User talk:Salty Batter

January 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to The Wild One does not have an edit summary.&#32;''I think it might help if you go to Talk:The Wild One and explain what your intentions are. At the very least, give an edit summary to explain your changes. ''

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edits on The Wild One have been reverted more than once by more than one editor. Nobody can figure out what your intentions are. Would you please go to Talk:The Wild One and explain what the point of your changes is? Reverting over and over doesn't constitute an argument. What I and the other editor are perceiving is that your changes are inconsistent with the majority of high quality sources, and you haven't presented sources to justify the shift in tone of the article. The place to make your case is at Talk:The Wild One. Adding the same changes over and over is just edit warring and it doesn't lead to anything productive. Please use the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Squid and hooligan
I noticed you removed Squid (motorcycle) and Motorcycle hooliganism from Biker culture. Was this intentional? — Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A Friendly Word of Advice
Things seem to be coming a bit heated at the Wild One article. As you are new, you may not be aware of the "three revert rule" WP:3RR. Should you perform three reverts in the same article within 24 hours, even if it is different information, you will most likely be referred to an administrative board for violation of the three revert rule and could lose your ability to edit for a period of time. It is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with that rule, and adhere to it, because it is enforced with regularity on the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Wild One. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Two more reverts, and, less than one hour apart. In the midst of a discussion of the merits of the edit. I would advise you to please stop reverting and wait until the discussion reaches a consensus. Please take note of the fact that there are at least 3 editors who disagree with you, and you have convinced zero editors that your point has merit. Reverting again and again will only serve to get you blocked from editing. Please stop and work this out on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Biker gangs
Just to clarify, maybe we can avoid future problematic editing, do you object to the term "biker gang" in all cases? Is the term itself a problem? — Brianhe (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
Please be careful at The Wild One, you are on the threshold of breaking the three-revert rule there again. It is better to reach consensus on the talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should know that although this establishes a bright line, continual reversion of other editors at The Wild One will be perceived as edit warring. Further abuse will be brought to admins' attention. — Brianhe (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 28 January 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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Wild One. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not mentioning that, included with your "general tidying up" you also re-inserted controversial and disputed changes within the same edit. You completely fail to mention that. If you want your "general tidying up" changes to stand, don't include them in the same edit where you re-insert disputed edits. It is unreasonable to expect editors to continually have to perform weeding on your edits... separating the "tidying up" parts from your against-concensus and disruptive re-insertion of contested text. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that Salty seems to not understand why he has been issued a 48 hour break does not bode well. Typicaly, an editor requesting their ban be lifted shows some understanding of why it happened, and says why it will not occur in the future, but in this case, I see nothing but defiance and I'm going to go ahead and predict more of the same once the 48 hours has elapsed. Marteau (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear and specific here. What you are referring to are merely two or three places where the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club is referred to as a gang rather than more simply as the club. What is happening is a defiant total deletion or reversion of all my contribution and new references.


 * Why would you do that if not just to deliberately provoke a situation like this? --Salty Batter (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have an issue with my edits, I suggest you follow the dispute resolution processes this encyclopedia has to offer. I am done humoring you. Marteau (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain logo.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)