User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 37

Thanks

Thanks for starting the request for comments on the Monster Page, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know the methods to get others engaged. I'm happy to see the conversation expanded beyond me and 72, who does not seem willing to play with others. Mustangs6551 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's often helpful to involve others. First try to work it out between you, and if you arrive at an impasse, seek input from outside. You might want to read Dispute resolution for a rundown of the tools Wikipedia has for this. Often requesting a third opinion, or starting a thread at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard are the first steps before a Request for Comments. In this case, I happened to be of the opinion based on experience that an RfC had the greatest chance of success, and that the first two would lead to more unresolved debates. One good rule of thumb is that the first time one editor makes a personal comment about another editor, rather than strictly commenting on article content, sources, and the article subject, is when a dispute resolution step is needed. It is virtually never a good idea to reply back in kind to a comment about oneself. Either ignore it, or seek help, but never escalate. Easier said than done, but in a perfect world that's what we'd all do. If you are sure you really do need to say something about the other person, it's best to do it on their talk page rather than any article talk page.

Always remember that good outcomes are not guaranteed. Wikipedia's consensus process works pretty well overall, but you should expect to not get your way every time. No matter how certain you are that you're right, you have to be willing to accept the "wrong" outcome and walk away with no hard feelings. Often later down the road a consensus decision you disagree with might be re-examined and you'll have another chance to see something better. Most of the time the best you can hope for is a compromise where you get half of what you want along with some bad stuff that you have to live with. But then the other guys have to live with a compromise that they aren't so thrilled about either. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

NJ Presidential Election 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is [1]. Thank you. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on Radial brake caliper

Hey Dennis, is the requested article Radial brake caliper important enough(should I write this). If I write this, it will not be a very large article. I will like your opinion on this. If yes then I will write it on my userspace first. Navinsingh133 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You could, but I would start at Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques Disc brake#Motorcycles and scooters and Disc brake#Calipers. Fill in missing references, tag or delete unsourced material, how-to advice, shopping advice, or original research. Consider moving some of the motorcycle caliper content around in Disc brake. Once you figure out where the main section on motorcycle radial calipers is, start expanding it. If you reach a point where you've got such a long section on radial calipers that it's overwhelming the article, then create a new one. For the moment we should probably redirect radial caliper and radial brake caliper to Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques.

Following a process like that is easier and more foolproof. If you have to stop at any point, the encyclopedia is still in good shape. Others can easily pick up where you left off. If you go straight to making a new article without looking at the associated articles, it can create an ever-growing tangle of stubs and contradictory articles for someone else to clean up. Wikipedia:Summary style describes this process in more detail.

But if you feel like you've got enough to start a new article, go right ahead. Using either the Draft namespace or your own userspace like your sandbox or whatever it a very good idea to get started. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Check Motorcycle braking systems#Caliper mounting techniques now! Following your advise I added data, and also made an database on Radial brake caliper(Why settle for one when you can have both). Navinsingh133 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle history report spam

Dennis

This is user cmkuhn5. Chris Kuhn is my name.

You recently removed my edit when I added my vehicle history report website to the vehicle history report page.

You asked to write you if I had concerns. My problem is that I only added my website LemonChecks.com to the list of websites that sell or provide NMVTIS certified vehicle history reports..which is the only product my site sells.

However you removed it stating it was spam? I understand the whole commercial website thing however, my site is the same as all the other 8 websites listed where I added mine. Therefore it is relevant to the page as where I added the site it says "here are sites where you can purchase a vehicle history report at online.."

Therefore since it's listing sites where you can buy a report, I feel a commercial website is relevant as long as it is selling what the listing says, which is vehicle history reports, and that's the only thing my site sells making it relevant to the page and category.

My website is the exact same and sells the exact same product as the other 8 listed where I placed mine. So if mine is not allowed then all the others should be removed as well as all our sites being the same with all things considered equal.

I thank you for your time and consideration and am asking you to please allow my edit to allow just adding my website to the same place/list as the other same vehicle report sites on the page.

Best regards

Chris Kuhn LemonChecks.com User: cmkuhn5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmkuhn5 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of the other 8 spam links. Somebody hasn't been paying attention to vehicle history report. My advice is for you to edit Wikipedia articles on topics unrelated to vehicle history or any other website or business you are associated with. Editing Wikipedia on a topic on which you have a conflict of interest is extremely difficult and usually ends in tears. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Overlanding edit

There was nothing about my edit to the overlanding wiki that was spam or advertising. It was 100% informational and I am in the process of compiling a list of all the overlanding groups in the U.S. and was going to add them to the wiki.

I would very much appreciate you undoing your delete of my edit.

Best, Dan Danwboles (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to provide information about overlanding that is in independent sources, which are reputable and meet Wikipdia's standards for reliable sources, that's great. But that is not the same as a list of links to some companies. Please carefully read Wikipeda's policy on this: WP:NOTADVERTISING. A list of links is also a violation of the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

You appear to be in the process of writing an article about your own company. This is usually a mistake, and almost always ends in tears. Please carefully read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Editing Wikipedia while keeping within the bounds of these guidelines is not easy, and it is not very much fun. I would advise you to not edit any article topics related to your company, or to overlanding in general. You're allowed to, but I'm telling you, you're better off if you don't. There are millions of articles on thousands of thousands of topics, from books to sports to history to art. You would find working on any of these subjects rewarding, while any work you do on the subject of overlanding is very likely to be a constant battle, leaving you feeling bitter and abused.

If you were to go spend a few months editing articles about 15th century Chinese art, or women bicyclists of the Unites States, or Colorado restaurants (to name a few), and then you happen to run across a dealer in Chinese art or an agent for a bicyclist or a Colorado restaurant owner, you will know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't care that much about Chinese art, and you are going to do a good job of researching the topic and writing something that is neutral and encyclopedic. That art dealer is going to be nothing but a pain in the ass to you. Try it and see if you don't believe me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Common selection criteria is good guidance on what belongs in such a list (or table). Like Dennis said, independent sources are absolutely necessary. When other people talk about something we know it's notable beyond mere existence. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Belated thanks for having the knowledge to identify the vandal at the Beatnik Bandit article! THX1136 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Naked vs standard

"Naked bike: These used to be the standard roadster motorcycle, with no fairing, medium-height handlebars, and an exposed engine" – How Your Motorcycle Works. Which means "naked" is just a new name for an old idea. Right? I'm trying to understand this before I make a dumb comment at the RfC. My knowledge as a reader (can't back it up at the moment) says that "naked" usually implies a model that once had, or is concurrently available as, a full fairing. Examples, Ducati sportbikes/Ducati Monster, Honda CBR/CB series, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-9R/Z1000 , BMW R1200ST/R nineT (maybe). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Henshaw's is one definition and it's fine. But I don't think we're trying to create the best definition; we're trying to find consensus on the most defensible definition. To weaken the definition to the point that it doesn't contradict too many reliable sources.

The Monster never had fairings. Some Honda CBs were CBRs with fairings removed, but they built many CBs decades before they made any faired bikes. CB is just Honda's term for a general purpose street bike. Usually. Honda breaks its letter code convention regularly.

There are some who want to say the M900 was merely a 900 SuperSport with the fairings removed. But I think when you've taken the only the front half of the 900SS frame, designed a new rear end to give different geometry, substituted the fork of 750, and designed an all new fuel tank, seat, and rear bodywork, then you've done more than just take the fairings off a sportbike. It's not a "naked 900SS". When the M900 debuted, they didn't call it that; the most common phrase was "parts bin special".

The Monster is important when talking about "naked bike" as a category because that's what mainstreamed the term. Carrithers wrote: "Ducati's 1993 M900 Monster started this whole naked-bike thing, at least on the production side of things. A fast and agile alternative to plastic-wrapped sportbikes, the original II Monstro was Bologna's daring little detour from the super-sport path and became an instant bestseller, inspiring an entire genre. Here was an elemental, engine-and-wheels Italian for riders who didn't give a pepperoni about road-racing." (1993-2002 Ducati M900 monster. Motorcyclist, July 2005, p. 124+)

It's not that they actually took the fairings off a sportbike (that is still what streetfighter means), it's that they no longer felt obliged to follow racing bike style in producing a sporting street bike. And most important, Ducati promoted the term. It's our good friend positioning (marketing). Like when Suzuki said the Hayabusa isn't just a sport bike or open class bike. It's a "Hypersport". They love to make up a new term for a new product to grab consumers attention and convince them that the new product is not just a little better than the old one. It's a whole new thing! Suzuki failed to make 'hypersport' catch on, and "Ultimate Sport" went nowhere too. But Ducati sold us on naked bike. But they also saw the term diluted because it's applied to everything that doesn't have a fairing.

I guess my thing is to emphasize that nobody agrees on the definition. You often hear that there's a minimum engine size or power. That there's no such thing as 125cc naked bike. That's merely one guy's opinion. Many others use naked to describe small bikes. But people want to say "that's not a true naked bike", and they want to come to Wikipedia and see an article that helps them win that argument.

I'm not saying these definitions, such as Henshaw's above, are bad, or wrong. I think the logic is sound. If it were our job to issue rulings on the best definition, I'd support one like that. But that isn't what we're doing. We're describing what everybody else uses the term for, and everybody else is inconsistent. People want Wikipedia to fix that for them: to rule out the contradictions and give them a consistent logical definition. We shouldn't. We should make weak statements that are consistent with all the evidence. A defensible weak statement is that naked is a standard bike. Standard meaning 'general purpose', as in, not specialized. Not giving up one thing to achieve a relatively narrow function, like a sportbike or touring bike does.

That is all a lot of complicated stuff. The bottom line for me is that I oppose Wikipedia lending support to anybody who says "X is not a true Y". The idea of a true anything is not defensible in vernacular speech. You have to limit yourself to a narrow context for the "true" to mean anything. It's safe to say, "naked it applied generally to standard bikes, but some use the term in a more specific sense, such as..."

You shouldn't worry you'll say the wrong thing; I imagine you'll say it more clearly than I have. I'm probably overthinking it and maybe there's a consensus we can find that is more straightforward than my way of looking at it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm so happy to see that somebody already started Parts bin special :) ... regarding the topic at hand though. I'll have to digest this for a bit. Maybe in the end I won't jump in to the discussion, as it's really just about nomenclature, not substance, and that doesn't exactly thrill. BTW did you notice that Glossary of motorcycling terms is really thin and could use a lot of the terms we just discussed? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It bothers me a lot that we apply these terms anachronistically. Henshaw calls the new retro Bonneville a naked, but the 1960s Bonneville was never called that, nor was the CB750 or Kawasaki triple. They called them sport bikes. Terms like 'enduro' or 'scrambler' had very different meanings in the 1920s to 1950s than they do in the 2010s. But coming up with rules for how we can use the correct contemporary terms across many articles? And what about categories? Best not to think about it. Other than I like every article to tell the reader to take this stuff with a grain of salt. A bike having a chain or shaft drive is a fact. Being a sport bike or standard is an opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Identifying PR in motorcycle articles

Inviting you to add to Wikipedia:Identifying PR. I'm sure there are some patterns at List of long-distance motorcycle riders and elsewhere that could be mentioned. And the non-motorcycling things you've gotten acquainted with too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Rent seeking

So you really think there is a benefit in having this single-paragraph section? 93.142.96.39 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The other editors who are also working in the article don't watch my talk page. You should explain what you're trying to accomplish at Talk:Rent seeking and see if others agree with you. And don't forget to write an edit summary so they can see the reasons for your edits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Other editors did not undo my edit. Do you disagree with it or not? I'm not sure what you're saying here. 93.142.96.39 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying go discuss it at Talk:Rent seeking. That's it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just one silly section heading. You can keep it, I don't want a second conversation about it. 93.142.96.39 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

About your requests for page protection

Hello, Dennis! You will notice that I turned down all your requests for full-protection of articles related to the Seattle mayoral election. Sorry about that. In some cases the disagreement had not progressed to actual edit warring; in one case the only person edit warring was you. (Consider this to be a 3RR warning for that case.) In only one case had you posted on the talk page. I know you believe that your position is the correct one, and you may very well be right. But 1) protection does not exist to enforce your side in a dispute, and 2) edit warring is prohibited even if you are sure you are right. It looks to me as if you and the other people will be able to come to a reasonable way of explaining the situation - and virtually already have at one of the articles. I'm confident you will be able to work this out within Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am very surprised this is considered even remotely an editorial dispute. If a number of IPs and SPAs were declaring the winner of the 2018 NBA championship or what a Mars lander that hasn’t landed yet will find, there would be no question that the pages should be protected. If there were any guidelines or an MOS section that said we treat election outcomes this way, I could understand. But we only have WP:CRYSTAL, which is unambiguous. —-Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on calling results at WikiProject Elections

Please participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns?. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suzuki RF club links

Hi. I recently edited the Suzuki RF series page to include the RF owners club in the UK. You sent me a message it wasnt appropriate to link to them. I did read the guidelines. The RF owners club is not a profit making organization and there is no cost to join the forum. It's a club that owners can join for help and information on their Motorcycles. We have some of the most in depth information on the history of the RF, and pages of maintenance information. Im sorry if it wasnt ok, i meant no harm. I wouldnt call it spam as we are just trying to help owners. BadAnimal (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@BadAnimal:, you should re-read the rules more carefully at WP:ELNO. It says avoid...

• #4 Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming.

It does not say only avoid for-profit or commercial sites. It means any website, including non-profits. If you click through to WP:LINKSPAM, it says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." The club site rfownersclub.co.uk is a website. Promoting a website is not allowed. Scroll down to How not to be a spammer it says "Contribute cited text, not bare links." Cite the source for facts you added. Note that this website is self-published social media, and as explained under WP:SPS, the club website doesn't qualify as a source. BAck at WP:ELNO aka WP:FANSITE (and rfownersclub.co.uk IS a fans site), The list of disallowed links goes on to...

• 10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
• 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

This club is social media. It's a forum/group. It's a fansite. Note again that whether these forums/clubs/social media are non-profit or for-profit is irrelevant.

At the important policy page What Wikipedia is not, under Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, it says "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

As a Suzuki RF enthusiast, you are welcome to add facts and improve the writing on articles related to this bike, motorcycles in general, and any Wikipedia article. I would bet you have on hand books and magazines not easily found online that contain good information about the Suzuki RF. You could expand articles with your resources, and cite them. I bet your experience means you know where to find other books, magazines, journals, and other sources that have quality information on motorcycles, and how to avoid sources that are unreliable. You can use this expertise to improve the RF article and any article. You are welcome to contribute, and you can make valuable contributions. Just not links to fansites and forums. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy turkey day

Northamerica1000 is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. If you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, don't forget that "Any time is turkey time" (see image). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Laci Green

Hello, I added something on the talk-page of Laci Green. Please see if I am missing some rules or guidelines in this matter. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dennis Bratland. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Bratland. You have new messages at Talk:Espresso Vivace.
Message added 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

BMW Z4 (E89)

What are referring to in your edit summary? If the information I am adding is trivial, I would rather remove them from the articles and then have multiple users provide consensus on the content being necessary, before adding it again.--Carmaker1 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary said "read WP:TRIVIA". It means what it says: read WP:TRIVIA. Do it.

It's obvious you think it provides justification for removing information you think is "trivial". Clearly you have not read it. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and you will understand. In fairness, many, many editors think they can delete something from an article and cite WP:TRIVIA as the reason. You're not the only one who has not read it. Now is your chance.

You have more important things to worry about than trivia [sic] in articles. Tarage gave you some very good advice at AN/I and you should heed every word of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take own advice and mind your own manners. You are being quite uncivil on your part and I question your motivations in some matters. On your part, it is very clear you are being contentious towards other users and expect them to not take offense. If I feel the content I added in that article isn't fully accurate and fully supported by reliable sources, I will remove it and hope someone else finds better in place of it. Tarage is a user with questionable history of serious incivility and personal attacks, so it would be more ideal to trust the viewpoints of respectable users. Don't even dare order me around, as I take that as a unwelcome threat.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Another cringey motorcyclist bio

Ali Abdo (motorcyclist), yikes ☆ Bri (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess maybe not totally non-notable? Probably would survive AfD. Tried to make less bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Less bad" is good. Or something :) We should try again to get the ball rolling about the LDR notability; I'm surprised this one didn't turn up at the list yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Detour map

Just a heads up, some of the labels have been switched around. Lacey to Yelm (labeled as SR 512) is actually SR 510. Yelm to Tenio (labeled as SR 510) is SR 507. It could be useful to use the actual highway shields for clarity. Thanks for making the map. SounderBruce 02:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Got the shields on now too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

CITEVAR

Don't. Just... don't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Is bullying the only tool you guys have? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Washington train derailment

You raised an objection about the section "Comparison to incident on original route", stating that it was WP:SYNTH and WP:FRANKIE. Would changing it back to "Incident on original route" be satisfactory? That may remove any suggestion that Wikipedia is making a comparison between incidents. Akld guy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about me, or something I did, or that I ought to do. It's about the topic of the 2017 Washington train derailment so it should be discussed at Talk:2017 Washington train derailment, which is already on my watchlist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looks like consensus is running for removal anyway. It's not like I was pushing for retention; in fact I was the one who pointed out that it was hardly relevant and moved it to the foot of the page. Cheers. Akld guy (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just that moving to a talk page for something like this looks a lot like talking behind others' backs, since it's doubtful many of the other editors over there are watching my talk page, and an editor a year from now or five years from now reviewing previous discussions isn't going to think to come check my talk archives to see what was decided. If I were ignoring the discussion you could {{ping}} me or post a heads up here, but we don't want to discuss article content on a user page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Taking this page off my watchlist now. Akld guy (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM

If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47.622928°N 122.322312°W / 47.622928; -122.322312 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2018 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2305, Kirkland, WA 98083.

06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Message

Hello Dennis. Thank you for comments, I didn't try to promote someone, just decided to mention this business in the list of other businesses, because I tried them all during my moto touring experience. But ok, I understand your idea. Thank you one more time. JohnOdea (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dennis, (In regard to our CBT Training post) This is really valuable information which we had added so we feel it's important that it remains up. If you have any issues, please contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbaker 136 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously using Wikipedia for advertising. I've requested that your account be blocked form editing for spam. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy Genius

Thanks. I didn't know about the more complex unit constructions. You or I can update the talk page ... after the day's festivities are over. All the best Rhadow (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Motorcycle

Hi Dennis.

I generally disagree with your rationale for this revert, but not to the degree I'm prepared to edit war over it. It's a matter of perspective, and the term "good" is itself a subjective term - yes the Hayabusa (and other sportbikes) offer around 38mpg which is a lot more than other supercars, but it's pretty poor by any other kind of car, (Ford Focus <83mpg, VW Golf <69mpg), and indeed is pretty poor compared to many other motorbikes as well - lower level bikes such as the Yamaha sr25 return 83mpg, the Honda CBf600 60mpg. Thus generally seems to apply. Otherwise you're suggesting that 38mpg is good fuel economy, whereas as a simple statement without qualifier it is not accurate - 38mpg is not good fuel economy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Motorcycle fuel economy is good across the board. That's an objective fact. As you say, if you pick a motorcycle with the same performance as a Golf or a Focus or whatever, you still use vastly less fuel. If you want to go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds and reach 190mph, a motorcycle will do that using much less fuel than anything else. If you want to go 0-60 in 9 seconds and reach 85 mph, a motorcycle will use much less fuel than a car with the same performance. Any apples-to-apples comparison puts a motorcycle far ahead. It's a totally uncontroversial thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't, regardless, 38mpg is not good fuel economy. Just because you can find worse examples does not make 38mpg good economy, better yes, but "better" does not automatically equate to "good". I doesn't matter what other vehicles will do, what counts is what the motorbike will do - and in this case it's 38mpg. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is going to agree that to be good, fuel economy must exceed X mpg. X is an arbitrary number. A reasonable person realizes that good for a locomotive is not the same as good for a semi truck or a main battle tank. The article is primarily about motorcycles as personal transportation, motorsport or recreation. In all these categories, motorcycles have good fuel economy, all else being equal. You are not likely to find much support for an alternative approach where we all have to agree on this arbitrary number X mpg, and any vechicle below X doesn’t have good fuel economy. But don’t let me stop you if you really want to belabor the issue. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Only just seen this.

1. As I said in my very fist sentence "but not to the degree I'm prepared to edit war over it" so your very last sentence is superfluous.
2. You also seem to be moving your goalposts somewhat - in your first reply you directly compare motorbikes to other forms of transport, and in your second reply you state that a reasonable person wouldn't do such a thing. However, apart from pointing that out my previous statement still holds true. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How many B's and D's are there in WP:BRD: [2] [3]? Please revert and discuss. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Look up the definition of ‘’says’’. This isn’t The Literalist Encyclopedia. We use plain English.Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So like in the thread above, edit warring doesn't apply to you because you believe you're right. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't be dragging me into this! One thing that both Dennis and I have made clear is that neither of us will edit war, or make changes without discussion: "but not to the degree I'm prepared to edit war over it" from me, and "But don’t let me stop you if you really want to belabor the issue" from Dennis. The fact that there's a thread for you to reference shows that we're discussing rather warring... Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Too late, out of curiosity I had a look. I'm with Dennis for simplicity, but not sure of the {{by whom}} template - it's 2018, not 2017, and the claim is attributed to Irving Lewis Allen by the "Latining America: Black-Brown Passages and the Coloring of Latino/a Studies" source. I think if pushed I'd prefer "states" rather than "says". Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves states, doesn't it? It makes it sound like they gave some kind of formal legal deposition. It's not wrong to say "states" but it's stilted and kind of pompous. The normal way a normal person tells you that somebody said something is they say, "Bob said it's green". Unless there is a dispute. Then they say, "Oh yeah? Well Bob stated it's green!" Per WP:CLAIM, states is somewhat more loaded than says.

The larger issue here is that we shouldn't write articles in the tone of an argument. WP:WikiVoice deals with treating facts as opinions, or vice versa. The reader feels like they've walked into the middle of a dispute: "According to Merriam-Webster [...]The dictionary is unambiguous that..." Are we trying to win an argument with the reader of this? If something is a verifiable fact, we just say so, with confidene: "Earth is the third planet from the Sun". We don't say "Arguably, Earth is the third planet from the Sun." "Merriam-Webster unambiguously assures us that Earth is the third planet from the Sun". In cases where we really are describing conflicting opinions about subjective ideas, then we use WP:INTEXT style, and name the person who said it, usually with direct quotes. Often it's because a blowhard is making a fool of himself. In the case of wop, it's pretty clear that it's not an acronym and the term was in use in 1908. There's no reason to present them in a qualified or argumentative way. Just say "The first known use was in the United States in 1908.[2] It originates from the Southern Italian dialectal term guappo..." And write "Another backronym for wop is 'working on pavement', based on a stereotype associating Italian immigrants and Italian-Americans with manual labor such as building roads." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you think that "states" is stilted and kind of pompous - I think that "says" is conversational and unencyclopedic. Additionally, I don't really want to get involved any more than as an observation, and to refute Toddst1's attempt to use our previous discussion as ammunition in his own spat. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:WTW is a guideline that has been in its current form since at least 2010. Guideline status means there is strong consensus. If you go to WP:Featured articles and randomly click on a dozen or two dozen or any number of Featured Articles, you will find half of them using "said" in this way. Time magazine said [prited in an article]..., Johan Huizinga said [wrote in a book] that art of the era was..., and so on. There is vast consensus that "Merriam-Webster says..." is perfectly fine. I grant you that "states" is also widely accepted. I dislike it for reasons given, but like said, Wikipedia's guidelines and the examples of many Featured Articles demonstrate that it is encyclopedic. It's incorrect to call it conversational. This isn't a matter of opinion. You can call an English word Chinese if you want, but that doesn't make it so. You can call "said" a cheese sandwich, but that doesn't make it a cheese sandwich. We have dictionaries that tell us whether a word is slang, colloquial informal, conversational, or standard English. We have Wikipedia guidelines that tell us that language like "said" is encyclopedic.

I'm not so concerned with said vs stated; the more important issue is to write facts as facts without having to take a defensive tone. We don't need in-text attribution for any fact that is not seriously disputed; a footnote will do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus wept, I can see why Toddst1 had a go at you now. Even when somebody supports your point of view you can't resist having a pop at them. I'll finish here by pointing out that MOS:WTW says states "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate" - that is, both are equally acceptable in the encyclopedia, and carry equal weight. You admit that you personally dislike "state" - I dislike "said" for equally personal reasons. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is "having a pop" at you. You made false statements about Wikipedia and about language, and I pointed out how they are false. You are the one who is choosing to take this personally. I can't do anything about that. I can't avoid stating verifiable facts such as the contents of policy or the facts found in any dictionary just to avoid you feeling personally attacked because you had contradicted those facts. I have no idea what it is that would please you. All I can say is, if you come to my talk page and say something that isn't true, don't be surprised if I reply by saying why it's not true. Even if you had earlier expressed agreement with me on some other topic.

I did clearly admit why I don't like "stated" and I clearly admitted that is is nonetheless supported by guidelines like the MOS. I just admitted that. So right after I admit it, throwing it back at me is kind of pointless. But maybe we are in agreement: you can dislike "said" for personal reasons now, but not because it's conversational, and not because it's unencyclopedic. So all is well I guess. And the other issues I mentioned are far more important anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your latest edits over there are pretty good. Just sayin. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Very relieved to hear it. If anyone wants to change "The Merriam-Webster dictionary states wop's first known use was in the United States in 1908..." to say "Wop's first known use was in the United States in 1908...", I'd call it an improvement, but I'll let others decide if they want to or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ways to improve Ducati Panigale V4

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Dennis Bratland, thanks for creating Ducati Panigale V4!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

^{Babymissfortune} 23:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, do you know if this is the first naturally aspirated production bike to exceed 200 hp? I think it might be.

Hmm, I'm starting to think this is true ... more horses than the street-legal supercharged Kawasaki Ninja H2 (claimed anyway): 214 versus 200. A hundred pounds lighter too. The quarter mile times will be insane. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2014 MV Augusa F4RR had a claimed 201 hp. Also the Aprilia RSV4RF also claimed 201. Several literbikes in 2017 claimed 200 hp, and the 2017 GSX-R1000R had a claimed 202 hp, according to Visor Down, though Sport Rider and Cycle World say Suzuki claimed 199. I think Visor Down got the press release wrong.

There's so much wiggle room at this level that I would guess the decision to put 199 or 200 or 201 on the press release is more about marketing and public image than objective fact. You could certainly take the engine that gave you 198.5 yesterday and test it today at 202, and arguably not have done anything wrong. The margins of error and variability of air density and whatever allow it. I imagine some companies don't want the press or regulators to see a magic 201 or 202 in print, but don't get excited if they only see 199.

Then you have rwhp, which is kind of more objective, and there all the bikes are down around 180, so no headlines there.

Oh, if you buy the $40k version with an Akrapovic exhaust, I guess you get a claimed 226 hp? That's way out of the ballbark.

I don't know how to talk about it. These statistics mean something, but they also are a lot of pink smoke. I guess we should try to attribute anything we say about it to sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ijeoma Oluo at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cartogram page - manual cartograms

Thank you for your comments and help in figuring out Wikipedia editing - I am very new to this. I may have been motivated a bit by self-promotion, but on the other hand I think it's a glaring omission that the cartogram page mentions 24 different algorithms for cartogram construction but never mentions manual construction of cartograms. In hindsight I should have said more about "block cartograms" which have been the primary method people have used for creating cartograms "manually" for years - examples include recent election cartograms by fivethirtyeight.com, the wall street journal, a world cartogram by an internet user with username TeaDranks... so I definitely think something should be said about block cartograms. Therefore I'm going to reinstate and expand the portion of my edits about block cartograms.

I also think the joint triangulation method I've been implementing deserves mention because cartograms produced with this method are substantially different from those using any other method, and thus it deserves inclusion for balance. Note that practically every cartogram algorithm ever published is included on the page, even though many produce very similar cartograms to each other. However, I'll let someone else be the judge and I'll refrain from reinstating that portion of my edits for now. Geobob (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion of anything in Wikipedia is not what it deserves, or what is useful. Wikipedia is reactive: it merely reflects what already out there in well-established secondary sources. Publicizing work found only on your own website is not allowed. On the other had, we can cite journal articles like Kronenfeld, Barry J. (January 11, 2017), "Manual construction of continuous cartograms through mesh transformation", Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Cartography and Geographic Information Society: 76–94. The only hitch with that is an academic journal being a primary source, and secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. Primary sources are fine for simple facts but editors can't add any interpretation or analysis; we need to lean on secondary sources for that. Ideally, we'd want this method to be covered in broader-audience source.

Aside from article content, there are opportunities to share tools and methods for use by Wikipedia and WikiMedia editors. I would go to Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Map workshop and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps and outline how the open source tools you originally linked to at [4] could be implemented to create either image files, or generated with wiki or html markup within articles. You are likely to find volunteers who would contribute effort to this sort of project. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is an obligatory message. Template is required prior to a 3RR noticeboard report.

BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of re-adding a low-quality opinion as a reference, you should acknowledge my multiple messages in the talk page that the car is NOT in Earth orbit, so your reference is useless. Gaming the system is not a replacement for a reliable source. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I did acknowledged that. I repeatedly acknowledged that. Four times. Actually five. I repeatedly made clear to you that I'm aware that people who hold that opinion have their facts wrong. Why are you saying it again? Why would you say I didn't acknowledge it? It's really bizarre. You're fixated on the idea that you should delete everything you know is false. You don't seem to be aware that such a thing as a "point of view" exists. It means people disagree over things. Ergo, some are right, some are wrong. If we only allowed those that are "right", then we wouldn't really be including any other points of view except our own. Apparently nothing I'm saying makes any impression. Oh well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

3RR

You've made 3 reverts of the same content in about 15 minutes. You know where and with who and what the consequences are for a 4th. -- GreenC 04:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on BMW i3 page

Hi Dennis. I would like to close the discussion about the content (pricing & sales stats) on the BMW i3 article. So, I ask you to please take another look at this section, and tell us what content you think should not be included in this specific article, or that should improve the article, but please, no more general complaints about EV articles, this discussion refers only to the BMW i3 as it is now (trimmed and up to date). I believe your arguments might be more appropriate in other articles, such as Tesla Model S, that is why I think these discussions have to be done one article at the time (in the Model S case info is presented by quarter, which made sense only at the early years, not now, almost six years later; also there is a lot of duplication, and so on. The Tesla article too, has graphs and tables with the same content, etc). I would participate in those discussion if you decide to open one about these topics. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Please let me know when you do decide to go for one of the worst offenders. Cheers.—Mariordo (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (E. Alice Taylor) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating E. Alice Taylor, Dennis Bratland!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice page, a couple inline citations would be nice, but are not needed until this page is further expanded.  :)

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Lifan 820

Hi, I'm aware about the deletion of the Lifan 820 page, but my question is what makes it different to the Lifan 720 page? They both contain similar information with the only difference I can tell is that one has a image and the other doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindydad123 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles and I haven’t checked them all, but if this is true then we can look into deleting the Lifan 720 article too. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ijeoma Oluo

On 24 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ijeoma Oluo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Seattle author Ijeoma Oluo started writing about her social concerns on a blog that she had previously devoted to food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ijeoma Oluo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ijeoma Oluo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. nagualdesign 23:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey thanks so much for jumping in to improve the article on Ijeoma Oluo! I was disappointed when it was nominated for deletion and had to take a break for 14 hours (real life) only to return and see it much improved! This is awesome! Monikasj (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Stopped by to say similar. And hey, silver lining: ORES is starting to think a GA may come out of this! Thanks so much for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! The kind of behavior I see in this type of AfD really makes it hard to assume good faith. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And a DYK. Very nice "save" indeed ☆ Bri (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

3RR on Talk:Suppressor

You've also hit 3RR on Talk:Suppressor, and you were the one who was not following WP:BRD, as the IP removed your addition of WikiProject banners. I think this is a particularly silly edit war if this is really about the bot notifying WikiProjects (which it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, from what I've seen), because you can just post a neutral message yourself. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed to be following the BRD advice in this case. It’s fine advice but in this case there was no need. I know that IP isn’t active in those projects, and they have no reason to act as if removing those banners is urgent. If the projects, in the next several weeks, notice this article and decide it’s out of scope they will remove the banners when they get around to it. WikiProjects have a backlog and don’t react to every little thing within hours. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it's a dumb thing to edit war over (and I'm typed a long message to the IP that says the exact same thing). WikiProjects aren't particularly active these days, and fighting with an IP over topics that seem tangentially related seems to be a waste of energy, IMO. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you're also at 3RR there if you didn't know already. Anyway, so long as the dispute has died down, I think everything is fine. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! —Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suppressor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | 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) 09:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

The canvassing continues [5].BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have contacted admin Bishonen about the situation. I leave it at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like everyone is climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I don’t know what else there is to say. I would like to learn how we can tell which galleries are ‘significant’ and which aren’t but I don’t see any more light being shed by that AfD. Let the admins sort it out. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You could try actually looking at the sources provided, and doing a general search. For example, the show at Bungalow 5, one of the "solo shows" you guys have been touting as evidence for notability, is a show in a furniture store. Look it up. I did.104.163.148.25 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, simply ignore the IP. Today he has thrown a tantrum over at Bishonens talk page. Accusing us of not dropping the stick. None of us has posted a message at the discussion for 48 hours, we are not the ones not dropping the stick :) I think baiting is the worst form of Wikipedia behaviour. Just ignore it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing more to be said there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)