User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 35

Merger discussion for Kawasaki motorcycles
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Kawasaki motorcycles&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Kawasaki Heavy Industries Motorcycle & Engine. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image 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. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Nissan Leaf
Hi Dennis, I've added a section on the Brake Failure having rephrasing the paragraph in my own words and put in an appropriate reference. Could you kindly explain what you meant by 'disruptive' editing? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleayo (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So how do you incorporate the Brake Failure into this section please?Pleayo (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing you read any of what I suggested. No mention of the brakes should be made, for reasons explained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User hiren.nz spamming multiple pages
Hey Dennis, are you an editor that can do something about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hiren.nz This user seems to be spamming for InterCity buses and a related company. He perhaps needs locking down. Thanks Motorracer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. All I can do is revert, post a warning on their talk page, and report to WP:AIV, after at least 3 valid warnings. Their last edit was 04:21, 15 January 2019, and then they got one warning at 06:22, 15 January 2019‎. No edits since, so maybe the warning worked. If they do it again, the have to be warned, then if they do it again, another warning. THEN, if they do it again, report at WP:AIV. But it looks like they heeded the warning, and there are no pages with that URL on them any more, so nothing else to do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you are doing
Can you please explain what you are doing? Oceanh (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Oceanh (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your images used off-Wiki
I noticed David B. Williams used your image of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Cool! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool! I happen to have just started working on an upgraded version of that file. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

IP edits in 'xxxx in Germany' articles
Hi, could this IP be a sock of User:Europefan? J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 14:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted numerous edits by IPs in such articles, and as a result many of my edits on formatting were reverted as well. Should these edits not be kept if the content added were genuine and helpful to the articles? Regards, J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to maintain the correct formatting and correct basic errors and MOS deviations. I'm sure I could have missed some, but in general the intent is to leave the article in a relatively good state, and to not remove any additions by any other editors. If you find one with a problem, let me know, or feel free to fix it. WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:DENY are only intended to discourage block evasion. Everyone else is free to keep building the encyclopedia so there's nothing saying you can't make your own changes to the article that may or may not match what the blocked editor did. Past experience has shown that if we aggressively remove his edits, Europefan gets tired and quits, at least for a while. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hi Dennis, I put Litre as that is the standard spelling of the word, it is only liter in the USA, gasoline is a globally used product not localised to the USA Unibond (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is written in US English. The US English spelling is liter. See WP:RETAIN. That's how we do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but it seems somewhat arbitrary not to use the standard spelling of a word in a generic article, one that is not US specific Unibond (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The standard spelling"? What are you talking about? There is no standard spelling of liter/litre, any more than there is a standard spelling of color/colour. If there was a standard, we wouldn't need MOS:ENGVAR at all. "Only in the USA"? Only in the USA? Yes. Only in the USA. That's what "US English" refers to. That's what Use American English refers to. Everything in Category:Use American English uses spelling that is "only" used in the US.What do you think it means? What words do you think "Use US English" applies to? Something other than the words at American and British English spelling differences? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Litre has a standard spelling as it is a defined SI unit. Gasoline is a common global commodity, why does US English take precedence ? There seem to me to be an unwarranted US bias at play here. Unibond (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there are two spelling variants according to International Bureau of Weights and Measures . Please read the WP:RETAIN policy before changing any more spellings of US/UK/international terms. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Over at Litre it also points out that the US simply does not conform to the global SI spelling. Officially. Wikipedia guidelines are extremely clear that we don't favor US or UK spelling. Both are equally valid, and the US choice of meter and liter is valid. Tire began with US spelling. Motorcycle tyre began with UK spelling. Each remains as it its. That's the deal and it's worked very well to avoid petty edit wars and keep us focused on things that matter.If you don't agree, the place to take this issue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. See if others agree that the guidelines should change to treat metre and litre as the new standard, even on articles using US English. Cite your evidence. Maybe everyone will support it and the guidelines will shift. It's fine with me either way. I'm happy as long as we're following the guidelines and not wasting time on trivialities. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 32, January – February 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New and expanded partners
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Circumnavigation by motorcycle
Did we decide that Guinness Record setting circumnavigations are good to go for the big list? I've started User:Bri/Henry Crew. Based on radio interviews I think he might have been in Seattle in March, darn it, missed the chance for a photo! ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly remember the last actual consensus decision; I'd have to search around. I think Guinness is fine. Maybe recently some have complained that their standards are too low or they are influenced by sponsors? I haven't looked into it. One thing you can say is that you're either in the Guinness Book or you're not, and for me that makes a lot of difference. Anybody who meets WP:GNG and has ever been called a long distance rider by a reliable source belongs on the list. I really want to get away from Wikipedia editors alone deciding among themselves what qualifies for any kind of superlative list. It's my whole Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Chrysler former Brands
I previously added Former Kaiser and frazier brander to former brands on the Chrysler corporation, if so the Maxwell, the former Nash Hudson and rambler shouldn't be on there then since they were long merged into rambler and AMC, which contradicts you reasoning of removing the Kaiser frazer brands, also the Automotive HAll of fame lists the succession order on Henry J Kaiser's Bio car and driver, (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15075157/a-history-of-jeeps-corporate-parents-they-all-die-feature/) As as the case with Maxwell, Nash-Rambler and Hudson I believe as a successor Brand to Post 1970 AMC they should be listed as a former Brand. Also the kaiser V* became the Amc v8 so they are form to amc.


 * This discussion belongs on Talk:Chrysler. I'm not the only one who edits the Chrysler article and the others should be included. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tire
Hi Dennis Bratland, there's a discussion at Talk:Tire where you may be able help two editors come to a consensus. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Popcorn & Joy
hi dennis, just fyi: there's some popcorn and 'Jjoy' in this development of a candidate for adminship at de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen/Johannes_Maximilian. enjoy ;-) --77.11.88.47 (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP
You really need to read our polices on BLP's wp:BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 33, March – April 2019 
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Engine description in infoboxes
Hello, an editor has recently been adding cylinder etc. to infobox engine parameters. E.g. here. I've always been under the impression that the shorter form was used in the majority of cases but there does not seem to be anything in the project conventions about it. It's only a minor point really, but has there been any prior discussion about this. Thanks. Best regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, shorter is better. Infoboxes are supposed to be concise, and these boxes get overcrowded very fast. I don't think they should be adding this verbiage, nor the superfluous punctuation. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says 'less-is-more'. WP:MOS mentions infoboxes as the exception to the rule discouraging abbreviations and space savers like ampersands. Readers who are at all unsure what the infobox says can cast their eyes just slightly to the left and see the fully expanded version of the same information in the prose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I've already asked them a couple of times to desist. Eagleash (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GY6 engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scooter ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/GY6_engine check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/GY6_engine?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

July 7, 2019
Hi, I am a newcomer editor of Wikipedia. I appreciate your collaborative spirit of helping others in becoming experts on editing Wikipedia articles. You said, "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lane splitting have been undone because they appeared to be promotional." Here, the use of the verb "appear" is misleading because the behavioral rules that are described in the quoted reference are important for people with interest in knowing more about the phenomenon of motorcycle lane-sharing. Furthermore, the study was done in Latin-America and provides empirical evidence about the phenomenon in that region. Although the reference belongs to the list of my scientific publications, I can not understand why it still appears as promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanccorrean (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another editor posted a message for you on the Conflict of interest (COI) guidelines on 22 June. Hopefully you can go back and carefully read the information provided in those links at User talk:Juanccorrean.Persistently re-adding citations, links or other content that multiple other editors have said is promotional is likely to violate the COI guidelines and lead to a block. I would suggest going to Talk:Lane splitting -- an the talk pages of the other articles you are edit warring on -- and explaining why you think the citations are helpful. Do not re-add them to articles yourself. If there is consensus to add them, another editor can do it.It is much easier to edit Wikipedia if you choose topics where you don't have a personal stake, but if you are going to continue to try to add citations of your own works, please suggest them on talk pages. You should also consider the guidelines at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Many academic works are considered primary sources and are not desirable on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Since you are a regular I won't template you. But please read WP:V and WP:BRD and abide by them. If you prefer the standard warning I can give you one. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Abide by what exactly in BRD? So many editors think they can wave BRD around as an excuse to do as they like. If you want me to believe you subscribe to the BRD suggestions, then go to the article talk page and see if there is consensus for what you want to do. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @75.191.40.148 Replied on your talk page. Masum Reza 📞 04:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on List of common misconceptions. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the content on List of common misconceptions is properly sourced or fails other criteria is the very thing under discussion on the talk page. What you're doing is assuming the premise, that is begging the question, of those very issues. Please be patient with a process that can take some time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahindra Roxor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goodyear ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mahindra_Roxor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mahindra_Roxor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Mafi roll trailer
Hi Dennis, a user created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafi_roll_trailer (possibly) in good faith. Mafi is a brand name of roll trailer. It would be perfectly valid to have that content under the catch-all term of roll trailer as it is a common piece of machinery at ports and doesn't appear to be covered under types of trailers (the user has bluelinked it here with the brand name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer_(vehicle)). I've put a maintenance template there but it needs an editor/admin to look at it and determine whether it should be deleted and reformed sans brand names. Is this something you can help with? Motorracer (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hero Splendor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Economic Times ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hero_Splendor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hero_Splendor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Formatting/layout guideline
Hi Dennis. I'm having an issue with another editor who thinks it's a good idea to insert whitespace and other stuff to try to control image placement and layout. Obviously I disagree, with concerns about the universality of this "manual layout" across different browsers and user preferences. I thought this was strongly discouraged, but I can't find the relevant guideline. Are you aware of whether and where this is codified? - Bri.public (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:LINEBREAKS "Between paragraphs—as between sections—there should be only a single blank line."WP:OVERSECTION "Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article. There is no need to include a blank line between a heading and sub-heading." Also: Help:Pictures "Do not force page design just so that it looks pretty on your display."<P>Also, forcing image sizes is bad because... WP:IMAGESIZE "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference"... and Extended image syntax "only where absolutely necessary, users' preferences may be disregarded and the size of the image fixed by specifying a size in pixels". and MOS:IMGSIZE "Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor"... " an image coded 275px—presumably to make it wider than most images on a particular page—is actually rendered smaller than most images if the user has changed his base width to 300px. In contrast, upright responds gracefully to changes in the user's base width, maintaining the relative size of images in any given article by enlarging or reducing all of them proportionately." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd have that at your fingertips :) Thanks - Bri.public (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't where I thought it was, so I don't blame you for not being able to find it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi    I fixed the white space problem it is up to the Toc limit. If I got you mad at me I am Sorry about that Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You do need to use  instead of  . The only reason the first images are the same width is if the user has set their default thumbnail size to 220px at 193x193px at Special:Preferences. But if they set it to 300px or more, then File:Polish POWs shot by Wehrmacht 1939.jpg will be smaller than the other images. Users who choose a thumb width of less than 220px will see larger than the rest of the images. The only way to get a consistent, graceful result is to use   or ,  , or whatever, to scale images proportionately.  All the other vertical images, like File:Dwight D. Eisenhower, official photo portrait, May 29, 1959.jpg or File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-179-1575-08, Ioannina, Deportation von Juden.jpg need to use   too.<P>If images look too small or too big on your display, you should adjust that at Special:Preferences, not by forcing pixel width on images, tables, columns, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to remove the  type formatting (thumbnail overrides) as Dennis suggested, at Myth of the clean Wehrmacht? Bri.public (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I need to Practice in Sandbox that So I don't mess up the page. Showed me how to movie a page into sandbox. if you two have the time   Could you help Since you two are a bit more experienced?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Renton seaplane base
I was surprised at this. Spamminess aside, Renton does have a seaplane base. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was talking about planes landing on the airstrip at Renton Airport. If they're landing on Lake Washington, then it's relevant to an article about the lake. Either way I don't think names of the airlines themselves need to be namechecked unless we have some other relevant fact and a source to go with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, specific scenic tour companies probably don't belong but maybe scheduled flights do. Carillon Point in Kirkland is also a Lake Washington seaplane base as of a 2017 hearing examiner's decision. So as far as I know, just those three -- Renton, Kirkland and Kenmore. Only Kenmore has scheduled flights. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Huahualili
Hi. I saw the sock list at User talk:Huahualili but the user hasn't been blocked and I don't see an SPI for the socks (who are blocked). Does something else need to be done here? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 11:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The other accounts were blocked for copyvio and promotion-only. SPI was probably an unnecessary extra layer of process. I just mentioned the sock relationship for purposes of tracking. By the time they got to the third or fourth sock accounts, and  and so on, I had requested wapcar.my be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That appears to be effective, so chasing down new sock accounts is probably not necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Graphic design - Bitcoin price timeline
Hi Dennis. Just wondering what you think of the design of this graphic. The way it displays volume as an area seems intriguing but it took me a minute to "get it". Is there a better way that you know of to present this? - Bri.public (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's essentially the same as the stock price vs volume graph I made at Volkswagen emissions scandal. You often see this approached with dual graphs, like these. That spreads the information out but I don't think they necessarily make it easier to get. Once you figure out what it is saying, you have to glance back and forth between the two stacked axes.<P>I guess my rule of thumb is that it's great if you can get a graph in a flash, like at Languages of the United States. It's only giving you a small amount of information. One dimension. When you start adding layers of meaning, and adding dimensions, a graph can pack more information into a small space. For me an ideal graph gives you a rough idea at a glance, and the longer you look at it, you glean more. So at Sinking of the RMS Titanic, the base colors -- blues, greens, yellows -- give you a rough picture of the population. Looking closer, you see a light blue and a dark blue, giving you more detail. You have to zoom into full magnification to find relatively small data values, like number of first class children surviving. The treemap at Vehicle does that too -- at a glance you see the big volume models are a bike, a motorcycle and a car. But if you zoom all the way into the lower right, there is information, only one pixel wide, accurately comparing the most common plane, jet, and helicopter models. It's hard to see, but that's the point.<P>If I can get the raw data I could make one like the Volkswagen graph using line-width, of the bitcoin graph, just to compare. But I think it's basically fine. At a glance you see the rise and fall of the stock price, and you see it crashed when some huge transactions happened. The fact that it might demand more time to fully understand all of it is fine in my book, because it rewards your time and effort with more information. The reason I've fought so much with the Elections Prject over these color-graded maps like those at the top of 2016 United States presidential election in Alabama, and every other state election article, is that you can stare at them for as long as you want, but your knowledge of detail never increases. It's so difficult to figure out which percentage goes with which shade of blue in File:United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016.svg say, Montgomery and Dallas county, that you have no idea exactly how many votes that is. It's fixable with a different type of treemap, such as suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 11, or by putting pie graphs on top of county maps, as done here 2016 United States presidential election in Michigan. All of these take the reader a minute to get their bearings, but some are worth your mental effort and some remain as fuzzy as when you first saw it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I missed the fact that the data here comes from a 4chan post, since deleted. Totally unacceptable source. It should be removed unless a verifiable source for the data is found. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I didn't see that. I've gone ahead and removed it from the article using it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source ever turns up for that, though, we should do the graph. It has value, I think. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It brings up an interesting question, would reporting on transactions on the Bitcoin distributed ledger be considered original research? Is the ledger itself a primary source? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a primary source, but that's OK as long as you're not doing any synthesis or interpretation. If the meaning of the data you're citing is totally straightforward and unambiguous, then it's fine as a primary source. If you cite a primary source to say that the Dow was at 60 in the fourth year of the Depression, that's fine. Source says the figure is 60. You say it's 60. What does that mean? What does it say about the economy? About life? About the progression of the Depression? All that has to be cited to secondary sources. But the basic data is OK.<P>I'm not a Bitcoin expert but I think it's OK to create a table of dates and transactions, and it's OK to make a graph of it that doesn't draw any surprising conclusions. The example we have here actual was published in other sources, so the "interpretation" involved in creating this visualization isn't original research, it's attributable to secondary sources.<P>I don't know how you extract this info from the ledger. Never looked into it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you know the address then anybody with access to the ledger (which is basically anyone on the Internet) can look up related transactions. And there are web services to do this, e.g. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

October 2019
Your recent editing history at Erica C. Barnett shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. Chetsford (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing to say to the one with FOUR reverts? Okie dokie. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You've already templated their Talk page sufficiently. I don't know more from me would be a meaningful contribution. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are fighting very hard to violate the BLP policy and that can get you blocked from editing. You need to err on the side of presenting living people in a positive light. Read the BLP policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "presenting living people in a positive light" That's not our policy, I'm afraid. We provide WP:DUE facts sourced to RS. Our job is not to "present people in a positive light" (or any other light). Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. BLPs give the benefit of the doubt. "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Gossiping about someone's Nextdoor.com account getting suspended? Gossiping about their drinking? Professional mistakes? All tabloid trash. It has no place. Read the policy. WP:BLPSTYLE says "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources". Source after source used words almost exactly like " first reported on by independent journalist Erica C. Barnett". The policy says we should match that tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything you said is correct. But it's also a different matter entirely from the suggestion we are required to present "living people in a positive light", which is not our policy. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. We hold negative content to a higher standard of due weight and sourcing than neutral or positive content. All else being equal, we subtract negative content because it's harder for it to meet the bar set for it. Take away the negative and what's left is a more positive portrait. It's a good policy. Readers should not be coming to Wikipedia to get dirt on anybody. Our "do no harm" policy means that we only publicize the negative after the whole entire world already knows it. Their reputation has already taken the hit because the bad news spread elsewhere, and nobody is learning it first on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking past each other. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was my external link deleted on Roll Your Own Cigarettes?
This was an informational link, why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGKlee (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Spam is not allowed. As stated in the talk page warning you received, you may be blocked from editing if you use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please describe why this was considered Spam? This external link has specific information related to the topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGKlee (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're selling shit. Don't be dense. Look at the edit history. I reverted one of your spam links, and you returned and spammed the same page gain, and a completely different editor, User:KH-1, removed that spam. If they hadn't, somebody else would have. Everybody can see it's blatant advertising, and if you keep it up, somebody will remove it until you are blocked from editing. Do not use Wikipedia for advertising.<P>Find some other topic you are knowledgeable about and that you have no connection to or conflict of interest, and edit with no worries that you are using your editing privilege for promotional purposes. If the only reason you edit is to add links to this one commercial retail site, you will be blocked. Don't say nobody warned you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Military stress card
Please provide evidence for the following claims:

-The TIME source is talking about a card that incorporates a liquid crystal thermometer -The TIME source says this card can be used by recruits in boot camp to halt training -The image used in the article shows the military stress card (the card shown has nothing to do with the military; the Snopes article contains an image of the real card) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the last time, the discussion is at Talk:Military stress card. If you're not willing to pay attention and learn, I'm not going to waste my time with you. Go to Talk:Military stress card and discuss this in a civil and respectful fashion. We are all happy to work with you if you can behave yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

so you are saying I am impolite... while you are impolite... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have posted the questions above on that talkpage so you can respond there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.102.7 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kinda bitey reply at Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett
Hi Dennis,

I thought I should take this to your talk page because I assume you meant well in your reply at Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett, but I thought maybe we could have a reasonable discussion. I honestly did not intend my edits to be construed as disruptive, so if you feel the tags were erroneously added, you may remove them and bring the discussion to the applicable article talk page. I'd just appreciate it if you could clarify for me why we need to have 2, 3, or even 4 reliable sources which prove such basic details as, "person X was a journalist," "person Y started website A with person Z," etc. That's all I meant by adding those tags.

Hoping we can resolve this amicably as I appreciate your contributions to the discussions and your editing.

Best,

--Doug Mehus (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * When the AfD is closed I'm going to take this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have your WP:POINTy editing and Gaming the system sanctioned with at least a formal warning, if not a block or topic ban. I am appalled at your behavior. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Lenin statue
You make an interesting point yes I would accept that as possibly being true, except for the fact that the real point is that there can't possibly be a citation for a known fact. The article itself before I even got to it and which you have left in your wisdom, states that it was commissioned by a monuments committee, was sculpted to be a monument, was erected as a monument, and stood as a monument in "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic." The citation could be this Wikipedia page itself because it's Wikipedia page would you say is fine says that it was always a monument. So the question is what do you want me to do I think correct your mistake? Where does one find a citation for water is wet? And if you don't understand that commentary I am very sad for you. Also there's a very long diatribe that has nothing to do with the statue that you keep on leaving in there. It's a diatribe against Putin and Russian aggression in the modern era which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic yet you keep on putting it back in. it's pro-ukraine the current government Ukraine which has nothing to do with this article or the monument, is openly fascist and white nationalist. are you purposely trying to keep an unrelated diatribe in the middle of this article just to support white nationalism in Ukraine? JohnReed 1917 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've asked you four times to discuss this in the correct place, at Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle). I'm not going to engage with someone who is impossible to communicate with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Military stress card shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. 83.143.85.130 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.