Misplaced Pages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Honda

Thanks for catching the infobox going missing. I was trying to revert a spate of vandals that kept hitting and apparently didn't realize the infobox had disappeared. All best. --Manway 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

KTM

Thanks very much for notifying me personally about your reversion to the KTM talk page. I'm doing my best to research talk page edits as you ,essaged me. I've asked a question here to hopefully get me, and others squared away with regard to modifying talk pages when they just plain suck.

I'd also love to get your opinion on the specific section on the KTM talk page called Talk:KTM#KTM_ownership - from my point of view, it's completely irrelevant and has absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages. It's closer to a YouTube comment rant than anything else I can think of. That was the focus of my edit, but I probably got a little overzealous in trying to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The talk page comment was made on July 2, 2008, over six years ago. No further replies have been added by anyone since then, so it's rather difficult to imagine how the off-topic comment is disruptive. If someone added something like that today, I'd probably remove it. But for now I'd let sleeping dogs lie. I'll add an automated talk page archive to Talk:KTM with the default parameters. When the page grows large enough, the oldest threads will be automatically copied over to an archive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was under the impression that off-topic comments need not be ulteriorly disruptive. The mere fact that it's taking up space is enough reason for me to remove it in some way (archival at a minimum) based on the refactoring guidelines, specifically "Removal of off-topic, uncivil" Anyway, I don't really care much, but I've been wondering about the talk page clean up process for quite a while, and your actions helped me get a much better understanding of it. Thanks again! Sudopeople (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kawasaki Triples

I don't understand why you sent me that message regarding changes you make to the page. I didn't write the part you deleted and you let stand the resent deletions I made.

You sent me a welcome message, despite an editing history that goes back to 2006. I know what original research is and I have written no original research on that page. In fact, I've written nothing on the page at all. I did 2 deletions.

If you made your deletion because you consider what you deleted to be original research and you decided you needed to make comment about it, it would have been a better idea to send the message to the person that wrote what you deleted, not the person who just happened to have make the last couple of deletions.

What am I missing? Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The article said "...the H2 became the undisputed king of the streets, even beating legendary muscle cars of the era such as the Plymouth Hemi Cuda.". You removed the maintenance tag and your reason was "you know what it means from the rest of the sentence. It was the drive-in match up street drag racing era. I never lost a race in on my H1 or my H2, car or motorcycle." So you decided the extraordinary claim could stand without citation based on your personal recollection. That's original research -- the justification for your edit was unpublished, unverifiable observation by the editor, yourself. Since this has been tagged for more than two years, the more appropriate action was to delete it and the other unsourced opinions expressed in the article.

Original research isn't only adding content to an article. Removing a tag for unverifiable reasons also violates WP:NOR. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jackhammer111 The "welcome to wikipedia" bit is boilerplate text from the user warning message, I'm surprised someone who's been a contributor as long as you have been didn't recognize it. We often use boilerplate messages in order to not inadvertently offend people with a terse or ill-thought reply. — Brianhe (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm not new to wiki the message came off as terse and ill considered. You deleted a pretty fair amount of material I had nothing to do with. I guess admonishing me was easier than find who wrote what you deleted. I'd expect someone with your experience would have little trouble find out who wrote what you consider original material.

And to be clear, when you say " So you decided the extraordinary claim could stand without citation based on your personal recollection.", you have it completely wrong. I did no such thing. I simply removed the tag "clarify|reason". I said "you know what it means from the rest of the sentence." I contend, still, that if you just read the rest of the sentence the meaning is clear and the tag is annoyingly and petty. It wasn't a citation needed tag related to needing verification of the claim, it was a citation claiming the meaning of king of the streets needed explanation. The idea that I'm responsible for the content because I deleted a tag and left the content is an error in judgement I'd expect from someone with far less experience here than you have. I was not judging the claim that it was the king of the streets, although I know for fact it was, i was saying to tag that phrase "king of the streets" for meaning we absurd and needless. I could easily remove the stuff about my personal experience and it wouldn't change what I said about the rest of the sentence making clear what it meant.

In fact, what you claim as an extraordinary claim is not. It is not only fact, it is one of the most important facts about the Kawasaki triple story. If you doubted it all you had to do was google Kawasaki H2. Motorcycles can drag race on the street nearly as fast as they can on the strip. Because of inconsistencies in street asphalt, cars can not. Cars that may have drag strip races could not on the streets. It is fact and if you went around wikipedia deleting everything you personally claim is extraordinary and not documented you wouldn't have much left. If you want dispute what is written there you should have taken it up with the person that put it there. You overreacted to me writing personal experience in the summary. People involved in street racing at the time knew or came to know the H2 couldn't be beat, with street racing being what it is it is hard to find an acceptable reference in the same manner as finding it's quarter mile test times on a drag strip.

I also have a problem with you removing parts that are in fact true and leaving behind a slew of citation needed tags where the parts being tagged are not true, like breaker points being more reliable that CDI ingnition when CDI is virtually maintenance fee.

There is also a page on the H-2 in particular that makes the same king of the streets line is present with no verify citation and the same 12.0 quarter mile speed with a book as reference so I intend to rewrite the H2 part of the page with refs from the H2 wiki page and what ever else I find.

Also, there is a gross overuse of citation needed tags on this page.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say that if there if it is so easy to Google so much verifiable evidence that the bike was the "king of the streets", then it would have taken you far less time and effort to cite the fact than to write the above half dozen+ paragraphs, over 700 word argument you've presented so far on this topic. Why argue when you can cite? Here again you've re-added that it was the "king of the streets", complete with quotation marks. Whom are you quoting?

I don't know why you think you get special treatment for having edited for X number of years. If you add peacock statements to articles without citations, expect to be treated like a novice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

i made my argument. looks like you've chosen to ignore it. and i just spent my afternoon reading and writing here trying to satisfy YOU. lease read again what I wrote to you in the first place so I don't have to write that 700 words again trying to get it through your head. and why did you re write the other things i added without explanation?

I say again, not every single thing on wiki gets a ref. it would be totally unwieldly. I disagree you on the importance of deleting that section and I will continue putting it back just like i'm putting back the other things I wrote that have nothing to do with sources. I'm not hear to please you with my writing style.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember WP:3RR. Edit warring can get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you THINK you are but why is it ME getting accused of edit warring and not you. This whole thing started with my simply removing a citation/reason tag. you come after me accusing me of original research, wrongly, the go to reverting everything i post on that page.

It is YOU that has gone to war over "king of the streets" and you've not conducted yourself in a respectful matter. I think you are being flip about something I've spent the day on.

You still haven't acknowledged that you wrongly accused me of being responsible for the king of the streets part because I removed a tag instead of deleting it. The only thing i had a problem with was the idea that the meaning of the phase needed explaining.

Last I checked, and I've been around here. My opinion matters as much as yours. I have not history of any kind of vandalism or disruptive behavior here I do NOT recognize you that is in a position of authority here.

I'm putting it back. YOU take it to the talk page if you want to make a case that it's important enough to change.

and the other rewriting I consider to be an insult to the time and effort I put in today trying to fix things.

I see from your talk page I'm not the only one accusing you of being non nonchalant about deleting what others have written.

Checking further, I have a lot more experience at this than you do. I've NEVER been a accused of edit war. You have. I did very little copying from my source material. You have a problem with my sentence structure, address that with me, or try a rewrite that keeps the spirit of what was written. what you do NOT do is delete it.

You've been condescending, accused me of being a vandal, threaten to have me blocked from editing and generally acted like you have authority that you don't have.

I don't react well to threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

some thing or things you have deleted contained references to what you deleted or are now as for citation. this has do stop. I'm trying to fix some references and you keep changing the page.

Look, I written to you at lenght and you blow me off and continue you rollbacks and arbritary deletions. I'm done with you. Do what you think you have to do. I'd be glad to have some neutral party look at this. but you will cease deleting my work until then.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Kawasaki triple, you may be blocked from editing. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat that if you an cite a source that verifies that the bike was actually the "king of the streets" and actually was faster than any other bike or car, then all your problems are solved. There's no need for any of this. Just get the source, and cite it. Bam! Problem over. There's also a number of other good sources listed at the bottom of the article. Extracting facts from those and citing them would be a productive thing to do. All this ALL CAPS shouting and exclamation points is not productive.

Please not the reason give by the administrator in the protection log: "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". Re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced material is likely to trigger page protection being resumed after it expires. What to do? Cite. Cite. Cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me Dennis like we're the only dogs in this fight. We, plus whatever admin you went crying to when I wouldn't just lay down for you. My time here has been so squeaky clean I don't even know HOW to do that, you evidently relish in it. I have no interest covering my personal page with banners.

We could really use a neutral part here, and I don't see one appear, so now I have to decide whether my limited time is best spent going through Misplaced Pages pages look for what's there about dispute resolution, or what I'd rather do which is research and read. But I'd rather have help here because i don't want do this as though it's YOU I need to satisfy and if I don't, well you've proven your better at throwing your weight around. It's not a skill set I really want to learn for myself.

And now you admonish me again like I'm some dimwitted dullard because I occasionally write a word in all caps instead of fooling with the html to bold it or whatever. I don't know who you think you are. Your words don't come to us from on high. I'm not here to serve your tender sensibilities. I don't write sentences or paragraphs of cap locks. If i do it occasionally to create emphasis and I don't want to fool with coding, it's really none of your business. Get OVER it.

This is just more of the same arrogant "i can't possibly have done anything wrong" attitude that you've had from your very first contact with me.

I'm saying for the umpteenth time all I had done is remove a tag that nobody is arguing should go back and then you created this situation by making a deleting a claim not controversial and had been there unchallenged for a long time. And instead of finding the person that put it there in the first place you came at me acting as though I just fell off the turnip truck and admonished me as though I was responsible for it being there in the first place. I was not and it didn't BECOME my responsibility just because i left it there when removing an unseeded and cluttering tag. It's not a controversial claim, the phrase is used in many many places on the net, none of which would probably be a proper source, but repeated ad nauseam. I know it's true enough to be there, nobody but you thinks it's important enough to remove and I didn't think your opinion on the matter was more important than the person that put it there combined with the thousands that have read it, left it there, without comment or controversy on the talk page. Plus, the same phrase is on the Kawasaki H2 page, which AGAIN I mentioned before. You don't seem to be dying to go there and change it, yet when i put it back you had to try and intimidate me with block threats, and worse yet, when I write and document that it was the best performing bike of it's contemporaries instead of correcting links, spelling and grammar you decide in your endless arrogance that you should totally rewrite the actual content I added, plus you make multiple changes in the same edit, changing back performance data that I had changed and documented making the process of fixing the things you screwed over so time consuming to change individually i decided to revert the page, and go back to work fixing it. But you had must have been right over the key board because you immediately unreverted my revert, sent me a fresh round of threats and went running to the administrators that I was vandalizing the page. It was you that had become disruptive, but you know better than I to make accusations so you got to complain about me before I could complain about you.

You started this mess and your attitude and carelessness with a commoner like me upset me. This is wikipedia. People have different levels of involvement but NOBODY'S more important than anybody else.

Yes, but it can be argued that "king of the streets" be sourced. I would hope that with all you've done trying to impose yourself on me, and seeing you did do some reteach, if you'd found it easy to source you would have instead of removing it, admonishing me, removing it again, wagging your finger at me again.. then running to tell on m.

I have already definitively documented that the H2 was the fastest accelerating bike you could buy in 72, and by easy inference 72 as well. I don't know at what point something was faster after 72.

I'll be back to add more yet tonight.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Honda CB250N/CB400N

Dear Mr Bratland You keep removing the links we are trying to put on the wiki page of the Honda CB250N/CB400N - otherwise know as the Superdream. WHY??? If you would just take a few minutes of your time to check out the link you will find it isnt spam or such - it is a forum run by very knowledgable persons specifically for these motorcycles. The wiki page in question is woefully wrong, dull and just plain innacurate. Let us add to it, correct it and make the page what it should be. Otherwise, leaving it as it is just confirms to many just how bad Misplaced Pages really is as a source of reference. If you wish to discuss this you may contact me on carl.tunnicliffe@sky.com Check out the forum - you will see we are not a bunch of nerds in our parents basements!!!! Yours - slightly annoyed, Carl Tunnicliffe Global Moderator of the UK Honda Superdream Forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.38.6 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why is in the Edit summary, and on your IP talk page. Please read the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:External links#Links normally to be avoided. We don't allow "#4 Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "#10 Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." and "#11 Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Remember Misplaced Pages is not a directory. That means it is not the function of Misplaced Pages articles to serve as a guide to finding websites. That's what a search engine is for, or a directory like DMOZ.

Note that if you continue to add these links, you will likely be blocked from editing. I am not an Administrator and I cannot block you; that is somebody else's decision. I am just conveying the warning in the hopes that you will stop before you are blocked.

You are more than welcome to expand the article Honda CB250N/CB400N and to participate in improving other motorcycling related articles. But please do so by adding facts to the article, and citing Verifiable citations to published works such as books, magazines, newspapers and authoritative websites. User-generated or crowdsourced websites normally do not meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for Reliable sources, so we don't link to them and don't cite them. So please use your other resources to expand the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review request

Hi Denis, we were discussing GA reviews the other day. The article that I have nominated for GA, Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, has been waiting for a review since June 4. Would you be willing to do a review? Please be objective in your review and apply the relevant criteria, but I would appreciate having someone review this article, even if the review says that changes are necessary. In exchange, I will offer to review a GA candidate of yours, under the same conditions, if you wish. Thanks in advance, --Pine 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's allowed: you're supposed to pick articles you're not involved with, and quid pro quo reviewing, as DYK uses, has been rejected by the GA editors, from what I can tell in Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/FAQ. I think a long wait for GA is just a fact of life: the backlog is huge. However, both of us could help reduce the backlog by reviewing older articles, which would move yours further up in the queue. If I'm being too cautious and it is actually allowed for me to review the article at your request, then I'd be happy to do so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm. We're not involved in authoring each other's articles, and in DYK quid pro quo means, as far as I can tell, that users are allowed and in some cases required to cross-check each other's proposed work, although not necessarily on a one to one basis. I checked the policy on canvassing and that doesn't seem to prohibit people from cross-checking nominations either. However, out of an abundance of caution, I'll check over on a GA talk page. --Pine 06:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• A response has been posted at Misplaced Pages talk:GAN near the bottom of the page. --Pine 00:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, OK. I don't know how long it will take me to do the review, but I'll try. Brianhe has has nominated Honda Super Cub, so it's in the queue. I might have another article ready to nominate in the near future. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you remove that edit I made? It IS correct information, and you practically outdated it. The Bugatti Veryon Super Sport is NOT the fastest car anymore. If you actually heard, the Hennessey Venom GT shattered that record with 270 mph. Complete bullcrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animatory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason is right there in the article. Did you read it? It is also discussed at length on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Caitlin Doughty

Hello! Your submission of Caitlin Doughty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kawasaki triple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liquid-cooled. 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) 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Lindy West Biography Page, October 22, 2014

You removed today's edit claiming that reliable sources were not cited. However, the primary cited source for the added information was Lindy West's own public website, which per Misplaced Pages policy is a valid source for bio page purposes. From the guidelines you linked to: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." The information provided is not something "I thought I read on a blog", as you put in the talk page. Also, it is unclear how the edits constitute instruction regarding "what people ought to think."

Accordingly, I have restored the added material.

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 3.25<ref name=MCNSpeedTriple>[2006 Triumph Speed Triple SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the messages you leave. kokododo I want to ask about the external link. why would you remove it? I added the link for the theme that corresponds to a page in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokododo (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You are using Misplaced Pages for advertising. Please stop. The guideline is explained in Links normally to be avoided --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello, Dennis. I saw your reports at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism on the IP addresses 70.193.147.142 and 70.193.139.150, and I blocked those IP addresses. Unfortunately, a range block is not possible, as there are many perfectly constructive edits from other editors using the same IP range, so it will just have to be a question of blocking each IP address as it comes up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Caitlin Doughty

On 31 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caitlin Doughty, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Caitlin Doughty (pictured), whose web series Ask a Mortician humorously explores death, wrote the 2014 bestseller Smoke Gets in Your Eyes & Other Lessons from the Crematory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caitlin Doughty. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Halloween 2014 Limited Edition Barnstar
		For your dedicated work on this year's Halloween on Misplaced Pages at DYK. Well done. ≈ Victuallers (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Super Cub review

I'm done for the night, if you want to go fix the remaining GA issues. Brianhe (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of inventions

Hi Dennis, hope you're all well. While I understand this concerning a blocked user, is there any reason to delete the actual content? I think it could be a starting point to extend the article. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason is found in WP:EVASION. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but now what? We're not allowed to restore the content? I don't really get that. It's supposed to be a free encyclopedia. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You can add your own content on its own merits. If you know it's valid, then add it in your own name. Europefan's edits are not kept, and are assumed to be unreliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have a choice: WP:DENY this trolling sock (an editor already banned at the German WP for trolling) or under some narrow provisions of WP:EVADE you can take responsibility for their edits, should you choose to restore them. It's entirely up to you – as a GF editor here yourself, you have that right. However I would warn you that engagement with this troll has so far been "unrewarding" and also that much of what they post is biased and simply wrong. In the beginning, I too tried to engage with this troll and judge each edit on its merits - no more though: they don't deserve it, so let's blanket DENY them and starve them out. Does this reduce WP? No. We have plenty of content already, we also have plenty that's missing. Yes, these additions are a small positive contribution (albeit hiding under a few layers of negative). However they also bring substantial negatives in simply dealing with this troll. That means time lost to people who could instead be doing something useful, and very likely more useful than this.

It's up to you – but I don't think there's anything to be gained by supporting this person. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I never look at a project or article to support single people/editors, I just don't care for them. I only care for content and if it's correct and adheres to WP principles, it has a place. I'll look into that more thoroughly later. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ducati 1199 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a larger displacement {{Convert|1285|cc|abbr=on}} '''1299 Panigale''' for the 2015 model year.<ref>[http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/11/03/2015-ducati-1299-panigale-sportbike-motorcycle-review-first-
• out 205 horsepower! |date=November 3, 2014 |first= Bruno |last= dePrato |magazine=] }}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your posts on my talk page

I consider your continued postings on my talk page to be harassment. Now that you know this, if you make one more post on it I will take action against you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody else considers the warnings you've received for personal attacks to be harassment. They're a necessary step leading up to more serious sanctions. I hope you can comment on content, not contributors. If you can somehow find a way to do that, this drama is avoidable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I probably have to make quite clear what my post means to you. Now that you know my opinion, if you continue to make ANY posts on my talk page, other than REQUIRED messages (such as an AfD message if it is an article I created, etc.), then you WILL be committing harassment. And you comment on content on article talk pages, not on editor's talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Adopting a German troll and sponsoring their edits simply to spite Dennis is one of the more self-destructive means of argument I've seen used at WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently, adopting a troll (I like that expression BTW) and the "no harassment" response to engagement is becoming a thing for him. - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)