User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Road Knights Edit

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thrive Cafe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KUOW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

triumph speed four edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of interest noticeboard

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

Corporate 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Binders of Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ducati 1198, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liquid-cooled (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Used car external link removal

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

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

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

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

Ed Roth category is not the correct sytax

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salumi (restaurant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Road Knights Motorcycle Club Edits

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Recent unconstructive edit

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

Scheduling meetings

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

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

VTR250 Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

November 2012

I'm not sure if this is the best way to reply or not. The term 'petrol-electric' is far less confusing than 'gas-electric', as a 'gas-electric hybrid' implies natural gas / propane augmented by an electric motor. Wikipedia aims to be universal, and as such it should aim to be as clear and straightforward as possible. To my knowledge, the United States does not have an alternative definition for 'petrol', whereas the rest of the world has an alternative definition for 'gas' which confuses things for them. Note that this is the only change I made to the page in question, and it was for reasons of clarity and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.246.228 (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not in American English. Please read WP:RETAIN. Do not switch between national varietis of English without discussing first. It is disruptive and a huge waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hi Dennis. Sorry, I thought wikipedia could be a reliable source. Probably it's more appropriate to use internal links [[ ]], right? About "Va lentino" meaning "he goes quite slow": since it is a joke I doubt any serious source can be found, but anyway Google returns thousands of results (in Italian) for "Valentino Rossi va lentino". --Abacos (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Nor does trivia. Articles about motorcyclists should be about the person and their motorcycling. The fact that Rossi's name is the most or least common, or that when translated into Serbian it means "big man with hairy bollocks who doesn't give a shit", are all entirely irrelevant to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if Wikipedia could be cited as a source, the article in question doesn't state which Italian names are most common. That's a conclusion drawn by counting names on the list in the Wikipedia article, based on the unproven assumption that the list is a representative sample. So it's both original research, and faulty reasoning. And even if none of that were the case, we need a third party source to tell us that it's relevant to Valentino Rossi. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ducati 400SS

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ducati 400SS , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion includes merging Ducati 800SS into Ducati SuperSport as well. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice greatly appreciated

Thanks, Dennis Bratland. I appreciate the explanation and I understand. I have frustration with the article as I think it is fractured and not well written. I'd love to start cleaning it up. How you suggest I best do that so that edits I made don't become reverted immediately? I am new on here and don't know the rules. I am interested in this subject, and would like to contribute by starting here, but I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's! Thanks.HaeckelLight (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss at Talk:Falcon Motorcycles. Point out what you think is wrong, and maybe how you want to fix it. Wait a while and see what others say. When there has been a lot of controversy over something, it's best to seek input from others to find where the new consensus is. Give it some time.

It also helps to mix it up and edit Wikipedia articles on subjects you are less passionate about so you can develop a better understanding of editing practices without caring so much about the outcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good advice. Will do that. I am passionate about the subject because I am an actual fan and have watched the story unfold first hand. There's a lot of mis-information out there. I would like to help make the page factual and I keep up to date with what is going on with them. I'll keep (slowly) trying to make the page better and will make sure to label any edits with a good summary to keep track. If you see me making mistakes I'd appreciate pointers at how to fix them so that I can get better at this and be a good community member. I will work on other articles too, but would like to clean this one up primarily before moving on to the next. I'll give whatever time I can to learning. Thanks.HaeckelLight (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012 - Jesse James (customizer)

Dennis, I did not remove any information from the Jesse James (customizer) Wikipedia page. I did move some information around because someone before me had mixed in duplicate information about Jesse James' relationship with Kat Von D into the original paragraph detailing James' divorce from Sandra Bullock resulting in a bit of a mess.

All I did was consolidate the Sandra Bullock info into one paragraph and the Kat Von D info into a different paragraph and listed it as a "minor edit" which I feel that it is.

You can go back and look at previous versions of the Jesse James (customizer) Wikipages to compare and contrast.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. - This is the first time I've tried the "talk" feature on this site so I hope I'm doing it correctly. If not, please bear with me while I learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilo Thurston (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 November 2012‎

Please use an Edit summary to briefly explain your edits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ninja 300 reversion

Why did you undo the material I put in the Ninja 300 article? There were no copyright violations. Material gleened from other sources were properly credited. Nothing was copied word for word. Most of the data I got is still on the article but you simply put it in numerous hard to read paragraphs. It was far better using the specifications table that I had which is also used by other kawasaki articles. You also deleted the kawasaki timeline template. Again, which is used my all other kawasaki articles. Your edits make this article inconsistent with all other kawasaki articles. What was your purpose in doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.192.254 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We only create external tables to {{Infobox motorcycle}} if we absolutely must, like if there are six different model generations. When there is only one version, there's no reason to have a whole other table. See WP:MC-MOS.

It's blatantly obvious that the way you got phrases like "DFI® with dual 32mm throttle bodies" and "Sleeveless T-Treatment Plated Die Cast Aluminum" is by going to http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/product-specifications.aspx?id=717&scid=6 and hitting CTRL-C... CTRL-V. Copy... paste. Copy... paste. Besides being a blatant copyright violation that will get you blocked from editing if you do it again, it is pure marketing bullshit. Uni-Trak®? Please. Everybody pretends they've patented a totally unique rear suspension, but Wikipedia does not need to swallow it and vomit it back to unsuspecting readers. What the hell is "T-Treatment"? "DFI®?" "TCBI"? Marketing, marketing, marketing. Is TCBI anything like TCBY? Is the fact that they use NGK spark plugs of any consequence whatsoever? I read The reviews at the Daily Telegraph, Cycle World, and Motorcycle Consumer News. Nobody went "oooh, stop the presses, NGK plugs!"

Wikipedia articles call a spade a spade and don't parrot press releases and marketing noise. Facts. We want fact, not hype. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Rahr

I see you put an outdated tag on this article. Is there something new about Stewart Rahr that I don't know about? Seems he's pretty much been doing the same old stuff as when the article was written (not so, so, long ago). --Ravpapa (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see several dated claims there such as record home price and Nth richest person in the world in 2011. It's almost 2013 now. At the least these should use the {{As of}} disclaimer. Brianhe (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah - quite right. Will try to check it out. tnx --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, news reports of increasingly erratic behavior.[3][4] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing template

Hi Dennis Bratland, do you know how to edit the "Discovery Channel's Biker Build-Off" template that I see at the bottom of the any article on bike builders that fall under this umbrella? I noticed that one of the names is misspelled. Paul Yaffee should only have one e in his surname. By the way, I often come across your work on motorcycle related content on Wikipedia and for what it's worth I appreciate it. Thanks. Evenrød (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! You can edit the template at Template:Biker Build-Off. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And even better considering that you were able to decipher the semiliterate scrawl of that first sentence question I posed to you. Evenrød (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)