User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 12

The comments to which you are referring are not identified.

And in reference to the misuse of a Wikipedia advisory and also the misidentification of 'personal attack', please note your own comment on this subject: 'Calling a bad argument a bad argument is not a personal attack, and pretending that it is a personal attack is also disruptive.'- Dennis Bratland (see - Talk)

It does not advance any discussion to misuse Wikipedia advisory. Or to mistake criticism (which is allowed - see below) with uncivility. The two are not the same. Please keep the distinction in mind.

Important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith WP:AGF, Wikipedia policy on that page clearly states that this "does not prohibit discussion and criticism." And so it is already established that criticism is not the same as uncivility.

(But in further reference to this, please see your own comments on the BMW R1100GS 'Talk' page -

(1) "All I have to add to this interminable debate is WP:SNOW. ...this is absolutely silly." (2) "drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive." (3) "Statements like '...' are bizarre, even laughable." (4) "...drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive.")

Or are you saying that your own use of these terms 'silly', 'bizarre' and 'laughable' fall into the above description of criticsm or the one of uncivility?

Also worthy of note is your misuse of Wikiepdia policy guidelines such as WP:OWN and WP:SNOW (see - Talk) without their being any evidence whatsoever of either being breached. This comes across as an attempt to foreclose, shut down or inhibit debate, which you may or may not know is also contrary to Wikipedia policy guidelines on these matters regarding the use of codes.

Please refrain from premature and erroneous use of Wikipedia advsories and accusations in order to stifle and inhibit debate.

Rivercard (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this works, or how to make it better? I cannot get the URL to work automatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Motorcycle_club

--Bridge Boy (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I added | class10 = url, but I'm not sure if that does anything. You also have to use {{url}} like this {{url|google.com}}

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Good morning. You see to have some interest in motorcycles, what do you think of this ... it seems to be working now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Motorcycle_club, e.g. Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club.

Is there anything we should add, e.g. a national flag, or more options?

This is what I am thinking. You were right about what you said regards the sport committee box but it was the closest I could find at the time, so I decided to make a bespoke one. I suppose the default organisation one worked but I added 'marque' as it seemed to be relevant and stripped it down to make it simpler. What I am thinking is that it can be used across the board for motorcycle clubs. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would stay away from flags. It's OK on Auto-Cycle Union but if it's really a club and not a national race organizer, then there should be no flag. If you ad a flag field that will just encourage more flags, and we want to discourage them. MOS:FLAG explains the guidelines.

You could add more documentation, like a description within each field. And then below that a usage example, as in Template:Infobox organization (You can't edit that one but if you click View Source you can see how they did it). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you think of this but having had a quick look it seems that someone has been active labelling all and any motorcycle club (MC) with a criminal organization infobox. To me that does not seem to be entirely right. Although we know many of such individuals have engaged in criminal activities, I would still argue that the defining factor of them is still that they are clubs for motorcycle riders. The backpatch is a cultural reference which belongs to motorcycling and goes back a lot longer them. I doubt anyone has the statistics but many members don't involve themselves in crime any more than your average Wikipedia contributor. Do you think they would accept such a correction? --Bridge Boy (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're opening up a huge can of worms there. The short answer is that if a major law enforcement agency says they're criminals, and we have multiple sources showing members involved of crimes, Wikipedia goes with that. You might want to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling, but in my opinion the odds are against you. On the other hand, there's no harm in having the discussion. If you see a particular club that you think -- based on good sources, not just the club's blanket denials -- that they're not a criminal enterprise, then you could open up that discussion on the club article's talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, check the talk pages, and talk page archives, of Outlaw motorcycle club, Motorcycle club, Brother Speed, Hells Angels, etc. This has been discussed many times so you can read the previous discussions to get up to speed. Let me know if you can't find the discussions I'm refereeing to and I'll do a search and locate them for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia notification procedure, please note this is now open - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas M. Messer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Czech (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) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Outlaws logo.jpg. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the Outlaws Motorcycle Club infobox to use this image, so you can ignore the message. Unless Bridge Boy changes it again to his upload, which I think is inferior to this one, as it is actually the Outlaws website banner with elements of the logo, not the logo per se. — Brianhe (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Wildwood you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Most of the time I can respond quickly. If something comes up, it might take a few days. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no hurry at all. I won't be finished with the review until at least Monday, and then you'll have another week after I put it on hold. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping you a note to say that I hope to have this finished in the next 12 hours or so; I will work on it as free time permits. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article Wildwood (novel) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Wildwood (novel) for things which need to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI... this is not how to request a second reviewer. You're supposed to follow the instructions at WP:GAC and flag the header as status=2ndopinion. Instead, your edit attracted the bot, which is why it changed the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed that you put up this article! This is a delightful start to this article. Well done! I beefed it up a bit with information about activities of the museum during his tenure. Would you mind terribly if I moved the refs from the bottom of the article into the text at the place where they are first used? It helps me keep track of them if editors change the refs in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If one of the refs is changed in a detrimental way, like deleting it or referencing it nowhere, then an error is displayed. To me it seems easier to find them all on one place, rather than reading the text with complete ref content intermixed. It's all explained in WP:LDR. And you don't have the problem of moving the citation up to the first use every time the article is reorganized. Especially during times of expansion and revision; I still have a significant amount of material to add about Messer. Currently it only barely touches on his first year or two at the Guggenheim, so it's hard to say how much larger the article will get or how it's going to be finally structured.

But if you'd rather have the refs the usual way, go right ahead. I'm used to either style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, just a heads up: When tagging vandals, it is better to escalate the warning template logically, going from level 1, to 2, 3, etc. as this shows the admins at AIV that if a block is needed, that they have been warned enough times, and objectively so. Adding level 4 warnings prematurely may be seen as being to aggressive in trying to get an IP blocked, and have the opposite effect from that desired. Obviously, if vandalism hasn't happened in a while for an IP, we start back at level 1 once it starts back up. I've reverted vandalism on your page and warned the IP editor. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But 205.124.155.60 and 205.124.155.61 were the same vandal. Same article, same words, same town. After the fourth edit by the same person, there's no real reason to stand on technicalities and let them make 8 edits from two IPs. Block both IPs after 4 combined vandalizations. It makes them think we were omniscient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On 26 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas M. Messer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Thomas M. Messer retired in 1988, after 27 years as director of the Guggenheim Foundation, he had served longer than any other major museum director in New York City? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas M. Messer.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Thanks for crediting me on the nom! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why my last two changes of the Motorcycle land-speed record article have been reverted. We are talking about the motorcycle Vesco used on the Bonneville flats in 1970 which is to be seen at Barber Vintage Motorsports Museum as presented in Motorcycle Mojo Magazine Jan-Feb 08. Usually for his record bikes the following names are under use:

Vesco Yamaha (2 x 350 cc Yamaha 2 cylinder two-stroke engine), 1970, 251.66 mph

Yamaha Silverbird (2 x 750 [700?] cc Yamaha 4 cylinder two-stroke engine), 1975, 302.92 mph

Kawasaki Lightningbolt (2 x 1000 cc Kawasaki 4 cylinder engine, turbocharged), 1978, 318.6 mph.

On an other photograph (djibnet.com) you may see the remnants of the two engines which look like typical Yamaha racing engines without turbocharging. So, why keep up the wrong information any longer? ----130.83.12.163 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Once you tell other editors your sources, as you have done now, it's no problem. If you change something, especially when you delete existing citations without providing any citations of your own, generally others are going to assume you're wrong and stick with the source we have. Both I and Trekphiler made that assumption. But if you give a source, even one that's not online, then you should expect to be taken seriously. See WP:CITE for how to provide a source. If you're not sure how to do it, just go to the article's talk page Talk:Motorcycle land-speed record and explain what you know, and somebody can help.

I've now added the Motorcycle Mojo Magazine citation and deleted mention of turbocharging on Vesco's 1970 two stroke. Thanks for helping to correct the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message concerning my amendments to the entry on Mick Walker, to which I have been meaning to send a reply ever since I received it.

Point taken. All good encyclopedias strive to be as correct as possible, and having been a professional writer/editor for over 30 years, I wouldn’t dream of publishing anything that cannot be completely substantiated, or which infringes copyright in any way.

I don't contribute to Wikipedia very often, and then only when I come across what seems like a major omission or inaccuracy on topics that I know a great deal about. But (perhaps because I don't spend much time doing it) I really struggle with the way that editing Wikipedia works, to the point where I couldn’t even figure out how to send this reply easily. I have never put up anything that wouldn’t stand up to the most intense and rigorous scrutiny, and yet my perfectly legitimate out-of-copyright photos get taken down despite my best attempts spending ages to fill in the forms that prove that they really are in the public domain, while some of my editorial changes have been reversed, not because they are wrong or unverifiable, but because I haven't understood the system properly. I really support the Wikipedia ethos, but do feel a bit discouraged. I'm neither technologically naive nor a novice editor, but some of the procedures seem so arcane or impenetrable that I have simply given up. I don't have time to unpick them and how much did the world need that correction, additional paragraph or photo anyway...

In this particular instance, I felt it was quite wrong for Wikipedia to contain information that I knew to be inaccurate and as I had impeccable journalistic sources, my instincts were to correct the error. I completely understand that at the time I did so, there was no independent verification, so it was appropriate to take the amendment down. But what I don’t understand is whether Wikipedia possesses a mechanism to check something of this nature in the way that any news desk would. In this particular instance, I confess to a wry smile that the change in Wikipedia had to wait until the information appeared in other sources that did apply these checks (such as The Guardian and the local paper now referenced on the page) - but that most of the releases were actually written by me.

I hope I will have valid contributions to make to Wikipedia, but I obviously haven't mastered what's available in the help pages, and I will probably continue to struggle.

Apologies and thanks again Andrewsumarf (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about starting an article for the new BMW Maxi-scooters, the C600 Sport and C650 GT. Some sources say they go on sale later this week in Europe. Recent coverage at MCN, earlier coverage from about the time of EICMA announcement at motorcycle.com and BMW Motorcycle Magazine, among others. Brianhe (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Both Rider and Cycle World had features on them too. BMW C-this, C-that. BMW C600, BMW C650, that's all I read about these days. Why don't they write about how to build the perfect Ducati streetfighter with a Pierobon frame? Anyways... what was I saying? I got sources. I'll help. Have to wait a while before we can get photos. Maybe until the motorcycle show in December if the dealer doesn't get them first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it was the June Cycle World article that got me started thinking about this, thanks for the reminder. Have you seen a US sales date announced? There was one November press release from bmw-usa, and it didn't mention any dates at all. Brianhe (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Whipped up Urban Mobility Vehicle tonight for the two models, and electric concept vehicle. Are these really BMW's first scooters? Brianhe (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't be first; the BMW C1 was production. This says "first production scooters from BMW Motorrad", since the C1 was made by Bertone. Which to me is a bizarre distinction to make. BMW is a multinational. The GS parallel twins used Rotax engines and the BMW F650CS was from Aprilia. At the time they were selling the C1 I don't remember them constantly reminding you that it wasn't a "real" BMW. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I've actually seen one at Redmond Town Center. I think the source must have meant it's the first one made by BMW. Though the delay in the 2012 release is supposedly due to late delivery of crucial parts from Honda. Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

thanks for fixing up my 860 article - it was a bit of a vanity piece when I found some old photos in an album - with all the pics of the various rebuilds, I found I didn't have one of the actual bike in original condition - never mind. Garyvines (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Great photo! I'm going to try to put the article through DYK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I put a couple of pics of the alter versions of the bike on my user page, if you want to see what happened to it. - wonder where it is now?Garyvines (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The article Wildwood (novel) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Wildwood (novel) for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

hi Dennis,

I'm not clear why you objected to my addition of the 'Dual Brakes' section in 'bike brakes', stating that it seemed to be original research. I met the owner of the Tandem in France and he told me about the difficulties he had with rim brakes fading on long descents and how he had overcome this with a dual braking system, using both discs and rim brakes. I took the photograph of his Tandem. does this count as original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrArmstrong2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's classic example of the kind of original research Wikipedia does not want in any article. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information. Instead of citing your own observations, you should be citing verifiable sources, as defined in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss the changes, as I've requested of you several times now. Please also use the project pages (such as WikiProject Novels) to raise additional questions. I did not and will not pass the version you are restoring. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I want the article delisted from GA. This Good Article process has done nothing but damage a good article, and started a bizarre crusade. My my interest is having the article meet Wikipedia's core principles, mainly Verifiability in this case. Meeting the arbitrary rules of GA is not as important at that, and it's becoming a distraction from productive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate your time and interest, but you are operating under several misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Editors don't own articles. Every time you edit, there's a little message that says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You are currently edit warring instead of directly addressing the points I've raised on the talk page, and you've restored a version of the article I did not pass as a GA. You say you want the article delisted because you don't like it, and you say it isn't verifiable, but you are unable to show what's wrong with it. Please start from the premise of assuming good faith, and realize that we are trying to improve articles, not destroy them. Second, please allow the process of discussion to work on the talk page and allow the reviewer (myself) to correct any problems you identify on the talk page. Third, do not try to revert to your chosen version as this bypasses the point of the article improvemt process. Identify issues on the talk page and communicate effectively and we will use the proper procedures to satisfy each and every one of your concerns. I'm going to restore the GA version I passed and ask that you remain patient as we work through the process together. Trying to delist an article you wrote because you disagree with the reviewer is highly disruptive. Please don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you are acting like you own the article. You are not assuming good faith. You've not read the sources. I have. You should assume good faith that I know what I'm talking about. It is your emotional investment, your ownership attitude, and your lack of assuming good faith, that is disruptive. Your declared intention to edit war is most unfortunate. I will not keep reverting, but you should consider whether you are truly making verifiable edits. You simply don't know; you're guessing and don't want to admit it. Without intellectual honesty, this all becomes a sham.

I know I make mistakes. I've been wrong many times before, and I know I will be wrong again and again. If you'd read the sources, I'm sure you'd find some of my mistakes. Can you admit that you, too, have been in error, and will be again?

I told you why I want it delisted: you promoted your own work, not mine. GA promotion is supposed to be done by an uninvolved editor. You involved yourself excessively, and then promoted your work to GA. That's not peer review. What you did was self-review. Why don't you hear me when I tell you why I want it delisted? WP:IDHT? I warned you the article was not GA quality because it did not meet WP:V, and you did not assume good faith. You should have recused yourself and let an uninvolved editor decide what to do next.

Even now, you should be seeking third opinions, not persisting in this personal vendetta. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, please provide specific examples of how the reviewed version didn't meet V. You've been asked to do this repeatedly and refused. I have nothing to recuse from because I stand by my review. You canno be both the nominator and reviewer, Dennis. I'm sorry that you didn't like the outcome, but if you would like to change it, argue on the talk page why I should restore your deleted edits and I will consider what you have to say. So far, you havent addressed the problem. Wikipedia isn't your personal web server or blog where you get to host your book review. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not refused. I said I would work on it. I already provided specific examples on the question of the negative review in the lead. More will follow. Keep your shirt on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And I've responded to your non-examples. You are welcome to work on the article—in your sandbox or on the talk page—however, it is not acceptable for you to blanket revert a GA review as the nominator without defending your reverts on the talk page. Not only have you failed to defend them, you haven't been able to construct a single cogent reply or argument explaining your revert. The article does not belong to you, you are not both the nominator and reviewer, and you shouldnt be reverting without good reason. I understand the policies and guidelines, but it does not appear that you do. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone needs to learn at some point but you need to work incrementally from the reviewed version. You don't get to decide that the article should be delisted because your contributions have been changed; that's pure disruption for the sake of disruption and it needs to stop immediately. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion. Wikipedia does not belong to you either. You should give other editors time to read the talk page, and let one of them make the next edit to the article. Have faith that you are not the only sensible editor. I do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you feel that you are exempt from having to explain your blanket reverts on the talk page, and can act as both nominator and reviewer when it comes to GAN. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask an objective editor if they think that is an even remotely accurate characterization of what I've said and done. (Spoiler: it's not.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's completely accurate. Further, you are using the word "objective" in a unique way that isn't reflected by its common usage. For example, I'm an objective GA reviewer, who chose to review Wildwood from a random list of articles. I have no interest whatsoever in Children's fiction, Meloy, The Decemberists, or contemporary indie rock, for that matter. On the other hand, I have an objective interest in cutting down the number of articles listed on the GAN page, and in improving as many as I can. I also have an interest, as a participating member, in adhering to the best practices of WikiProject Novels. Your objectivity, on the other hand? That's right, you wrote the article and you're the nominator. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying I want to act as both the nominator and the reviewer? Why? Are you or are you not aware that I repeatedly asked for somebody else who is not me and not you to do the review? I don't want to self-review. I don't want you to self-review either.

Please provide a quote of anything I said anywhere that indicates I want to be both the nominator and the reviewer. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hey! Wait just a cotton picking minute here. Check it out. An objective, third party, uninvolved editor did not agree with your negative characterization of my words and actions. Aircom said "I would suggest that you [Viriditas] have gone beyond copyediting the article" and "Others may disagee, but I say this is more than simply copy-editing and definately goes beyond the requirements of a reviewer."

  Aircom sees merit in some of your changes, and says my version is flawed to some degree, but nonetheless, I am not somebody who has 'no idea how Wikipedia works'. So let's drop that line of attack, OK? I'm wrong about plenty of things, but I do have a point about the underlying problem with this GA promotion. You failed to find anybody who agrees that I tried to act as nominator and reviewer. You, objectively, were the one who overstepped your role. There. I won't throw it in your face any more if you would let it go and focus on fact checking now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

I take your point re Trivia sections. There is already a reference to a film about the bikes on the page which sits a little out of place under the heading Design. Anyway, I thought that the song reference helped show that this bike was a strong part of the zeitgeist at that time and therefore did contribute to the history of the bike. I'm happy to try and incorporate this into another section of the article if it was simply the creation and slightly disconnected nature of a Pop Culture section you were objecting to rather than the inclusion of the fact itself. What do you think?

On your other point, I'm not at all sure that the reference does violate the verifiability policy. I had in fact started to include an in-line citation to a lyrics page, but left it out in the end because it was unnecessary since I had given the song title, the year of its release and the artist it was performed by in the text. That is in itself a full citation and Wiki policy says 'Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media' so there is no requirement for the citation to be a print source. In the case of songs in particular, the song comes before printed lyrics so I would have thought that the song itself should be the primary reference. Is there another reason which I'm missing that means this falls foul of the verifiability policy?

Let me know and I'll either give it another go or leave it altogether.

Thanks Falamingotoo (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I see that you have already covered all of that on the talk page for the bike which I have only just noticed. You're right, I don't have a reference that shows this matters to anyone. I'll leave it. Thanks again Falamingotoo (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Carry on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis - Just a question about the revert of my edits on the Brammo page. You indicated that the addition of this section was "excessively promotional, not even remotely NPOV." The introduction of the production version of the Empulse has been anticipated by many following the debut of the prototype in 2010. The story of the unveiling of the Empulse has been reported in the LA Times (which I cited and from which I quoted), the Wall Street Journal, CNN-Money, Popular Mechanics, and many others. Is there a way to write that section (covering the story of the debut) that would pass muster, or is it your opinion that this is not a story until some future point (e.g. when the first vehicle is delivered to a customer)? I respect the need to keep a NPOV and not be excessively promotional, but given this event, people will be searching for information on the company and the bike, and Wikipedia should be a place to go in order to find cited references covering it. Hbmallin (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 

Hi Dennis. I would like to invite your participation on the planning of the Great American Wiknic this June (see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/seattlewp) :).--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

All in all it seems that the motorcycle section of the Wikipedia is pretty small and quiet, does not it?

Just a heads up for List of fastest production motorcycles. Would the Kawasaki Z1R-TC or Turbo not get a mention? It was a small run but they were factory sold/made. Don't know if they count. 1979, top speed 158 mp/h est.

Incomplete or misleading topic in a way. It is not "fast" it is measuring, it is "highest top speed".

The "most powerful" might be a better measure, e.g. the 900SS weren't that powerful but had really high gearing on them which gave them a high top speed, and there is no mention that top speed is a combination of a number of factors, e.g. gearing or power versus weight divided by aerodynamics (the latter two in which the SS gained benefits against the opposition of the day).

Is there an equivalent quarter mile or BHP topic? --Bridge Boy (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments on the relevant talk pages. I'm grateful to have another editor take an interest in this topic. It's much better to have more editors fact-checking and bringing in citations. Speaking of which, do you know where FIM publishes their records? I can't find them anywhere. Motorcycle land-speed record should be easy to fix, all we need is proper citations for all the entries. I think it's out of date too. There was a new record, wasn't there? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean these? http://www.fim-live.com/en/sport/world-records-attempts/events/ Pretty ratty search they have on their site.

Yes, I have some time on my hand right now but not for long. I cannot say if I will stick around. It's a pretty thankless task in which you seem to have to spend half your time re-doing the same stuff because has come along and vandalised what you have just done. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The more good editors stick around, the less you notice the vandals. And they definitely get discouraged if you're vigilant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

For me, a lot of the bike topics are badly written and need a lot more work than I can afford or be motivated to give them. Some just depress me too much. I have no idea who this Hardy footballer you mention as he does not seem to have a page of his own but there are now three Ben/Benjamin Hardys on the site and so, if you make a fourth, it might need a disambiguation page. I noticed this and struggled to get a curly bracket tag at the top of a few pages to work then gave up for the day.

I'd say this Ben Hardy's work is by far the most notable, i.e. the Captain America and Billy bikes. I appreciate that he himself has not been, but that in itself is the story. I had no idea the guys who built those bikes were black even though I was aware of some of the history of racial segregation in US motorcycling. When I think how much attention the likes of Ness or the Orange County Choppers guys have gotten it makes me sad. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's what's great about Wikipedia. I like to think a few people first heard of the Roper steam velocipede or Elena Myers because of me. Who knows? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right ... "who knows". I had a little tweak at Motorcycling as it was awful. But who knows where it is going. Do people really read, the Wikipedia to find out what something like "motorcycling" is? Who knows ... perhaps I have just helped some kid with their homework though. There is some good material in many of the references I add though. If Food and sexuality is worthy of its own topic (and an excuse to upload and include prurient images), then I suspect Motorcycling and sexuality is as well. --Bridge Boy (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary. Please use an edit summary. Write something in the edit summary that describes the change you're making. Please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that big a deal? What do I get out of it? How long until I get to prospect or earn some wings?

Just seems like more work for nothing to me and it is not as if I am messing around. 16 new pages so far, I'd like to do one on the 70s builder/racer Alastair Laurie but just cannot find any sources on him. If you don't know his work, try this [1] --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)