires no followup  and the original statement squashes any reasonable objections on the spot.  I understand the apprehension, and living with it may be what you choose to do.  However, I'd caution you to stop making cabal/meat puppet allegations unless it's at a noticeboard with diffs.  Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sawant discussion at DRN
I started a discussion at DRN here. Please comment there if you could. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks but no thanks. While you're blowing hot air over there I'll be over editing Kshama Sawant to fix the actual problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A. W. Piper
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A. W. Piper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI and topic-ban request
I have closed the requested topic ban as successful; permanent link, in the "Civility/Personal attacks" section. Here's my closing summary:"From here on out, Dennis Bratland is interaction-banned from Skyring, Spacecowboy, 72bikers, and Zachlita, and vice versa, although none of those four are banned from interacting with each other. All five are topic-banned from 'winningest'. Per WP:BANEX, they're allowed to report ban violations, but uncivil or personal-attack-laden reports (remember that WP:WIAPA includes unsubstantiated accusations as personal attacks) will result in a block instead, or as well, for the reporter. And finally, you're reminded that further conflict with other editors will probably result in swift sanctions."As I said elsewhere in the same process, I've closed the request earlier than normal, but in the spirit of WP:SNOW; you're free to reopen it, without notifying me whatsoever, but discussion is so strongly in favor of the topic ban that I don't imagine anything changing if you reopen it. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I ignored your emails — Special:Emailuser goes to a secondary email address, and I'd forgotten to check it for the last several days. Second email: did you see my note to Spacecowboy?  Basically, you haven't violated the letter of the law, because you didn't revert him or respond to him at all.  I suspect that you're violating the spirit of the law (he restores an article from redirect, and you respond by asking for it to be deleted entirely), but since you've previously edited the article several times, it's entirely plausible that it's on your watchlist and that you would have done precisely the same thing had anyone else un-redirected the article.  It would be reckless and not at all AGF to block you for spirit-of-the-ban violation when there's an obvious explanation that doesn't go against letter or spirit, especially now, as without me asking, you've noted that it's on your watchlist.  See notes on my talk page from Floquenbeam and Drmies, who say basically that it's possible for him to vote without violating, as long as he doesn't respond directly.  Third email: see WP:BANEX, as I mentioned above.  The stuff I've seen from Spacecowboy and Skyring falls within the BANEX provisions of "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", and had you done the same, I would be strongly opposed to any sanctions against you for such.  On MOS, see my note to Skyring, which I'll summarise as "just drop it"; I hope he does.  And finally, if you respond to this note, please leave a note at my talk page: start a new section if you want to reply there (again, this is addressing concerns about the ban itself, so it's fine), or respond here and leave me a talkback, or send an email and leave me ygm so I don't unintentionally ignore you for several more days.  Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see it; the latest email I've gotten from anyone was your note from 6½ hours ago, and the spam folder is empty. Could you try re-sending it?  Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both just arrived together, and I've acted further. Thank you for the note.  Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've assured him that he's not going to continue with this stuff. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yamaha YZF-R25, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Category. 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) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

MoS and CCPOL
I took the time to reply in four places on this, and did it all one diff to make it easier to track down. As I noted in one of them, yes, I'm happy to take it off-MoS to user talk for more in-depth discussion of the content policies and their [lack of] relation to the Manual of Style and other policypages. The wikiphilosophical side of that discussion isn't really on-topic for WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same straw man again? I can't keep going around in circles with you. Please carry on without me. I don't wish to continue this debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)