User talk:Salty Batter

Welcome!

Hello, Salty Batter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A beer for you!

Great work on the Harley-Davidson Riders Club Great Britain article. Cheers Theroadislong (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Batter, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Salty Batter! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to The Wild One does not have an edit summary.

I think it might help if you go to Talk:The Wild One and explain what your intentions are. At the very least, give an edit summary to explain your changes. Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on The Wild One have been reverted more than once by more than one editor. Nobody can figure out what your intentions are. Would you please go to Talk:The Wild One and explain what the point of your changes is? Reverting over and over doesn't constitute an argument. What I and the other editor are perceiving is that your changes are inconsistent with the majority of high quality sources, and you haven't presented sources to justify the shift in tone of the article. The place to make your case is at Talk:The Wild One. Adding the same changes over and over is just edit warring and it doesn't lead to anything productive. Please use the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squid and hooligan

I noticed you removed Squid (motorcycle) and Motorcycle hooliganism from {{Biker culture}}. Was this intentional? — Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Friendly Word of Advice

Things seem to be coming a bit heated at the Wild One article. As you are new, you may not be aware of the "three revert rule" WP:3RR. Should you perform three reverts in the same article within 24 hours, even if it is different information, you will most likely be referred to an administrative board for violation of the three revert rule and could lose your ability to edit for a period of time. It is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with that rule, and adhere to it, because it is enforced with regularity on the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Wild One. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two more reverts, [1] and [2], less than one hour apart. In the midst of a discussion of the merits of the edit. I would advise you to please stop reverting and wait until the discussion reaches a consensus. Please take note of the fact that there are at least 3 editors who disagree with you, and you have convinced zero editors that your point has merit. Reverting again and again will only serve to get you blocked from editing. Please stop and work this out on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biker gangs

Just to clarify, maybe we can avoid future problematic editing, do you object to the term "biker gang" in all cases? Is the term itself a problem? — Brianhe (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

Please be careful at The Wild One, you are on the threshold of breaking the three-revert rule there again. It is better to reach consensus on the talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that although this establishes a bright line, continual reversion of other editors at The Wild One will be perceived as edit warring. Further abuse will be brought to admins' attention. — Brianhe (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Salty_Batter reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: ). Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Wild One. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Salty Batter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The content, references and general tidying up I added were non-controversial and improved the topic. From here [3] to here [4]. Salty Batter (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not mentioning that, included with your "general tidying up" you also re-inserted controversial and disputed changes within the same edit. You completely fail to mention that. If you want your "general tidying up" changes to stand, don't include them in the same edit where you re-insert disputed edits. It is unreasonable to expect editors to continually have to perform weeding on your edits... separating the "tidying up" parts from your against-concensus and disruptive re-insertion of contested text. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the fact that Salty seems to not understand why he has been issued a 48 hour break does not bode well. Typicaly, an editor requesting their ban be lifted shows some understanding of why it happened, and says why it will not occur in the future, but in this case, I see nothing but defiance and I'm going to go ahead and predict more of the same once the 48 hours has elapsed. Marteau (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear and specific here. What you are referring to are merely two or three places where the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club is referred to as a gang rather than more simply as the club. What is happening is a defiant total deletion or reversion of all my contribution and new references.

Why would you do that if not just to deliberately provoke a situation like this? --Salty Batter (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my edits, I suggest you follow the dispute resolution processes this encyclopedia has to offer. I am done humoring you. Marteau (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Salty Batter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is absolute bullshit. I have nothing to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WyrmUK etc. Save yourself lecturing me about the right way to appeal, you have zero evidence to prove this as there is zero evidence of it happening, as I am not him. The only connection is that I used the Triumph Owners Club page as a template as they are another old British motorcycle club. Salty Batter (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The user you mention isn't blocked, while you are blocked as a sock of Bridge Boy (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Orphaned non-free image File:Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]