Talk:Bandidos Motorcycle Club/Archive 1

message: This article needs to more agressively point out the extensive illegal activity that this gang participates in.
:I agree. Jonas Liljeström 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed it does. From the looks of this article, this gang of thugs does nothing more than deliver stuffed toys to crippled children. Proxy User 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confused with some other topic...perhaps the Boy Scouts of America. The article makes no mention of delivering toys. BTW, doing so is often called a "toy run". I know of many clubs the engage in these types of socially beneficial activities. If you know of a Bandidos chapter that has participated, please do add this information to the article. War 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article tries to be about the club as a whole. It just like the article on the Catholic Church or the article about the Police emphasized the organization as a whole rather than the the countless illegal activities perpetrated by it's members.War 07:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal activity

message: I reverted the change in category from Motorcycle Club to Motorcycle Gang.  The Bandidos are, in fact, a motorcycle club.  The term motorcycle gang has no concensus definition.  Mmoyer 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a great deal of innuendo in this article and we certainly welcome the presence of a subject matter expert to help.  Can you itemize your issues here on the talk page?  We can address them together in a way that conforms to Wikipedia standards (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).  Meanwhile, I am going to tag a number of statements as unsourced. Mmoyer 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the facts as to the nature of the Bandidos as documented in the press and elsewhere strongly contradict your characterization of the Bandidos as some benevolent club. Of course, the Mafia claims the same thing... WiccaWeb 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The press and other sources represents one-sided point of view. The press never hears about the disciplinary actions taken by the club on members that break the rules. All you (the public) see is a single side. The other side does not get published. Individuals like Bandidoperv are invaluable for contributing a point of view that is usually absent.War 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gang vs.Club 

message: I have researched numerous news accounts of this incident. Based on what is verifiable, I have rewritten the account of the incident in as neutral terms as possible, citing references.  I removed the statements about surveillance and "afront" to the Hells Angels, neither which could not be verified. I did, however, include the speculative comment from the police about motive, attributed as such.  Comments??  Mmoyer 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eureka Incident 

message: The POV tags were removed because there has not been a specific list of POV issues itemized on the talk page, just general statements like:
*"this gang of thugs does nothing more than deliver stuffed toys to crippled children"
*"Bandidos don't stray far from that tree, their own public record simply don't support your flowery view"
*"you insist in filling this article with POV Bias"
*"a fictional description that ignores documented activities"
The tag can be replaced any time a list of concrete issues is provided, per NPOV Dispute. Mmoyer 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article suffers from POV. 75.172.38.233 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't get angry. All Mmoyer was saying is that the article has no visible bias. Please do not engage in an edit war until this is resolved on this talk page. Thank you. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're jumping the gun there. That Mmoyer if fine with the article does not mean that everyone it. In fact, the neutrality of this article IS TILL IN DISPUTE. POV tag stays. 75.172.38.233 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is? Please explain the reasons, pointing out which sections of the article is POV'd. Quote the article, and explain why that which you quote is POV'd. Otherwise, please stop replacing the tags. Gscshoyru 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag was removed due to the lack of bias in the article. If you want to reinstate the POV tag, present some actual evidence of POV (quote a passage that is biased, for example). Just don't edit war or your account will be blocked. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that there is a lack of bias in the article. Thus there is a POV dispute. Thus the POV tag is appropriate. Removal of the POV tag is VANDALISM. Please stop, or I will make a formal complaint against YOU. 75.172.38.233 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dispute it, then show evidence, please! Otherwise we don't know why you think it's POV'd. If you would explain yourself, then we might be able to discuss and fix the issues, ok? Please explain, and once you do, then you can put the POV tags on, ok? Gscshoyru 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested admin intervention. And please stop reverting the main article until you can back up your claim. Thanks. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. But is policy to remove them when there is no POV issue. Or at least, when no one but the placer knows what the issue is, because he refuses to explain it. Gscshoyru 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't explained the issue? You're being very selective in how you read things (perhaps a sign of bias?) In other words, what you are saying is it's your policy not to allow content in your article that you disagree with, and you don't consider that POV. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.  When Wikipedia awards editors ownership of articles, do they issue a nice certificate? Proxy User 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not what's meant at all. I'm saying that whatever content that has been removed has been removing has probably been removed because of WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedians in general do not allow material that violates these policies in any article. Us reverting content in this instance is probably just a specific example of a specific wikipedian applying policy to a specific article. However, this conversation is purely academic. Why? Because you still have yet to provide a single diff that corroborates your statement that we're not allowing certain content in this article. So I have to guess what you're talking about, since I don't have the slightest of clues. What is your evidence of this? Please show us. Because currently all you're saying is that the article is POV -- and you're not stating why. Please give evidence that the article is POV'd. You've stated that both of us are preventing certain content from being in the article. Please give us evidence of this. Otherwise, your argument has no facts to back it up, and therefore is completely invalid. So unless you give evidence for your unsupported statements, they will be ignored. Gscshoyru 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FBI and the News Media are not "reliable" and "verifiable" sources to you? Than who are? You spout this rule and that, but your application of them is improper. Flat out improper. Shows bias. POV. Proxy User 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I said the conversation was academic. Show me an example of someone removing content that sites that from the article; please show us a diff. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags removed 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Bandidos Motorcycle Club's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto2":
From Devil's Disciples Motorcycle Club (Canada): 
From List of outlaw motorcycle clubs: 
From Walter Stadnick: 
From Rock Machine Motorcycle Club: 
From D.C. Blacks: 
From Organized crime in London, Ontario: 
From Luppino crime family: 
From Fresno Bulldogs: 
From List of gangs in Canada: 
From Organised crime in Australia: 
From The Irish Times: 
From List of outlaw motorcycle club conflicts: Gangs and crime Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand
From List of Bandidos MC support clubs: https://www.gdp.de/gdp/gdpber.nsf/id/DE_FA-Krimbek/$file/Vortrag%20Rocker%20GdP.pdf 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Bandidos Motorcycle Club]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103053932/http://www.rockmachine.ca/history.php to http://www.rockmachine.ca/history.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719010607/http://www.echo-muenster.de/node/8459 to http://www.echo-muenster.de/node/8459
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020826/http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2002/10/29/Features/Bikers.Bill.C95.Drugs.And.Mom-308861.shtml to http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2002/10/29/Features/Bikers.Bill.C95.Drugs.And.Mom-308861.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: gentlemen: i need a louisiana contact - small task - cell 210 863 5886 - please contact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.216.230 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana  contact 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613225907/http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=d3c0d6cc-d2be-483a-9424-f4b66f13a623 to http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=d3c0d6cc-d2be-483a-9424-f4b66f13a623
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified