This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi, Dennis Bratland, I noticed your edit, though I do not quite understand your NPOV comment. I added the Exhibitionism because IMO it is a related subject, and looking at the files commons category isn't that exhibitionism? Maybe we should ask the artist what exactly he meant with this piece of art. But it that makes you happy, why not. Lotje (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The connection with upskirt and exhibitionism is vague, at best. Underwear goes under one's clothes; whether somebody can intentionally or accidentally see under a person's close is orthogonal to whether or not they wear underwear. Trying to make the connection is just juvenile. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The idea is just to help people understand what going commando is; all the rest is original research and soapboxing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
byThe Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
On26 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harley-Davidson KR, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... in post-World War II United States, the Harley-Davidson KR (pictured) dominated domestic motorcycle racing with an obsolete but highly refined flathead engine? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Malta, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Malta and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Malta during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, I suggest you just go ahead and add the CSD G3 tag to Laffite's Swamp rather than PROD. No need to let this article fester for a week. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection, or I don't understand what the page is saying. Judging by the description atop the table, italics are for motorcycles that at some point or another were the fastest then available for purchase new. Given that the Suzuki Hayabusa, with its 194mph top speed, has been available since 1999 (there hasn't been a year when the MV Agusta F4 R 312 was being produced but the Suzuki Hayabusa wasn't), I don't see why italics would be justified. Indeed, it's simple math: 194 is faster than 193.24, and 1999-date includes 2007-date. If I misunderstand something, please let me know (on-wiki, not by email) and I'll try to understand better and respond properly. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The article A. W. Piper you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A. W. Piper for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dennis are you able to update this table when you get a chance. NealeFamily (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. As noted at WP:AN, this edit is a clear violation of the interaction ban. Let me remind you that WP:BANEX includes asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation). You've asked far more than once: further asking will result in a reblock (or if noticed by me in the next 24 hours, an extended block) for persistent ban violation. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In any event, I would ask, again, that you Drmies please recuse yourself from further involvement in this case. Your WP:POINTy desire to prove that ibans never work, and your personal animosity, have clouded your judgement. This iban is in fact working, and you should stop letting that bug you. There are plenty of other admins capable of making good decisions, and so it's not vital that you and you alone hang about looking for chances to block somebody or prove that this iban is unenforcable. You keep complaining that you don't like having to deal with this kind of thing, and I remind you that Wikipedia is not compulsory. If you don't like doing this, and Nyttend doesn't like doing this, then let someone else do it.
The ostensible goal of all this is to put a stop to the disruption of Wikipedia, and if you take my suggestion, there won't be anybody complaining about any disruption of their building an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
byThe Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thundersport 500, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Ellison, Richard Cooper and Sébastien Charpentier. 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) 10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I hatted part of your !vote here per the notice below.
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I checked the prior AfD and the deleted version of CarDekho and I concluded that this current version is sufficiently improved in terms of neutrality, tone and sourcing that it is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version. I think it was probably right to delete at the time. When you nominated you said it "Needs sustained, in-depth coverage in independent sources", and that requirement seems to be met now. If my assessment is off and the article still does not meet notability standards, you may of course nominate again at AfD. Fences&Windows 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
byThe Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Dennis,
My whole life does not revolve around Wikipedia. I have made amendments to pages where I consider myself an 'expert' and where I have seen some glaring errors or omissions.
I am currently writing a book about how East Germany's racing two stroke secrets were passed from Daniel Zimmermann to Walter Kaaaden to Ernst Degner and to Suzuki, Japan. Since I have been researching the lives of these three men for almost 10 years (Degner since 1978), I consider myself well-informed on their true stories which are based almost exclusively on primary research of first-hand witnesses and contemporary reports.
Just because a book is published does not automatically confer a seal of truth and authenticity on its contents. And yet you talk of Wikipedia using only 'reliable, published' sources for its entries. In Degner's and in Kaaden's case, this seems to include what I consider to be an ill-researched, fanciful and over-dramatic (though published) account of Ernst Degner's life. I refer to the book "Stealing Speed" whose author, Mat Oxley, undertook virtually no original research and simply repeats the errors, guesses and exaggerations found on this topic all over the web. But since it is published in book format, it must be correct and it certainly seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria.
The fact that virtually every web-site says that Degner's fiery accident in 1963 occurred at Suzuka's Turn 8 when it happened at the exit to Turn 2 (and I have many photographs proving this point) does not validate this incorrect statement. Simply checking other web sites (who have themselves repeated what they have read on other web sites) and which erroneously state that Degner had his fiery accident at Turn 8 corroborates only the misinformation. As Vladimir Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
If you are the final arbiter on such matters, I can provide the necessary evidential photographs of Degner's TWO Suzuka crashes. His first was in 1962 when he crashed his Suzuki 50 at Turn 8 during Suzuka's inaugural meeting. That is when that bend was named in Degner's honour as 'Degner's Curve'. The second crash happened one year later at the 1963 Japanese GP when he crashed his 250 Suzuki on the exit to Turn 2 following a bad start that left him on the grid whilst the rest streamed away. Here's what Degner told me in 1981 (verbatim transcript):
"I had a very bad start – I had a good practice time – but a very bad start and I had to risk a lot in the first lap to get the connection to the top. It was on the second corner. The front wheel tried to slip away, and I caught it again. And then I went off the line and because at the edge of the track there was no grass. There was sand and if you touched the sand you would be off! A danger sometimes if you go over the motorcycle and the motorcycle hits you from behind. So I laid down the motorcycle by myself because I didn’t want to touch the sand and I hit the ground with my head, but not as hard that I was unconscious straight away. So I went up. I saw the motorcycle about ten yards away. I ran up to the bike. I wanted to pick it up. But the motorcycle - inside the cowl (the streamlining) - it was burning. But I didn’t see it because I was a little bit dazed. When I started to pick up the motorbike, then I went unconscious. Then a big flame spread to the tank and the tank exploded. And that was the end…"
So if Degner's BIG FIERY CRASH occurred at the exit to Turn 2 why did the officials at Suzuka circuit name Turn 8 'Degner's Curve'? Answer, because it was named the previous year when Degner had his earlier Suzuki 50 accident there during Suzuka's inaugural meeting!
Incidentally, in 1961-2, Turns 8 and 9 were one continuous bend of almost 180 degrees (you can still see traces of the old curve on Google Earth). Later, the single, long curve was decapitated to put a short straight between two sharper corners that became Turns 8 and 9 and that are now sometimes known as Degner 1 and Degner 2.
Published sources?
1962 Suzuka 50cc Crash at Turn 8
I regret that I can quote only from my own book (TEAM SUZUKI published by Osprey in 1982 and again by Parker House Publishing in 2008). On page 42 when referring to the 1962 Suzuka Inaugural Races I say:
"In the 50cc race...Degner crashed due to strong cross-winds whilst holding 4th place..." I don't identify the Turn but I have since acquired a photograph taken mid-crash.
1963 Suzuka 250cc (Fiery) Crash at Turn 2
On page 44 of TEAM SUZUKI, I report on the Japanese GP and use the same transcript quotation provided above by Degner in which he says that this accident occurred "On the second corner...".
I trust that my book is suitable material for quoting especially since it is based almost exclusively on primary research of first-hand witnesses and contemporary reports. Finally, the Degner family (who I know very well) have always been somewhat reluctant to talk about Ernst Degner. This has left a vacuum of information that writers and journalists have filled from their own fertile minds, inventing some rather dramatic means of Degner's death. Knifing, shooting, drug overdose, car accident to name but four. When I interviewed Olaf Degner (Ernst's eldest son) he told me that his father had died of a heart attack. I have also seen Ernst Degner's Death Certificate that confirms this. Moreover, you will find various newspaper reports of around 12th September 1983 confirming that Ernst Degner died a 'natural' death. For example the Dutch newspaper Nieuwsblad van het Noorden of 12 Sep 1983 has a report on page 19 headed "Motorcoureur Ernst Degner overladen" (Motorcycle racer Ernst Degner dead). In the following article it says: "Degner, 51 jaar, is een natuurlijke dood gestorven" (Degner, 51 years, died a natural death).
If you ARE the arbiter, I am happy to send you scans of these original articles.
Why do I spend so much time working so hard down the truth-mine? Because we historians owe those who gave the world great pleasure, the courtesy of recording their lives with complete accuracy so that later readers can learn the truth of how they enriched our lives.
You have my email address. If you want the proofs I have mentioned, you have only to ask.
Kind regards
Ray Battersby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybattersby (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Just consider the question of whether or not I should believe you really are Ray Battersby, or are an impersonator. Wikipedia is, after all, a medium for all manner of bizarre hoaxes. I could use some sort of authentication scheme to try to figure out if you're who you say you are, but then what? Perhaps I'm not really Dennis Bratland. Just because Dennis Bratland believes you're Ray Battersby, why should any other editor believe I'm telling the truth? There would need to be a system where a trusted group of officials vetted recognized experts like yourself. Obviously a non-profit organization could only pay so many officials to manage their stable of recognized experts, and the growth of such an encyclopedia would be limited. This in a nutshell is the encyclopedia Nupedia, which you can read about in the history of Wikipedia I linked to above. Larry Sanger felt an encyclopedia where literally anyone could edit would not work, so he took a different path.
The other path, the one this encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has taken, is one where I don't need to care whether or not you're really Ray Battersby. The verifiability policy is a workable tool that allows essentially anonymous editors to work together to produce articles with a consistent level of reliability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of "the Truth", rather, it is what it is. It's useful in all sorts of ways, and if a reader takes the time to understand how Wikipedia articles are written, they won't be misled. Much. I don't need to reiterate all this; there is plenty of good material written on these subjects, and if you follow the links I gave above you will find it.
I do think Team Suzuki is a reliable source; at least as reliable as Stealing Speed. Your book has even received several glowing reviews, as has Oxley's book. John Ulrich's mostly critical review of Team Suzukiin the March 1984 Cycle World actually pauses in its criticism to say good things about the parts of the book covering Ernst Denger, so even the naysayer vouches for the quality of the parts we are concerned with here. That doesn't mean Wikipedia articles can simply adjudicate that Book A is "true" and Book B is "false". Instead, we write an article that covers the conflicting points of view in as evenhanded a way as possible. That means we definitely should expand the Ernst Denger article to point our that Team Suzuki contradicts Stealing Speed. We can point out in the article what published sources have said about this disagreement, and we can briefly summarized the arguments on both sides.
This brings us to the issues discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Expert editors. You can read the advice there for yourself and I won't repeat it, other than to highlight the advice "Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest". Other suggested reading: Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Expert retention.
When you find yourself advocating for your own book, and disparaging another author's book (Stealing Speed), your conflict of interest makes it very difficult to write a neutral Wikipedia article. Your contributions are welcome, but it's a difficult situation to manage. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing_yourself, you are advised, "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." That means, it is best if you to to Talk:Ernst Degner and make suggestions, but let others edit the Ernst Degner article itself if they agree with your suggestions.
I am not the final arbiter of anything. I'm merely an ordinary Wikipedia editor, one of thousands, and I have no special authority. All I'm doing is trying to work within the rules established by the consensus of all the other editors trying to work together here. So I'm telling you what I think the rules say, and I strongly encourage you to read those rules for yourself. I didn't write the rules, and your interpretation of their meaning could well be better than mine. An editor, also in the motorcycling field, you might like to reach out to is User:Vintagent, who is author and blogger Paul d'Orléans (The chopper : the real story, The ride: new custom motorcycles and their builders, Café racers : speed, style and ton-up culture, all wonderful books). Perhaps d'Orléans could share his advice for successful Wikipedia editing as a published author and subject expert.
In other words, Wikipedia is written by a collaborative process. It is never enough to just be right; you also have to find a a way to work with others, even when they lack your expertise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Please post further discussion about changes to the article Ernst Degner over at Talk:Ernst Degner, not here on my talk page. If you post here, you tend to exclude other interested editors whose input is at least as vital as mine. You are likely to exclude potential allies to your points of view if you confine the article discussion to my talk page, and so the best way to build a consensus for your preferred version of the article is to have the discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Ernst Degner. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Dennis,
I appreciate you interest in Offenhauser Sales Corp. Some of the information you have listed on the Offenhauser Sale Corp Wikipedia Page is factually incorrect.
1) Fred C. "Tay" Offenhauser, Jr. is the second generation President of Offenhauser Sales Corp. His Father, Fred C. Offenhauser, Sr. was the Founder and first President. See [1]
2) Jim Offenhauser is deceased (2008) and no longer in charge of production and quality control. Vince Humphreys has assumed those duties since Jim's passing.
3) Offenhausersales.com is no longer the official corporate website. Although still an active website, www.offenhauser.co is the official company website.
So you know, I am the grandson of George "Ollie" Morris. My grandfather was head of research and development at Offenhauser Sales from 1956 through 1986. Currently I am on the Board of Directors at Offenhauser Sales Corp and serving CFO. Much of the information I have relating to Offenhauser Sales is accurate first hand information. I understand your desire to maintain factually correct information from what you see as credible sources, but those sources are not factually correct.
Thank you. Dmarv89 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
References
I'm sorry about the harsh language, I just got so sad to see this much time spent on something that is entirely legitimate, when we're barely doing anything to combat undisclosed commercial paid editing. I hope we can strike a truce and leave this behind ourselves. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Started Draft:Husky Memorial. - Brianhe (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Yamaha FZ6#"XJ6 Diversion F" aka "FZ6R" --Je suis Nigérian (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, it appears that the article Yamaha YZF-R7 is in edit war about the format of infobox images.
Please fix this as soon as possible. Thank you. Sorry for my bad English. Hyperman001 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
upright=
. If you have a portrait image, you don't want it to be as wide as a landscape, so you need upright=yes
. And in general, the lead image of an article should be larger than the normal image size, and you can use upright=1.2 or 1.35 or whatever to increase the size. This is what the image use policy, at WP:IMAGESIZE is saying: "Images used in infoboxes are generated by many different means. The most common method used to implement upright is Module:InfoboxImage (see documentation there). Alternatively, infoboxes can use standard image syntax in the form of [[:File:Westminstpalace.jpg|frameless|center|upright=scaling factor]]
".The main point is to use a scaling factor to make the image proportionate to whatever the user's default image width is, rather than hard code it. If you hard code it, it will be too small for some screens and too large for others, but by scaling it the user can make everything they see on Wikipedia fit their screen.
There is no harm in just using the image name and the default width, but there is also no harm in scaling it up a little for the lead article or section image. Since either is acceptable, nobody should edit war something so inconsequential. Nothing in the WP:INFOBOXIMAGE guideline, now or the way it was written before, justifies multiple reverts. Either version is within policy and so going to war over minor difference over a guideline is disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised that you take issue with my edits to the entry for the Velocette Venom, as you yourself in your comment indicate that the point is made elsewhere. The fact is that the trademark Velocette was always only ever a branding and the manufacturing company remained trading as "Veloce Ltd." until its voluntary liquidation in 1971. This is a link to a page on the Velocette Owners Club website the last line of which exemplifies the point You are right though and citation is everything; the fact that Wikipedia makes my point elsewhere for me (by your own admission) is baffling given your objections but I will be providing citation in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.F. W-Venables (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bicycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodale. 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) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
byThe Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. When you date a template such as a section to be expanded as here, the relevant date is the month that the template is added, not when the car was designed etc. Le Deluge (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
(Addressed to Springee) Your habit of wholesale deletion of content and edit-warring is a form of disruptive editing, or gaming the system, described at WP:STONEWALL. You are blocking any forward progress or additions to Wikipedia that violate your arbitrary criteria, i.e. "An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications, is squarely against your ongoing campaigns of deleting content for invalid reasons, i.e. "not notable" and "undue weight". Wholesale deletion of content because it lacks 100% consensus is also invalid. It is an arbitrary standard that is impossible to meet. No content will ever have universal support. Deleting content because it, or the article, is not perfect is another violation of Editing policy.
By instantly reverting any new revision, you are preventing other editors from evaluating a change, and making their own improvements. You have made yourself a status quo gatekeeper, undermining the process of collaborative editing and building an encyclopedia piece by piece.
WP:CANTFIX describes situations where content must be deleted from articles. You are habitually deleting well-cited, undisputed facts for reasons that do not approach the standards outlined that justify removal. Please stop your disruptive editing. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to violate Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, I'm at 3RR over what, 5 days? You are at 3RR in just over 1 hour. Your accusation of Stonewalling is an accusation of bad faith. So far we have two opposed and two for. Stonewalling says "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." There is no consensus here and we are discussing policy. Just because you don't agree with or are misinterpreting the policies doesn't mean we aren't discussing them. Perhaps you should do the right thing, self revert and let people discuss the topic to it's conclusion. Springee (talk) Dennis, we are clearly getting off on a very wrong foot here. Can I ask that we both tone things down and both AGF? As a show of good faith I would ask that you move the disputed content to the B-series truck article (or where ever you think it should go) and we can leave it there until and assuming a consensus for inclusion is reached. Springee (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to keep coming back to my talk page telling me what you're "not OK" with. Let's both take it for granted that you've informed me that you're not OK with what I have to say about your behavior. No need to repeat it.
Your problem is this: it isn't Dennis Bratland alone who sees what you're up to.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Shut up and let somebody else talk!
I think you've been misinformed that WP:AGF is your magic shield that protects your disruptive editing from ever being called out. You think nobody is ever allowed to finally say enough is enough. Please wp:FOC yourself, eh, bud?
I know nothing I say is getting through to you. You're done here. Please stop posting on my talk page. Good bye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody seems to hav e taken a chance and created List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com This seems to be against every wikipedia policy - how do we go about deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.247.26 (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI I have asked for a change to the editnotice template. If you have any better ideas, please chime in. [2]. - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your corrections coming in tav (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
byNikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Would you care to join The 50,000 Challenge? - Brianhe (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see here: Talk:Washington_Initiative_502#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington_.28state.29_or_split_off.2C_or_what.3F
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently made some efforts to improve the Honda VTR1000F page, but most of my edits were swiftly reverted by editor 72bikers. I feel the VTR page needs to progress, but, having made some contributions, I would prefer other biker Wikipedians to have their input. If you have a moment, why not have a look at the page and see what you think? (I’m sending this message to: Dennis Bratland, Biker Biker, Brianhe and Rocknrollmancer). Cheers, Arrivisto
Hello, Dennis Bratland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful advice you gave my student, User:Boulder19952, who was editing Honda_CBR300R_(2015). I felt that the advice you gave him was very helpful and in keeping with the best practices of editing Wikipedia. Even though he decided to try to keep the page separate, and it was merged in to the larger article as you suggested, it was a great learning experience. Thank you for taking the time to write such helpful advice to him. Bob Cummings (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)