Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bridge Boy (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 30 June 2012 (→Dennis Bratland: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TUSC token 647d25d87e0c5f94f00c4735d89f90d1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Biker Biker (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Dean

Biker Biker,

Jeff Dean has now removed his name from the list of members on the BMW Group page and I can't help but think that this is a great loss for the group. He's is clearly a very knowledgeable guy with regards to BMW (as you can see from his website http://bmwdean.com/) and no matter what issues you have with him regarding copyiright and otherwise he has knowledge which we need. I am sure that with a little Misplaced Pages modification (from people like myself) he can be a very useful and productive member of the team. Please can you try and pacify this grudge which he believes you have for him so that he can come back and help us with our cause. This project will never succeed if we are just scaring experts away from it through countless edit removal and criticism.

Many thanks.

DAFMM (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff dean/Archive? After a long period of being blocked for disruptive behaviour, running multiple accounts, and repeatedly spamming his own website, Jeff was given a permanent block. Some time later he appealed and was given leave to return to Misplaced Pages under a strict set of conditions, one of which involved no links to his own websites. That has clearly been forgotten.

As for scaring away experts that is far from the case. But do be reminded that you don't need to be an expert to contribute to Misplaced Pages, instead you need to be an enthusiast who is willing to find reliable sources to back up information that is written in a neutral point of view. Experts do have a role to play but anything that is simply based on their own (probably vast) knowledge is considered to be original research and is worth the square root of stuff all if it isn't backed up by references. None of the links that I removed from the SIG page, one of which included Jeff's own, are considered as reliable sources; most of them are businesses that do work on older or current BMWs and they have no place on Misplaced Pages (WP:SPAM / WP:ELNO). To reiterate, anyone is welcome to contribute, regardless of who they are or what they know, as long as they follow the rules. If they don't like it then I refer them to my earlier comments about Wikia, which is an excellent platform for enthusiasts and self-proclaimed experts to build anything that they wish. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever his previous disputes with Misplaced Pages, he is still very knowledgeable about BMWs and his past does not detract from this. I would just like to pose one question, and that is, if you discredit this 'original research' so much, why don't you prove it wrong?

Anyway, going back to the idea of edit removal, that still does not explain why you removed BMBikes (my link) from the list. For this was not one amateur (for he was quoting BMW sources as is obvious from the pages on there). So why is its use frowned upon? DAFMM (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whether or not an editor "discredits" any other editor's original research, the fact of the matter is that OR is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Not in main space articles, and not in Wikiproject groups. As a rule-following Misplaced Pages editor, Biker, or any other editor, has no choice but to remove OR where he/she sees it. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I would argue that it is not 'OR' completely. Even though it is not a published source by BMW Motorrad (which itself has problems with reliability), it is not just a product of one enthusiasts unverifed 'beliefs' on a topic. DAFMM (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please see the External Links discussion on the Group's talk page as to why some of their information can be considered untrustworthy. Thanks.

This has drifted away from the original topic of a troublesome editor flouncing off with a hissy fit. The links discussion is best carried on at the SIG talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Atleast I don't hide behind a cloak of (yes, permissible) anonymity. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland

No, that is not a personal attack. Don't be silly.

It is a fair, polite and well measure documentation of what is going on. "Personal attacks" are quite different.

But then, I see you are playing the same game to some degree by ratting to the admins, so I guess that is why you won't like it pointed out in public. And why you are keen to try and discredit me.

BTW, do you see that despite our difference, Dennis actually accepts and agrees with my position, and the entire stupid and wasteful conflict caused by SamBlob was unnecessary.

I was right. I knew I was right. I was able to prove I was right according to the policies and that is what matters most to me, the quality of the content, and to the greater benefit of this website. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)