User talk:Visualfxpro

April 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Zero Motorcycles has been reverted. Your edit here to Zero Motorcycles was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG9HOnZCDK8) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Electric motorcycles and scooters, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Visualfxpro, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Using talk pages
Three things. 1. Please remember the dictum that we must be civil to other editors. 2. Please sign your comments using four tildes on talk pages. 3. We are all volunteer editors, and complaining that you are underappreciated as a volunteer isn't going to carry much weight. If having your contributions held to certain quality standards or critiqued by other editors doesn't appeal to you, you are not required to contribute. -- Brianhe (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1. No problem there 2. No problem 3. I don't care if you appreciate me or not. I help because it is my nature, not for your appreciation or reward. My only problem is don't waste my time. I spent time correcting a mistake on your site and it got removed and no effort was made to address the mistake. Also "having your contributions held to certain quality standards", I turn that back on you. If you don't want people to hold this site to quality standards like addressing an incorrect bike model listed with wrong specs, then perhaps you are not required to contribute either? I mean it's a little ridiculous when you have false information on the site and it take a big fight to correct it. There must be tons of errors on this site I'm guessing. Certainly makes me rethink how I thought about this website. I know it's not perfect, but this incident suggests a high potential for more errors. Assuming this is how things are normally done; person points out and corrects and error, but because they also post a website deemed suspicious by the editor, the reported error is ignored and in fact replaced. I mean if pointing out an error does not get it corrected, then what hope is is there?

BTW, the error is still there after all this back and forth. If you mean to show the SR, then this is the correct link: http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/specs.php?model=sr

From day one I pointed out that you have SR specs/price lining to Zero S specs on the Zero website and you refuse to correct it. I already corrected the specs to match the document but you removed it for no good reason. And no, because I also linked to a perfectly fine video is not an excuse. You could remove the video and keep the correct link to Zero specs, but you chose not to.

At this point I give up. Clearly you folks don't care about the quality of this website, so duly noted.

I checked your page. Good work! 9 years is a long time! I just hope you are better about addressing your mistakes. We are all human but sometimes we are too human. I think in these situations it's best to leave emotion out and focus on the facts. If the editors sees that the article is correct fine, but don't completely ignore the reported error and instead go off on a spammer paranoid tangent and never looking back at the original issue. I'm new so mean no disrespect, but no reasonable person could disagree with me on that. Visualfxpro (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to drag this out, but the blog you wanted to cite was simply regurgitating the information from the Zero website, the citation you replaced. If you click on the link for "full details", it just take you to the source, Zero. So the speed and range are only a repeat of Zero's claims. Except that they round $12,995 to $13,000, as well as taking the range from two very different models and combining them into the rounded off 100-140 miles. Without explaining that the actual claimed numbers are 103 and 137 for the two models, and if you want the extra 34 (not 40) miles, it will cost you an extra $4,495. And it fudges the 95mph speed to "just under 100mph". All of that is the opposite of accurate. It's less accurate, and it's misleading as far as the price goes. So it adds no value, and it's not authoritative. It's merely a personal blog, although I'd call it a scraper site, in that it merely rehashes content from elsewhere while driving traffic to advertisers, e.g. hollywoodelectrics.com and the ads at the top of carlylespicks.com.In short, it violates Wikipedia's standards in WP:ELNO, and WP:SPS. What's worse, it adds a misleading veneer of independence and objectivity to the manufacturer's self-serving claims. At least when we cite Zero's site, the reader can see it's a manufacturer claim. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading after "I spent time correcting a mistake on your site." Until you think of this as a collaborative effort, not just a website but a community of shared goals and baseline conduct, of which you are an active part, bound by certain standards of behavior — i.e. our site — you aren't going to be much help here. You might want to peruse WP:TRUTH while you're at it. — Brianhe (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)