User talk:Mntn Bike Gramp

Welcome!
Hello, Mntn Bike Gramp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Mountain bike did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Introduction to referencing
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. S0091 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello, I'm MrOllie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear MrOllie, I did provide a reliable source for my edit citation -- the August 2003 issue of "Mountain BIKE" magazine, which is a Wikipedia-recommended reference, according to your instructions. If you will let me know your Wikipedia email address, I can attach copies of this magazine and article, since I don't see a way to do it here.  You allow the use of Frank Berto's book, "The Birth of Dirt" as a reliable-source reference in your "Mountain Bike History - Origins," and this book has errors, inaccuracies, and truth-stretching. Mntn Bike Gramp (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We need an independent source. We cannot use a source by a claimed inventor to establish their invention - we would need a source written by an independent historian and publisher. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What you just added is also not a reliable, independent source. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not?
 * When you say "We cannot use a source by a claimed inventor to establish their invention...", that makes no sense. Who but the inventor would have the information and documentation to prove their invention?  You need to revise this restriction.  And you need to let me know your direct email address so I can send you the information necessary to prove my invention. Mntn Bike Gramp (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Mntn Bike Gramp, please see primary sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional secondary sources that are publicly accessible.  Wikipedia does not accept sources sent by email.  S0091 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires that readers be able to verify everything they read here (see WP:V) which is why we cannot accept emailed documents or inventors at their word. It isn't that we don't trust you, we don't trust anybody. Also, since you indicate that you're writing about your own invention, please review our guidelines on conflict of interest. You really should not be editing about yourself or your work at all. MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As before, unreliable sources and claims cited directly to the claimed inventor are not going to work here. Waiting a bit and trying the same thing again will not work. MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ollie, Wikipedia requires published sources not from the inventor. The link I included as proof of my invention was, if you read it, not authored by me, but by the owner/publisher of the newspaper.  I merely authored the Wikipedia submission.  This is NOT an "unreliable source."  For you to refuse to use this as verificatoin of my invention is for Wikipedia to only use "unreliable sources" for verification, and completely destroys your credibility. Or do I need for the newspaper publisher to submit the Edit? 174.30.0.186 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is plainly not an independent source. You must stop attempting to use Wikipedia for self promotion. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, how will Wikipedia edit the incorrect information it has concerning where, when, and by whom the mountain bike was invented? In mentioning Joe Breeze, you reference Frank Berto's book, "The Birth of Dirt", as the source.  This book is not a a reliable-source reference as it has errors and inaccuracies admitted to in the book itself.  You are supposed to be providing accurate information to the public, yet you won't allow the accurate information to be edited in. I am not using Wikipedia for self-promotion, but for historical accuracy.  Please advise.    Mntn Bike Gramp (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That you disagree with a book does not make it unreliable. But I've gone ahead and added several more sources. I trust that settles the matter - Wikipedia follows the preponderance of the best available sources, and they do not support your minority position on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mntn Bike Gramp and @MrOllie I spotted this edit yesterday as it tripped a "blog cite" search that I watch. I don't have enough knowledge about mountain bikes or the book at issue, so I didn't take issue with the edit itself, but have a few observations which you can take for what they are worth (hopefully non-zero):
 * in general blogs are not accepted as reliable sources because anyone can publish a blog, per WP:BLOG
 * the site in question appears to be functioning as a local newspaper, but lacks some trappings of a conventional newspaper like a clearly identified staff of journalists and editors, or an editorial policy, rather looking a bit like a local "shopper" paper. There are policies that advise against using hyper-local media, possibly for this reason.
 * @Mntn Bike Gramp I think you disclosed some conflict of interest with respect to the bike in question (maybe you're the inventor?), but it's not clear what role you had in producing the piece of journalism in question. I think that's an important background fact. The timing of the article, just a few months after you were righly told not to add a claim without reliable sources, is suspicious, but perhaps the whole story would shed light.
 * it seems to me (and again, see my lack-of-knowledge comment above) there may be scope here to make a narrow "another person claims to have invented mountain bikes" claim within the article. As a matter of balance it the right source should be someone acknowledging the claim and commenting on it, NOT a journalist reproducing the inventor's claims without a critical appraisal of issues like whether the claim is credible or whether they are the same invention. This is a bold clam; has it ever been disputed (up or down)?
 * One very general closing note. @MrOllie is right that you need to read the policies, and either make a claim that you are following them or argue that somehow common sense should prevail over policy. But grounding your arguments in policies first should help get the common sense argument across the goal line. Oblivy (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Oblivy,
 * Regarding the final sentence of your last bulleted note: "This is a bold claim; has it ever been disputed (up or down)?"
 * The mountain-bike community hasn't disputed it -- they've ignored it and tried to prevent its dissemination. And my claim isn't a claim, it is documented fact.  Yes, it is bold.  I have the dated documentation and photographs as proof.  I'll be glad to send you copies of this proof.  I also still have the original bike.  Once Wikipedia figures out how I can make copies of this proof available to anyone wanting to verify it, the problem is solved.     Your existing policies won't work.
 * On 28 May, Mr. Ollie said, "We cannot use a source by a claimed inventor to establish their invention - we would need a source written by an independent historian and publisher." This makes no sense -- who but the inventor has the knowledge and proof of the invention?  (See preceding paragraph.)  And where would "an independent historian and publisher" get their information?  Why, from the inventor.  An "independent historian and publisher" is nothing more than a middleman.
 * And on 16 August, Mr. Ollie said, "That you disagree with a book does not make it unreliable..." It isn't that I disagree with the book; I have proof that the book is inaccurate, proof that the book's author, Frank Berto, admits to in the book.  That makes it unreliable.
 * If Wikipedia is going to promote itself as an accurate research authority, it needs to figure out how to allow my invention to be edited into the "Mountain Bike -- Origins" information.
 * Respectfully,
 * Mntn Bike Gramp Mntn Bike Gramp (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia is going to promote itself as an accurate research authority It doesn't. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We summarize what is in the best secondary sources. Your whole premise is flawed. If the wider community is ignoring your claims, so too will Wikipedia. That is how this website is designed. If your desire is to gain recognition, you are starting in the wrong place. We will only follow along once other sources do. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hi Mntn Bike Gramp! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Mountain Bike that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Oblivy (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My misunderstanding. 174.30.0.186 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 21st century. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The information you have about 21st Century Date Pronunciation is not accurate or correct. My edit was.  How do I submit it to comply with your requirements?  I referenced Common Sence Historical Precedent, which it is.  I haven't seen it puiblished anywhere else.   Mntn Bike Gramp (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no way to enter your personal opinion in a way that would comply with Wikipedia policies. As has been explained to you before, Wikipedia follows the cited sources, not that you think is 'Common sense'. You have been fundamentally misunderstanding what Wikipedia is and how it is written. You must click on the policy links in the messages you have been receiving here, read them, understand them, and follow them. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)