![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 37 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Belated thanks for having the knowledge to identify the vandal at the Beatnik Bandit article! THX1136 ( talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC) |
"Naked bike: These used to be the standard roadster motorcycle, with no fairing, medium-height handlebars, and an exposed engine" – How Your Motorcycle Works. [1] 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
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
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)
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
North America 1000 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Ali Abdo (motorcyclist), yikes ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017
Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Sounder Bruce 02:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't. Just... don't. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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°37′23″N 122°19′20″W / 47.622928°N 122.322312°W
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Baby miss fortune 23:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
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 & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Green C 04:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
nagual
design
23:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
The canvassing continues [5]. BabbaQ ( talk) 09:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)