User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 2

Thank you, Ducati 1000S
Thank you for precise and extremely quick improvement for Ducati SportClassic 1000S section of Ducati SportClassic article. Good work. --Thermos (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you know I just happened to be sitting here and I noticed...--Dbratland (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bandidos
I like your changes re: Puppet Clubs. I warn you, though, User:War *will* take exception and revert your changes. User:War is a Bandido associate and watches that page. Proxy User (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

another one for your improvement queue
Highsider. I can give a source that is completely counter to the MSF concept of keeping the rear locked (OMG, that is 70s advice!). tedder (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs to at least me merged with Lowsider. Probably a catch-all article about ways of crashing makes sense, possibly merged into a big article that covers Stoppie and Wheelie.  I was going to nominate Finecc for deletion until I thought of adding a definitions section to Motorcycle training.  That's sort of the same thought that occurred to me yesterday with Squid (motorcycle) although I think I need a more neutral title than Motorcycle hooliganism --Dbratland (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are really getting bold with this- congrats! I agree, something that covers all of those would be good. In my conflict of interest, certainly it seems necessary to have articles for many of those- squid being at the bottom of the list, but I do like the hooliganism article (I saw it via the AFD). Better name is necessary, I don't know what. "motorcycle stunts and crashes"? heh. tedder (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is somewhat confusing, it says (basically) "endo is a highside.. endo can result in an endo or highsider". Not sure what is better, maybe something like "endo is a type of highsider"? In other words, all endos are highsides, not all highsides are caused from endos. Might need to make a distinction between bicycles and motorcycles. It'll be hard to source, but endos aren't much of a concern on a MC, but highsides are. The reverse appears to be true in the bicycling world. tedder (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction is because in a car the rider remains attached while on a bike you go one way and your ride goes the other. So if your car goes end over end (does an endo) then so does the driver. While with a bike, all you care about is what your body does -- goes over on the high side.  Your bike probably does an endo when your body does a highside, but you don't care that much about what the bike is doing as your body goes flying through the air. That is, highsider is only about what happens to the rider, and endo is about what happens to the vehicle. Sometimes I think WP spends way too much time trying to explain these fine distinctions, but whatev.  Oh, and since the OED says hooligan can mean merely someone who is looking for trouble (not necessarily violence) then hooligan is not too strong a word.  So perhaps "motorcycle hooliganism" is a neutral enough title.--Dbratland (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (butting in, easier replies this way) My understanding, and the quick ref from Hough I have handy backs it up, is that highside is the action of your body, but it's caused by the yawing flip of the bike. An endo requires the rear wheel to be off the ground, right? Hooligan- yeah, it works, it just doesn't seem perfect; indeed, splitting hairs seems to be a common hobby around here :-) tedder (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also! Have you read Mobility Without Mayhem?  In particular, the 'motorcycle madness' chapter?   Jeremy Packer's ideas about how we rationalize risk are quite a challenge to me.--Dbratland (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't heard of it or read it. Just ordered a copy- thanks. tedder (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from the Mountain Biking Task Force!
Thank you for your past contributions to one or more of Wikipedia's mountain biking-related articles. Have you considered helping us out at the Mountain Biking task force? It's a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of mountain biking.

If you have any questions, please ask at the TF's talk page, or feel free to ask me on . Andyo2000 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aerostich category
I noticed you moved Aerostich down from Motorcycling into the sub-cat Motorcycle technology, but didn't go so far as to put it in the sub-sub-cat Motorcycle safety gear. Since they are already in the sub-sub-sub cat Motorcycle safety gear manufacturers, do you think it makes sense to eliminate the first category tag altogether and just leave the article in Motorcycle safety gear manufacturers? -- Brianhe (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say that Aerostich makes lots of motorcycle stuff besides safety gear, so they belong in Motorcycle technology (where "stuff" is being put for now), or you could say that the main source of notability for Aerostich is that they invented practical textile motorcycle suits, and therefore Motorcycle safety gear is where they belong. Roadcrafter suits are also (perhaps) a fashion statement, and they identify which type of rider you are, culturally/philosophically, as well as offering more than just crash protection, but also keeping you cool, warm, and dry.  So you can look at it in several different ways.


 * I'm happy with either or both of these categories, since these categories are very rough to begin with and constantly evolving.--Dbratland (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past I've been on a jihad to remove redundant category tags, but I'll leave this one for a bit to see how the evolving categories work out. Appreciate your effort in that area, too.  -- Brianhe (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just procrastinating finishing User:Dbratland/The Art of the Motorcycle--Dbratland (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there!
Why are you moving so many motorcycling articles out of wikiproject motorcycles? Articles can belong to more than one wikiproject and all the ones you are moving belong very much in motorcycling as well as the projects you are moving them to. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they fit much better in the scope of the motorcycle racing project and the motorsport project. In particular, the motorcycling project has done a terrible job of keeping up with the records and race results; it's something the racing project is much better at, from what I've seen.  I can see having them in both racing and motorcycling, but I think they're better off in racing + motorsport + whatever their local area is.  Talk:Sheffield Tigers, for example.  Four overlapping projects is probably too many.  But if you object, I'll put them back in motorcycling.--Dbratland (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see them kept in motorcycling, but do agree that they also belong in motorcycle racing. Keep up the good work! --Biker Biker (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also. How do you feel about getting rid of the Vehicle Registration Plates articles (e.g. Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom)?  I hate them, and wouldn't the Roads Project would love have them all to themselves?--Dbratland (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Get rid! --Biker Biker (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rice burner
I'm just going by the definition in the first sentence of the article. Under that definition a modified asian import, whether properly modified or not is "rice", and this has been in English parlance for 30+ years. No opinion neccessary. Some import fans want a sanitized view of rice burners? I say they go start their own wiki. It is what it is. CJ DUB (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "no opinion necessary" you're saying that you want the article to conform with reliable, secondary sources, I agree completely. --Dbratland (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well just delete the whole a article then, since the definition does not have a reliable citation CJ DUB (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's unreliable about the citations I gave? I just couldn't find any that went so far as to verify the list of mods in the Characteristics section.  If those details can't be verified, then why do they need to be on Wikipedia?  What good does it do for people to read it unless they know it comes from good sources?  I did nominate Rice rocket for deletion because I think there's a good chance of success, but my feeling is that there is would be too much oppsition to deleting Rice burner, and the Snowball clause suggests I shouldn't waste people's time trying.  I do intend to delete everything that can't find a source to back it up, but I'll wait a bit and see what other editors can come up with.  And if I start to think it has a chance of success, I'll nominate the whole article for deletion.  If you ask me, the  definition on Wiktionary is all that is necessary here. --Dbratland (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiBacon bot results
Hey, I've been developing a bot to show collaboration and initial edits between two Wikipedians (i.e., how did we first cross paths?). Here are some initial results involving you: User:TedderBot/Bacon_Results. Please let me know what you think on my talk page: User talk:Tedder. tedder (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there number two
To Dbartland: If you wish to maintain the standards of future products then please apply those same standards to the other EV motorcycles listed on wikipedia. By so clearly applying these double standards you do the service, and the buying public a disservice. If you say "I don't know which ones don't meet the standards" then why do you feel obliged to treat this page differently? Most of the bikes listed on the future section of the Electric Motorcycles and Scooters page list out of date info and don't exist yet. Is the requirement for posting simply who has the bigger PR budget? The majority of all Vectrix stories are based off of company provided news releases and contain inaccurate claims - just because it now appears in mainstream media means close to nothing. Please consider contacting me so that we can discuss this - simply having one person re-instate and the other remove won't get us anywhere productive. Thanks. jdh2550. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh2550 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Current_Motor_Company and Talk:Electric_motorcycles_and_scooters--Dbratland (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * see my reply Talk:Current_Motor_Company on why I (and others) believe there is value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.83.95 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Language
I noticed you flagged the BRP Can-Am Spyder Roadster page for advertising language. I've gone back and edited it and was wondering if I am using the correct neutral language now. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! ASTPR (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:BRP_Can-Am_Spyder_Roadster--Dbratland (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycling assessment category
Hi, I noticed you created Category:B-Class motorcycling articles. I'd just like to point out that I have nominated it for deletion, after creating Category:B-Class Motorcycling articles, as the latter is the WPBM default and Motorcycling will categorize in it. —Ms2ger (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brammo Enertia vs. Kawasaki Ninja
We were discussing this issue on the Brammo Enertia talk page and I have some more thoughts about including the Ninja stats. You said that "If secondary sources consider it important enough to mention, then shouldn't Wikipedia include it as well?" A quick look at the secondary sources (MSN and NY Times) shows that they are either quoting Brammo spokespeople or paraphrasing them. As you've noted in other contexts, PR language should only be included in a Wikipedia article if it is supported. Here, it's only in the secondary source due to it being uttered by Brammo. Even if one were to include the Ninja claim, the comparison is limited to output power: "The Enertia's power ratings (12-25 horsepower, 17-34 lb-ft of torque) make it comparable to a Kawasaki Ninja 250 in terms of horsepower." The comparison is not extended beyond that limited issue, so your inclusion of top speed, range, and 0-30 mph time is not relevant. The additional language about carbon dioxide production for gasoline vs. electricity from coal-fired electric plants is also irrelevant. If that is included, then additional information regarding the emissions of both vehicles over the 13,000 miles should be added. But it's not necessary to add any of this because this is not an article about how the Brammo Enertia compares to the Kawasaki Ninja, it's an article about the Brammo Enertia. I want to discuss this with you instead of just deleting it, because you have been at this (Wikipedia editing) longer than me, and I know I have a lot to learn. Hbmallin (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably the best place to post your comments is on Talk:Brammo Enertia, since this isn't really a discussion about my conduct, it's a discussion as to how best edit Brammo Enertia. Others will more likely read what you have to say and offer their support to your suggestions that way.--Dbratland (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations vs links warning
Congratulations on the well-worded warning at User talk:Oldironnut. It came across as fair but firm. We could even use something like that as a project-related template. -- Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A template would be useful. So much to do, so little time.  Maybe the To Do List needs to be revised so we can prioritize all this stuff.--Dbratland (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no. I've created a monster.  Hopefully he can take care of it quickly himself.--Dbratland (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Zanella advertisement.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Zanella advertisement.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AK81
You put the WP Biography on the AK81 talk page. Why? The article is clearly not the story of a person's life and the only persons who are named in the article are not likely to complain to WP or any legal body about libelous information in the article.

Will you be terribly upset if I remove the banner?
 * JimCubb (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put the bio banner on a number of articles relating to outlaw motorcycle clubs. Note at the top of WikiProject Biography it says "The Biography WikiProject concerns the creation, development, and organization of Wikipedia's articles about people (including but not limited to biographies)." These gang articles are filled with negative information about groups of living people, accusing them of specific crimes and all sort of things.  The quality of the citations are generally horrendous, and little thought has been given to the accuracy of the accusations Wikipedia is making.  Articles like AK81 have the potential to do real harm to living people, must meet the standards of WP:BLP.  The argument that the victims of a libelous article will not bother to complain is quite weak; some motorcycle gangs have in fact complained and taken legal action.  Even if they hadn't, WP:BLP does not have an exception for libeling people who we think probably won't sue. So yes, I will be upset and I will make a big deal out of it if you remove the banner.  If you'd like to open it up to a larger discussion with the members of the Biography Project, that's fine with me.  I would welcome more attention to the problems I see in these gang articles.--Dbratland (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If Category:Biography articles without listas parameter is ever empty, I may address the issue of why WP Biog does not limit itself to true biographies. I am upset by the lack of rigor and the bad image it creates for WP as a whole.

Would you include a value for DEFAULTSORT on the main page and paste that value into the listas in WPBiography in the future? I know that generally such a value is not needed but unless all articles have that value the ones that truly need it are very difficult to find in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter.

Thank you. (I won't remove the banner.)
 * JimCubb (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

category "Motorcycle manufacturers"
Maybe they should be as they are "Motorcycle manufacturers"--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving Jawa, and all the other companies, into "Motorcycle manufacturers" might make some sense, but that is not how categories are done on Wikipedia. There are several valid ways of organizing categories, and one of them, for whatever reasons, has become the accepted standard.  It defeats the purpose of the categorization if it is done inconsistently.  You could propose a change in the whole system, but can you imagine the chances of that?  At the very least, you should propose a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and see how far that gets first.  In the meantime, it makes no sense to stick Jawa out there all on its own -- it breaks the structure that currently exists.  So you should probably put it back for now until you have consensus for a major change like this.--Dbratland (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the only one with this opinion as many other category pages are full of article links.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I think not. I'm sure there are some categories that deviate from WP:DUPCAT, which proves that Other stuff exists, but we already knew other stuff exists.  But if you don't believe me, that's fine. Go ahead and move articles up into their parent category, and then watch as somebody else comes along and undoes the edit, and cites WP:DUPCAT as the reason.  Please do not try to get me to debate the duplicate categorization rule with you; I'm not interested in changing Wikipedia policies. There are more appropriate forums do debate policy, and there are other Wikipedia editors besides me who care to debate changes in policy.  I only try to follow the policy as it exists in order to focus on editing articles.


 * So if you dislike WP:DUPCAT and want to change it, a good place for you to start a discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling.--Dbratland (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with dbratland that articles should be included in sub-categories only. Can we continue discussions of categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling ... we've been over similar issues before, see archive. -- Brianhe (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sons of Silence
Why do you keep deleting information from the Sons of Silence page, even though it has links? - User talk:90.202.94.12 —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
 * I posted links to the relevant sections that explain the problems: WP:OVERLINK, WP:OTHERDATE, WP:BLOGS, WP:ELNO and WP:BLP.


 * 1) Stop wikilinking the names of every country and state.  It violates  WP:OVERLINK.
 * 2) Do not wikilink dates.  See  WP:OVERLINK.
 * 3) Do not add flags.  It violates WP:MOS.
 * 4) Do not use blogs as sources for this type of information.  See WP:BLOGS
 * 5) Do not add negative information about living person without very strong and and verifiable sourcing.  Read WP:BLP and WP:RS, and WP:V.

This edit to Highwaymen Motorcycle Club was deceptive. You used a press release from an attorney general listing some accusations of crimes against some individuals as support that an entire group was practicing even more crimes than were on the attorney general's list. That is deceptive, and it violates WP:BLP.

When adding information about living persons, make absolutely sure it is correct and that it is supported but verifiable sources that are respected authorities, and are independent.--Dbratland (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)