User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 11

Dennis: Noting your interest in Chinese manufacturers, I thought you might want to have a look at this. Template:Motorcycle manufacturers of the People's Republic of China might have a couple of entries that refer to defunct companies -- Flyscooters and Vento. I'm not able to confirm their status, thought you might know something about it. — Brianhe (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Flyscooters is definitely defunct. Their marketing people created an elaborate set of web pages far out of proportion with the small scale of their startup. Now we're left with a lot of words about next to nothing. Vento I don't know much about, although from the article they were different than Flyscooters: Vento seems to have done their assembly in the US, while Flyscooters was just an importer.

I'd delete both from the template -- even before going under, they were miniscule in importance compared to the other articles. Might want to merge both articles into something else in the future; an overview page of some kind, History of Chinese motorcycles, perhaps. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed the two discussed above from the template. I created a subcategory Category:Defunct motorcycle manufacturers of China for now. — Brianhe (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brembo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aftermarket

Intercooler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cooling

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a definition for what belongs in Category:Motorcyclists organizations‎ versus Category:Motorcycle clubs‎? I thought we had this discussion before, but couldn't find it in the WPMC archives. We should probably put a header on Category:Motorcyclists organizations‎ to explain and help keep cruft out. — Brianhe (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no definition I've ever seen. I think they're just put there to satisfy somebody's idea of US-centric, biker gang-centric political correctness. Category:Motorcyclists organizations and Category:Motorcycle owners' groups‎ should be merged into Category:Motorcycle clubs. It makes sense to keep Motorcycle racing organizations‎ in a category and maybe Motorcycle safety organizations‎, but the other distinctions are arbitrary and obscure. I've been intending to propose a merge at WP:CfD one of these days. It has been discussed at Talk:Patriot Guard Riders, which is where a lot of the infighting over the tortured definition of different groups has been. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Phew, I just read the discussions, what a headache. However I'm not sure how something like FIM would fit into the definition of a "motorcycle club", maybe there should be a (new) separate category for sanctioning bodies, safety foundations, educational foundations, and whatnot? If there was only one category I'd recommend using the neutral Category:Motorcyclists organizations. — Brianhe (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FIM is mainly a motorsport body right? So that's where it goes. I guess there's groups that people join, and groups that groups or companies join, but not people. That's probably the distinction that matters most. (Another CfD would be to replace all the instances of "racing" with motorsport or sport, since not all motorcycle sports are in the form of a race.) I'd like to have strong consensus from editors outside the motorcycling project so the issue can be put to rest for good long time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits to Maruti 800, Ford Fiesta, Suzuki Wagon R, Toyota Innova, Suzuki Alto, and probably many more (I don't have the energy to check your contributions page for everything good you did). It is sad that all articles dealing with cars available in the Indian subcontinent are subject to soooo much nonsense, advertising, and POV pushing. I appreciate your alert eyes on these article, they allow me to sleep soundly at night. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I think that maybe some of the anti-"SAE (gross)" rant could remain (he's largely right, just not aware of how to source/word an article). But that can always happen later.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The horsepower issue annoys me a lot. There have been many editors who want to rail against the inaccuracy of power measurement, and explain the "truth" about horsepower. I too think they're mostly right. But none of them, even industry experts like Marc Salvisberg, have been able to come up with sources. So you end up with Wikipedia articles that look like one angry guy soapboxing against a great conspiracy. It doesn't do readers a service to give them that without sources to go with it. One of the reasons I merged some testing articles together to make Motorcycle testing and measurement was to explain the process, and the flaws, of testing in one place. But sources, so far, are few and far between on this subject. It would be a great coup to find a couple sober and comprehensive books on the history and current state of horsepower testing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bratland would you please respect the efford other people does to contribute to Wikipidia. It is frustration to spend time doing a thorrow piece of work, and some 'pope' like you just wipe it with the remark: "...in most cases wrong". I actually checked and recheck my facts. I added two items in the list - which I knew from memory. The other examples I knew from memory was ok as well, and you just wipe them all out of igorance and personal preferences about the scope of this article. Actions like yours is the very reason I never contribute to Wikipedia with money.

If there is something in article that do not belong there, could you please consider toning down to signaficanse of what you do not like by ADDING or elaborating what you feels is significant instead of being destructive. You alone can not decide that a public media section (which is a VERY common thing in Wikipeda) is irrelevant in a article, when the majority (including me) does think it is relevant.

BR: Henrik Hansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.61.80 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Bratland, why don't you admit it - you want to enforce a de facto ownership of this article. Pope = tyrant !

It is action like yours which makes it an ungrateful experience to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.61.80 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope does not mean tyrant.

If you have sources to verify your edits, cite them. If you don't have good sources, then you have to wait until you find them. We have time.

The only verifiable fact in that list was that the Perfecto was in The Wild One, already mentioned twice earlier in the article. The others are just jackets that you think look like the Perfecto. It is not a copyrighted design and there are many versions from other brands, most famously the Langlitz Columbia. The jacket from the Terminator was probably Italian, not from New York.

Please stop insulting other editors or you can be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Douglas Dragonfly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girling (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) 11:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi you edited out Hitler in a Mercedes-Benz, but I'm a little confused because there is still an image of the Pope in a "popemobile". Why is one allowed and the other not? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arigoldberg (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove your edit from Mercedes-Benz. User Barek (talk · contribs) did that. I haven't edited Mercedes-Benz for weeks and I have no plans to do so. The biased nature of your editing is so obvious that anybody, me, Barek, and others, can see it. It's possible to have balanced and complete coverage of a subject without trying to make a point. Stick to plain facts and to mainstream, well-established sources. I recommend carefully reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Expanding the coverage of Nazi connections and collaboration is a perfectly fine thing to do as long as you focus on facts and have a sense of proportion. If you are editing Wikipedia because you are on a crusade; that is, you have a long-term goal of pushing a specific agenda, rather than the general goal of making a better encyclopedia, you will likely be accused of Tendentious editing which can lead to being blocked from editing. Again, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and decide for yourself if you think your edits are neutral or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Honda Super Cub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheel bearing (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) 10:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To take exception to editing within the article relative to Wikipedia standards (e.g., by writing in the comment line, "rmv synth and original research," is not quite the same thing as to "make accusations." Please note the statement editors agree to with every single edit, just below the comment line: "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Also, regarding your direction for others to refrain from editing an article (while you continue to edit, interestingly) is problematic: please review ownership guidelines, specifically about discouraging others from editing an article. That said, there is no requirement that an article be static for DYK approval. Thanks. 842U (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you not to edit the article. Your additions to the Licensed models section were quite helpful, if uncited and not entirely grammatical, sorry to say. I was only asking you to keep edits to major important issues and not edit war over things that are not of vital importance in the big picture. Edit warring and content disputes can sink a DYK, and there is nothing so terrible about this article to justify such extreme behavior, and nothing so urgently wrong that it can't be discussed and fixed at a later time.

I've noticed on your talk page that you often offend veteran editors by speaking to them as if they were newbies. You might want to consider that this approach is not conducive to good collaboration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, before trying to control the participation of other editors, you might want to reread [[wp:ownership|ownership]. Though you have on your agenda to DYK the article; the health of the article is a greater priority. Besides which, DYK nominations often fail when the article is perceived as an advertising vehicle; which it's begun to resemble... as you yourself have noted.842U (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is news for you: I have read WP:OWN on more than one occasion. I'm sorry nobody has been able to make you understand why treating experienced editors in this manner is offensive. I tried. Others have tried. There's not much point in belaboring it if you have chosen to not get it.

The "health" of the article is not not at great risk. If it were a BLP with derogatory information, that would require immediate action. If it were making wildly false claims, that would require urgent action, perhaps. Fine tuning the tone of the article, calling into question obscure details about which showrooms Fujisawa and Honda visited in 1956 -- these things don't endanger the "health" of the article. They call for reasoned discussion, not blanket reverts and edit warring. Given that I cited good sources, it behooves you to first go read them, then begin the discussion. We have all the time in the world, you know. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On 12 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honda Super Cub, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "You meet the nicest people on a Honda" ad campaign established Honda's brand image in the US and helped the Super Cub (pictured) become the top-selling motor vehicle in history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Honda Super Cub.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ducati 1199, 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) 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This user Tuckerlogansmith (talk · contribs) seems to have a penchant for meaningless edits to motorcycle articles. A troll or just a child? I think he needs a sterner warning than the templated messages he's been getting. — Brianhe (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any difference. You just warn them that the edits are unconsructive and then report them to AIV after the third one. It doesn't really matter why they make unconstructive edits, and the wording of the templates is accessible enough that anybody capable of making a constructive edit is capable of getting the point. If age or disability or language barriers or malice prevents them from getting it, then they need to be blocked, regardless.

My personal guess is that Tuckerlogansmith's edits look clever enough that they're a troll, but again, it makes no difference. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a three year history of sporadic trolling edits is odd, I wonder if there are other sock-ish accounts. If I see another vandal edit (I see you reverted Honda Zoomer) then it's time for AIV. — Brianhe (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I saw that you removed all my contributions to Balkan motorcycles. None of the text was copied word for word and the sentences had a different structure. I wrote and researched the original article on blog.leatherup.com - how much of the information that I wrote originally on the blog should I use on the wikipedia article? To write my piece on Balkan motorcycles, I used this forum post as a source: http://www.therevcounter.com/classic-motorbikes-forum/58554-anyone-know-anything-about-balkan-motorbikes.html Should I just use them as a source or both the blog and the forum? Kalin Nacheff

It's a very close paraphrase, at best, as explained in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It seems like a very difficult task, to write one thing, copyright it, and then rewrite exactly the same thing for a CC-by-SA version. To me the task would be much easier if the version written for Wikipedia was researched and organized on a completely different basis. Speaking of which, citing yourself on your blog doesn't meet WP:RS. If your information is coming from verifiable, third party sources, you should cite those directly rather than cite yourself. If you have no third party source to cite other than yourself, then how is that any different than any random guy writing whatever he likes on his blog and then citing that on Wikipedia?

Then there is WP:COI. Posting links to your blog on Wikipedia looks a lot like self-promotion. You can avoid that issue, again, by citing third party sources. Citing Motorcycle Consumer News is what I mean -- that's exactly the way to do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is from his international driver license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.93.83 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get it?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Dennis, I am not to sure how best to contact you. I am Mick's daughter in law and don't know how to "Officially" get your page updated with very relevant detail. Perhaps you can contact me mandiemcc@hotmail.com

Many thanks Mandie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.106.245 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You must cite a source that is verifiable. That means anybody else can go to that source and read it and make sure that it says what you claim. That means you must cite a newspaper, magazine, book, or reputable edited web site for this. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is particularly strict on this point. It is impossible for me to know who you really are, and there have been many instances when some idiot used Wikipedia to spread hoax death notices. See Wikipedia:Death by Wikipedia. Can you imagine how much harm it would cause if some joker were allowed to add false death notices to biographies?

The bottom line is that the death notice must first be published in a reputable source before the Wikipedia page may be updated. Is there some problem preventing an obituary from being published? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Dennis, I understand entirely (However frustrating!). At this time we have not yet written anything for the funeral directors to publish in the local Wisbech papers, as the date/time of the funeral has yet to be decided. At this point I can reference (Or perhaps get you to????). In the meantime please do get in touch if you have any questions... or contact Mick's son Steven on his email steve_walker94@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.106.245 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dennis,

I am trying to update the section for Harry S. so that his new career direction is in there. I am not sure why this was not allowable. This is public information in terms of his new CEO position.

Thank you, AFMW (talk)AFMW —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

If this is public information then it will be easy to provide reliable third party references (see WP:RS in addition to the links on the welcome section of your talk page). If you have any problems understanding why quality sources are the heart of what Wikipedia stands for then Dennis or I would be happy to explain. You also might want to read WP:COI given your close association. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so. You need to give a source for any information about living people. It might seem perfectly innocent to relay common knowledge about Harry Slatkin, but Wikipedia has caused great harm to individuals in the past when unsourced information that was embarrassing or defamatory or just wrong was allowed to remain. See WP:BLP. So find a publication, like a company report or press release, or better yet, independent news article, that announces the personnel change, and state the title, publisher, date and author. A URL is nice, if it's on the web, but online sources are not mandatory. If unsure, ask away. Talk:Harry Slatkin is a good place to ask, or here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- I have added 2 sources into the citation. I hope that this suffices. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFMW (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to clean up the Harry Slatkin page a little. Please don't add any more marketing blather like "they are transforming Belstaff into a powerhouse lifestyle brand." Wikipedia is not a medium for publishing advertising and press releases. See WP:PEACOCK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you "come clean" and reveal your role as marketing personnel for Belstaff. Given that your previous username BelstaffMarketing (talk · contribs) was blocked, you too could face a block if you continue to push such promotional material - especially if you don't reveal your obvious conflict of interest. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

I'm a little bit unsure as to why you designated my contributions as "spam". All of the articles that I added references to had notices at the top saying "this article needs more sources". I was only trying to help in this regard. Especially on the "turbocharger" page - I added this link almost two years ago and have had no negative feedback about it.

cheers

Samurai HP (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.turbocharger-kit.com/ is a low-content aggregator that exists to generate pageviews for ads. For example, ask yourself the question, who is the author of the page http://www.turbocharger-kit.com/intercooler.html ? What is the date? No answer. Most likely they copied some boilerplate text from some other source, without permission or compensation.

Adding sources to articles is more than welcome, but they must be quality sources. In most cases, books from recognized authorities, or magazine and newspaper articles. Websites are OK if they are professionally edited sites whose authors are recognized authorities. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for specific information on what is and isn't a reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You know something Dennis, at first I thought you were a five-star-jerk for deleting my contributions. However, after reading your response, and after reading through the history on your talk page, I can only conclude that you're actually a pretty reasonable guy. Your responses are imbued with simple logic which means they are really quite helpful, especially for those that are trying to learn how this whole editing process works.

Kudos mate.

Samurai HP (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

==Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road==

+ Neil Peart, who is the drummer and lyricist for the Canadian rock band Rush, used an R1100GS for a 14 month, 55,000-mile (89,000 km) self-healing trip,^[1] which he made in the late 1990s following the deaths of his wife and only daughter.^[2]

+ The trip was documented in the book Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road.^[3]

Dennis, clearly the above text is a piece of tangetially connected trivia - see the Wikipedia guidelines on trivia - that has no place on an entry on the BMW R1100S and does not meet Wikipedia encyclopediatic criteria. If you want to preserve the information, it would be better on a seperate entry regarding either Neil Peart or the book the text mentions.

Re: You said, 'With minimal research, it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS.' You've missed the point slightly. It isn't relevent whether or not it mattered that Peart rode a R1100GS, it is relevent whether or not that information is relevent to this Wikipedia entry. And it is not.

Finally: When you say 'Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. see WP:POINT', I have to say that I do not appreciate that - without any evidence - my editing is being mischaracterised as 'prove a point' when it is not. The deletion of the text is based on an objective consideration of what Wikipedia does and does not consider trivial and non-relevent information.

Please do not misuse the 'prove a point' citation as a way of shutting down debate or blocking objective contributions. If you wish to move this editing decision to a discussion page for the inclusion of the opinion of other editors, then please do so. Thanks Rivercard (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The same text appears in BMW GS so let's make a consistent decision. Point of reference, BMW R1200GS includes references to Long Way Down which seems exactly parallel. My opinion is both articles are better with these included but I'm willing to discuss. — Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Brainhe. Are we then saying that the past or present ownership or usage of a vehicle by a famous person (or someone meeting Wikipedia 'notability' criteria) is enough to warrant it's inclusion on the entry page about that vehicle? If that is the case then it would obviate accusations of triviality at including such material, but it seems that as yet there is no consensus on the issue. But, on balance, it would seem to me that Wikipedia criteria lean more against it than for... (meaning that even if we personally think an entry is 'better' for having more information on it, that still doesn't trump the objective criteria laid down for inclusion). Rivercard (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, mere ownership does not confer notability for Wikipedia, in fact we've deleted whole "owned by X" sections from motorcycling articles in the past. However, both Long Way Down and Ghost Rider are notable, and this confers a special status, I think, to the vehicles that are central to both works. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bratland, The section I added is relevant to a CVT. People can learn from it and improve it. Although ideas for the CVT are for sale on the linked website, many other CVT’s described on wikipedia are also for sale. If you have strong objections to my post please let me know, otherwise I will post it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.107.35 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvtreserach (talk • contribs)

An admin blocked you for 24 yours for adding spam, and now you're back intending to re-post the same spam? And you don't see a problem here? Do not use Wikipedia for advertising. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not disclaimers. Learn the difference before ignorantly assuming you do. MzNobody (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "BMW R1100GS". Thank you. -- TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Noticeboard discussion on BMW R1100GS reopened. Rivercard (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So that I better understand your edit on Mini_(marque) and removal of the text I added referencing a magazine article that referenced Mini's April Fools' Day prank today, could you explain how you consider this an ad (you wrote "Ads are not news" (which it's not) and your comment that the item "needs 3rd party refs" which I cited in my footnote? SwissMissTravel (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd to have cited an obscure site like frequentbusinesstraveler.com rather than, say, the Wall Street Journal's blog, which is a far more established source, and the top search hit. Regardless, Wikipedia is not news. Give it a few weeks at least; maybe a few months. If this April Fools PR stunt has received significant media attention, then it's worth including. http://en.wikinews.org is a alternative, for hot items that can't wait that long. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point, which I really never thought of, in terms of whether Wikipedia is news or not. While in most cases it is not, in the case of major breaking stories (a well-known personality dies, a large company files bankruptcy, a change in government occurs somewhere), I have seen Wikipedia pages change instantly, as they should. But in this case, it is likely that the April Fools' announcement may have only ephemeral value. Regarding the source, you may think of Frequent Business Traveler magazine as obscure, but I am in the travel industry (hence my handle, and you can guess what region I focus on) and it is considered up there. Of course, as people say, one man's junk mail is another's LL Bean catalog. So goes life... But once again thank you for shedding light on this question. I now see how most - but not all - news must stand the test of time. SwissMissTravel (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)