User talk:Dennis Bratland: Difference between revisions

Road Knights Edit

The source of information is "The Road Knights Motorcycle Club". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRBean (talk • contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thrive Cafe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KUOW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

triumph speed four edit

hi there this is about the wiki page for the triumph speed four. I have done a dyno test and have taking the bike personally to 165mph, the 137 is a incorrect top speed that has circulated the internet. As you know the triumph speed four is a very rare bike and not much info is posted about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdodge (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. Your dyno run is original research, and therefore does not meet Wikipedias standard of verifiability. Only facts that others may verify by looking up the source are accepted; it doesn't have to be online, but it must be published in a reliable source.

Also, read Drag (physics). Was your dyno in a wind tunnel? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

dyno----http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnQrdzIyly0

anyways what can i do to prove the top speed of this bike do i need to physical record it with my gopro and send you the link??? ive never used wiki before so im new at this, what do i need to show you so you will let me edit the incorrect information on your page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdodge (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the articles I asked you to read. Triumph Speed Four isn't "my" page. I didn't write the policies I asked you to read. No matter what I do, there are thousands of other Wikipedia editors who will enforce their policies, not mine. I'm just the guy asking you to read the policy so you understand it.

It isn't about proof. It's about verifiability, which means it must be published. Wikipedia is not the repository of all truth on Earth. Wikipedia is only a collection of verifiable information. Many things are true but not verifiable according to Wikipedia's standards. That's what the whole rest of the Internet is there for.

Do you know why people spend so much money to travel to Bonneville? Do you think it's as easy as strapping your bike to some rollers and twisting the throttle? You need to actually ride the bike to 165 mph, going two directions, measured with external equipment, corrected for altitude and temperature, and get that published in a reputable magazine or book. If it's that important to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

You were only mentioned, but I wanted to let you know your name was brought up here.[1]

Corporate 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Binders of Women

You undid my change to the list of collective nouns, saying it violates "WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMADEUP".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_collective_nouns&diff=518387842&oldid=518345608

It doesn't violate NOR (it's not original research, it's well documented and I gave citations), NPOV (it's the candidate's own words, without any editorializing or opinion), NOTNEWS (it's historic and well documented, and was broadcast on live international television, and the collective noun is not being presented as a news story) and NOTMADEUP (It was not "something that me and/or my friends made up"): it's a direct quote of a presidential candidate at a presidential debate, well documented in the media, and I gave two citations to well established mass media web sites.

1) The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/binders-full-women-reconsider-voting-mitt-romney Ana Marie Cox is political columnist for the Guardian US. The founding editor of the blog Wonkette, she has written about Washington and national politics for a variety of outlets, including Playboy, GQ, Time, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Ana is also a regular guest commentator on MSNBC and NPR, and is the author of the satirical novel Dog Days. She lives in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota

2) Time: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/17/wednesday-words-malarkey-binders-of-women-and-more/ Katy Steinmetz is a reporter in TIME's Washington bureau. In addition to working on features for TIME and TIME.com, she contributes to TIME's Swampland, Healthland and NewsFeed blogs. She pens a weekly column on language called Wednesday Words, and acts as impresario for political columnist Joe Klein's annual road trips.

You said: "This is not in any way the same as a lexicographer noting that a term has become current in English. Rather, it is a pundit using a term, which is obviously detrimental and critical at the expense of a political candidate. "

The term was not used by a "pundit", it was used by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE himself in a presidential debate, and therefore it's history, not news. Nobody put those words into Romney's mouth, he said them, therefore it's not "obviously detrimental and critical at the expense of a political candidate". If you think it's detrimental, then that's your own original research and opinion, but there is no question that those are Romney's very own words that he chose to say of his own free will, not political commentary by a "pundit".

If you are offended that I or other "pundits" appear to be attacking and criticizing a presidential candidate, that is just something you are reading into the candidate's very own words. He was using that term to justify how important women's issues are to him, and if you chose not to believe him or take his own words at face value, or think that his words did not actually support his point very well, then that's your opinion that you're certainly entitled to, but it doesn't justify calling my direct quote of the presidential candidate "obviously detrimental and critical at the expense of a political candidate".

So I suggest that we revert your edit and put the collective noun "a binder of women" back in. I think you're on the wrong side of history if you think that term is not going to stick.

Xardox (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really a discussion about me; the appropriate place to reply is at Talk:List of collective nouns#Binders and women. I recommend that you give your reasons (succinctly) why you think the Mitt Romney joke belongs on List of collective nouns, and then wait to see if other editors agree. There are some 30 editors watching that talk page and so you would want to address your arguments to them. Give them a few days to reply; the world can somehow keep spinning without "binder of women" being added to List of collective nouns on Wikipedia.

I personally dislike Mitt Romney and agree with what the whole "binders" joke says about the man and his policies; he is a patriarch at heart whose policies are harmful to women and other living things. But List of collective nouns is not about politics; it's just a list of real word definitions, not a platform for political zingers, even political zingers I agree with.

There are plenty of articles where it would be appropriate to cover this issue, such as Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, United States presidential election, 2012, United States presidential election debates, 2012, and most specifically, Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012.

Again, this discussion belongs at Talk:List of collective nouns#Binders and women. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ". I think you made a mistake, and disagree with your justifications for reverting my change. So I left you a message on your talk page. Did I misunderstand you? I'll follow up on the collective noun talk page soon. I'm sure there will be more citations as time passes. Again, it's your opinion that Romney was making a "joke" when he said "binders full of women". I think he would disagree. His VP Paul Ryan has backed him up and defended his point, so they seem pretty serious about it, not joking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/17/paul-ryan-defends-binders-of-women/ “All he simply meant was that he went out of his way to try to recruit qualified women to serve in his administration when he was governor,” the Republican congressman told “CBS This Morning.” “That’s really what he was saying. And, by the way, he has an exceptional record of hiring women in very prominent positions in his administration, and that’s the point he was making.” Xardox (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason there is a warning on your talk page is that you violated the policy WP:NPOV. If you continue to violate that policy, you can be blocked from editing, and you deserve fair warning, that's all. The best way to avoid that unfortunate outcome would be to seek consensus from other editors at Talk:List of collective nouns.

Ryan did not back up the absurd idea that Romney actually thinks "binder" is a collective noun for women. Ryan stated the exact opposite; that Romney was trying to make a different point and the word usage was a distraction. This is blindingly obvious, and that is why your edit was a violation of WP:NPOV. Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 already gives this "binder" gaffe an appropriate level of attention. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ducati 1198, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liquid-cooled (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Used car external link removal

Hi Dennis. As I was reading the article I noticed that the methods of selling a car mentioned included car dealers, leasing offices, auctions and so on. But it struck me that selling a car online was excluded. Since I thought it was worth mentioning that cars nowadays are being sold over the internet, I added that point & linked a reference to www.carazoo.com/sellyourcar as a reference to back it up. I apologize if this was a mistake. Please let me know if you still consider this inappropriate. Best regards. GSonia (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your link is spam. You put it there to advertise carazoo.com. There's nothing in the link that offers evidence that selling cars on the internet is widespread. Using it to argue that is original research, and the link is a primary source. Read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. A proper source would be independent, not a purveyor of the service.

It's clear that you have a single purpose account whose only job is to add spam links to carazoo.com to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and consider whether you should avoid editing on topics where you have a conflict of interest. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for this incident. It will not be repeated. GSonia (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed Roth category is not the correct sytax

Including Ed Roth as a category is screwing up other categories higher up the hierarchy of categories such as Category:American Latter Day Saints, look how he appears in that list. As far as I can see your method of handling categories is not used for any article except Ed Roth. So I suggest you delete the Ed Roth category and move the category tags from there to the bottom of the Ed Roth article. This is the manner all other WP pages are handled as far as I know. If I am wrong please accept my apology.Geo8rge (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the categories related to accidents of birth and biographical information are structured differently than those related to his work. I kept Category:Ed Roth under Category:Kustom Kulture artists, Category:Vehicle modification, and Category:Lowbrow pop surrealism artists, but moved the others to the article Ed Roth. Andy Warhol and Category:Andy Warhol, or Henry Ford and Category:Henry Ford work similarly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salumi (restaurant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Road Knights Motorcycle Club Edits

We are the Road Knights Motorcycle Club and our information can be no more reliable. Who are you and what authority do you have to question our information we care to share or correct? Our edits are neither abusive or derogative to anyone, surely you must welcome edits that are informative and correct. — Preceding RKMC comment added by JRBean (talk • contribs) 04:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia articles do not belong to the subject of the article. It might be your club, but it is Wikipedia's article, and the contents follow Wikipedia's rules. The article is not a platform for the club to say whatever it likes about itself. If you wish to add information to the article, you need to cite a third party reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Who are you Dennise? What authority do you claim to have any knowledge of our club? — Preceding RKMC comment added by JRBean (talk • contribs) 04:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to answer your question. Read WP:Verifiability. Therein lies the answer you seek.

You are going to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you don't try to understand Wikipedia. Do I come to your club house and march around doing whatever I like without trying to learn the rules? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Recent unconstructive edit

Sorry about the vandalism - this IP is a shared high school computer. Feel free to ban this IP range if further problems arise. 65.43.197.180 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling meetings

Hi, I would be interested in meeting you in Seattle sometime. The Seattle meetup days that have been scheduled often haven't been good for me. Could we try some other day of the week? I met with Bluerasberry recently and we had a very enjoyable conversation. I would be interested in meeting other Wikimedians in the area. Thanks! --Pine^✉ 02:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd be pleased to meet Dennis and Pine at an impromptu meetup, if three's not a crowd. — Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

VTR250 Edit

The website I added (vtr250.org) is free and only for helping people. We sell nothing and charge nothing for our help. Some users put parts up for sale but the focus of the site is to gather all relevant data about the 1988-1990 Honda VTR250 Interceptor and it's predecessors. I added the link to wikipedia to help new and old owners with problems they may have with repairs and finding parts. I believe that there is a need for these owners that isn't filled by any other resource and the fact that a large number of people use wikipedia to gather basic information on new (to them) items makes my addition a necessary assistance to the new owner.

Ranathane (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you would read WP:NOTADVERTISING, where it says external links "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." It's of no relevance whether it is non-profit. Similarly, I was hoping you would read WP:NOTDIRECTORY, where it explains that Wikipedia articles are not guides to useful websites. Search engines and web directories are the place to find useful clubs and forums.

You should go to http://www.dmoz.org/, the Open Directory Project, and click on "suggest URL" to submit a link to the forum there. If you have verifiable information that you can cite from third party reliable sources, such as expert books and magazines, those would be a source of helpful information you could use to improve the article Honda VTR250, and users at vtr250.org could lead you to those published sources. But forums themselves are cannot be cited directly or linked to in articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

edit: en·cy·clo·pe·di·a [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] noun 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

It's that ALL ASPECTS of one subject that I thought was the whole point of wikipedia. I guess I was wrong. I read both citations you used and there was no direct proscription to forums being linked. There was mention of fansites, but I do not believe we are simply that. Finding information on a 22+ year old bike can be nearly impossible. Have a good day. Ranathane (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were the site's founder. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

And encyclopedia's don't have all aspects of a subject. If you look up the Dalai Lama or George W Bush in Encylopedia Brittanica or Encylopedia.com, they don't give you their address, or phone number, or the URLs of web sites where their fans gather.

In any event, I don't run Wikipedia. These policies were created by the work of hundreds, thousands, of Wikipedia editors long before I came along. I'm just giving you links that you can read so you can understand how Wikipedia works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So do I create a page like this [[2]] to help owners and interested parties to find more information? Seems to me this page shouldn't exist either, but because it's about 'green' stuff it's OK.

Ranathane (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the green conspiracy! That's it, isn't it? Wikipedia isn't here to help owners maintain old bikes because Wikipedia is not a how-to, and it's not here to help you push traffic to your web site. Anybody who wants help with their bike can Google "VTR250 forum" and help themselves. Google does Google's job and Wikipedia does Wikipedia's job.

If you think Green Seattle Partnership fails the criteria at WP:Notability, then go to WP:AfD and nominate it for deletion. I'd probably support deletion, though I didn't think the odds of success were worth making the effort myself.

You definitely should not try to create an article about your web site: it doesn't meet a single criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web), and I assure you if you tried, somebody would delete it immediately. Then you'd feel even more persecuted. Advertise your web site elsewhere, not Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I do not feel persecuted, all I'm trying to do is understand what is acceptable and to help people. While it seemed I was dissing efforts to make human use of the Earth a sustainable proposition, I was not. I do my best to minimize my existence on this planet and have been known to vociferously protest others abuse. Obviously I have nothing to contribute to this enterprise and respectfully withdraw any further effort to do so.

Ranathane (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have requested an interaction ban with User: Cantaloupe2 (again). As you have had similar interactions with him, I would welcome your vote or comment here. Corporate 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)