User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 6

Lane Splitting
I am very uncomfortable with the phrase "Filtering forward is never required". I know you have quoted a source but the source gives an opinion not a fact. I understand that strictly speaking filtering forward is a choice but I feel "never required" is too hard a phrase. I would much prefer "filtering forward is not not needed if one takes the lane". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the section is "etiquette", not "laws" or "rules" or "restrictions". Anything anybody says about etiquette is of course an only their opinion. What matters is that the opinions come from a reliable source. So if you wish to cite contrary opinions from other reliable sources, please do so. But if it is only what makes you uncomfortable or what you prefer, that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard. But I see no reason why you couldn't find a reliable source that agrees with you with a little research. The best place to discuss it this is at Talk:Lane splitting, by the way. --Dbratland (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hand Signals
I don't understand your objection to my comments in the article "Hand Signals". What I stated was common sense and I would like to hear your objections. You are welcome to come to my home town and cycle around on my heavy 7-speed giving hand signals, giving no regard to covering the brake or steading the handlebars. You will however end up wedged in someone's rear bumper when they do an emergency stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert your edit. I tagged the entire article as a how-to, which, as the tag states, means that the article should either be deleted, or drastically revised. The policy is explained at WP:NOTHOWTO. Instructions and advice belong at Wikiversity or Wikibooks or wikiHow, although even there you are still required to cite sources rather than merely post your opinions on what is sensible. If I were to come to your town and attempt your experiment, the result would have no relevance to Wikipedia because it is original research. Wikipedia is merely a reflection of what the sources tell us, not what you or I think is true.If you dislike Wikipedia's policy of excluding how-to content and wish to change the policy to allow your common sense advice, you could initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Many people disagree with how Wikipedia is run, which is what has motivated them to create alternative projects with different policies. --Dbratland (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

rock store
Oh keeper of magazine archives, can you help me with Rock Store? It's sad that we haven't discovered it yet. I'll force myself to ride the twisties and take a photo of it in the next monthish, but I need your help with offline sources. tedder (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It turns out The Rock Store has never been mentioned in Cycle World, so my offline magazines aren't much use. It's only listed as a destination in a Motorcycle Consumer News list; no article. There are a couple in Motorcyclist, and lots of LA Times articles, and other outlets. So all of these articles are online, although almost all require logins for ProQuest or General One File via a library or school. I'll put a list on the article or the talk page. I also added some images on Commons, though they aren't that great. --Dbratland (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help with any Rock Store related material. I have some interesting pictures, including a pic of Jay Leno, and I've been there a number of times tagging along with a moto journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souris40 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you upload them to Commons and tag them in Category:The Rock Store? I found a few pictures of the parking lot and the exterior, but we don't have any of the interior. Also for restaurants, pictures of the food are nice. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded a few picture to Commons. I am not convinced the Leno picture was taken at the Rock Store; it was in a folder of California moto pics, some of them taken at The Rock Store. My pics aren't very good, so next time I am there, I will get pictures of the inside. Souris40 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Image of dual sport
In the article types of motorcycles, I think it was a good idea to include a less static image for a dual-sport, but the image would be more informative as a side view. Also, the image does not show rear-view mirrors, which is one of the most noticeable features of a dual-sport being used off-road. BTW, I noticed that the article rear-view mirror did not have a section on motorcycles, so I added the section to that article. Obankston (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I used a different one that shows more of the bike; a BMW GS. We use an awful lot of photos of those, although it is a popular model. Other interesting photos will turn up, in time.--Dbratland (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A Day in the Dirt Motocross Grand Prix
I've created an article named "A Day in the Dirt Motocross Grand Prix." I have all references for the content but have not included them yet. I will do so ASAP. I also sent an e-mail to Aldrich this week, asking for photos that can be used for the article. I know that he has covered this event. If you wish to contribute, or fine tune the article, please do. Souris40 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great! However, it looks like you've copy-pasted text from a Los Angeles Times news story and from Motorcycle.com. Those are copyright violations and you should delete the copied text and replace it with your own words. Besides the copyrights page, there is helpful advice on writing in your own words at Close paraphrasing and Idea-expression divide.You DO need to cite sources, including Susan Carpenter's LA Times article, and as many other major media as you can find -- your article is at risk of deletion if you do not cite third party sources establishing that the subject has been written about by reputable media. Just don't copy them.I don't see any usable images on Flickr, but there are lots of copyrighted images. I would suggest picking out a half dozen images that you are most likely to want, and post a note on the image requesting the owner change the licensing to either Attribution Creative Commons or Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons so you can then upload it to Commons and use it in your article. Usually after a week or two a few of them will be willing to change the license and let you use the photo. --Dbratland (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Aldrich came through with pics on Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:A_Day_In_The_Dirt -- all creative commons licensed. I'll paraphrase away. Please jump in if you are interested. I'll also start adding cites. I've read the various wiki cite pages, but the "standard" is not clear to me. Is there a particular cite template I can use? Lastly, the "Viewfinders" deserve their own article, This was a group of riderin california in the '60s which included Steve McQueen, and other riders from the Hollywood film and stunt industry, plus regular riders. I've seen this group talked about, but not documented. Souris40 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RS125
You removed my additions to the RS125 article, saying that I had not provided reference sources. I have written pieces for magazines etc over many years and this was similar; there are no real 'sources' as most of the content is common knowledge, at least in the UK (where I am). My inention was to provide some information for prospective owners as to things to be aware of when purchasing such a machine. Facts such as the 2 different power versions are standard practice in Europe and are stated in the various owners handbooks. I have owned the 'Full Power' version of this bike for 6 years so feel I am qualified to make some observations. Is the position that Wikipedia can only have information that is copied from other sources and cannot contain original writing?

193.32.30.70 (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research, and all facts must be verifiable. Note the critical policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I would think anyone who has owned a bike for 6 years must have quite a collection of published material. If you can cite sources from reliable publications which other editors could, in theory, check, that would work just fine. --Dbratland (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CBX spam
You were absolutely right, of course, but man, this looks so much better than mine! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If only they'd upload photos to Commons instead of advertising... --Dbratland (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

R1200RT
I see my changes earlier woke up Jeff. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I guessed too. --Dbratland (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, the twin-cam pic isn't his and is actually quite a nice picture. I rode a twin cam last week and nearly bought it, but decided that I'm holding back for one of the new K1600's though and going through a pre-winter cleanout of my garage in the meantime. This time next month I might only have two bikes in the garage - the lowest number I have owned since I started riding. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R/Workpage
Hello, I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R/Workpage, as prod tags are only to be used on pages in the mainspace. Since it appears you are the page creator and only contributor of substantive content, you can place a tag on the page to have it speedy deleted under criterion G7. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What can I do?
What can I do if edits from an editor looks to have an agenda in editing Wiki?---North wiki (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you should stop edit warring and use the talk page to find consensus. If you cannot resolve your disagreement on the talk page, follow the advice on Dispute resolution. --Dbratland (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

However, I agree with Dbratland. It is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. There are thousands upon thousands of vehicle recalls every year, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every recall into all the Honda articles. The policy undue weight explains why. Go porch books (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. If his edit is OK, Why not me? Please explain this.

I don't think your point is valid. First, My edit based on public ciation. It is not mine. Second, Honda recalled 570000 faulty brake cars. It is significant. Third, You said, "There are thousands upon thousands of vehicle recalls every year, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every recall into all the Honda articles." >> this thing should apply to North wiki also. OK?Go porch books (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And, Please explain what is the significant? Honda recalled 570000 faulty brake cars. Honda recalled 570000 faulty brake cars. It is significant. What is the standard of "significant"? Go porch books (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Double standard Sorry, But, North wiki said, "I suggest you raise the issue of significance in the discussion page and seek consensus" same thing apply at hond pages.


 * 1) Honda recalled 57,000 faulty brake = significant.
 * 2) hyundai recalled 17 faulty horse = Is it significant?

Why my edit is bad, North wiki's edit is good? please explain this. Go porch books (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are continuing to insist that two wrongs make a right. Discuss the problem with Hyundai, and stop vandalizing Honda articles. If you do not stop, you will be blocked from editing. That is all. --Dbratland (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a source present in the material you deleted. no vandalism. no edit warning at page. Check the source. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/10/nhtsa-unveils-vehicle-ratings-under-updated-star-safety-system.html Go porch books (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please address this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Dbratland (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dbratland, regarding the recalls: the Honda one is fairly significant affecting c. 500,000 vehicles. The Hyundai recall only affects about 1,000 cars, of which only 30 have actually been sold. I can certainly see why Go porch books is getting annoyed.

There seems to be POV pushing from both User:North wiki and Go porch books. I have thusly edited some pages to include information from both editors. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather see the significance of recalls measured in terms of whether or not experts in the field and mainstream media sources say they are significant. The numbers of vehicles involved might seem large to you or me, but if so, then major media or at least automotive media should explicitly say so.Recalls can be very routine, and many media outlets report recalls as a routine matter. If every routine recall were mentioned in these vehicle articles, they articles would be filled with thousands of words of what is basically trivia. Questions of undue weight can be cleared up if we let the sources guide is and focus on recalls which the sources agree are important enough to note.It's a hard enough question to resolve without editors trying to make a point about something else or otherwise grind an ax. --Dbratland (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Recalls seem to be a favourite at the moment due to the Toyota unintended acceleration recalls from late 2009 and early 2010. The Honda recalls were reported fairly widely; even here in Australia (where very few if any cars were affected) most of the motoring media published a story about it. I was unaware of the Hyundai recall until today. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I might suggest a policy guideline modeled after WP:WPACT, to be used by WP:WikiProject Automobiles and WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. So if you can cite evidence that the recall affected the "sales, design, or other tangible aspect", then it is worth mentioning. Just to have some kind of rough yardstick to go by. --Dbratland (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Toyota recall certainly had a noticeable impact on sales, but it is usually no quite so apparent. If for example a 5 percent sales reduction resulted this month due to the Honda recall, how could one be so sure that there were not any other factors involved? Every recall affects "design" as the component in questions is either redesigned or altered slightly. Maybe we should have a criterion based on press coverage outside the automotive circle. So if the recall is widely (i.e. not just one) cited by newspapers such as The Times,  The New York Times or the The Sydney Morning Herald, then this would demonstrate notability. However, a single article published by just Autoblog (or similar sites) demonstrate no external notability.


 * Also, some seemingly small recalls from low-volume automakers are often notable. Several recalls in Australia by Holden have had significant press coverage even though the number of vehicles affected was only a few thousand 12,830 vehicles, 1,521 vehicles.


 * The Honda recall would be classified as mid-level. The Hyundai recall is very minor, while the Toyota (2009), Audi (1986) and Ford (2000) recalls are very significant. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, something along those lines. There are some blogs or columns that report every recall, regardless of size or impact, so they are no help because they are indiscriminate. But if a recall rises to the level of notice beyond those outlets, then it would be worth including. Not a perfect standard, but a consistent one. --Dbratland (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Harley Owners Group
Do me a favour and take a look at Harley Owners Group (and the talk page) where another editor seems to have taken exception to my edits. I would appreciate your opinion for or against. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your warning to 165.139.168.35
Hi. I saw your third level warning to this school IP. Are you sure this edit is really vandalism and not just a good faith attempt to edit the article?

Whatever it is, thanks for keeping an eye on our articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have tagged that one becaue it's confusing. The 3rd level warning was for this edit. The delete warning was for deleting the citation from Types of motorcycles, but not for the other changes in that edit. But that's too confusing so I'll remove it and only keep the warning for Hypocrisy. --Dbratland (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Those two edits are separated by 48 hours, so they're likely 2 different people. Regards, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

PGR
Thanks for that. Perhaps you could consider reverting the last edit to the article to reinstate motorcycle club. I'm staying away as I'm nearly at 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically this edit. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also added a bit about them not being an MC/MCC or whatever. Maybe that will help make this issue go away. --Dbratland (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done

 * Gee, thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to copyright material
You removed a link I had made to the full text of Pirsig's ZMM. It seems naive now but it had never occurred to me it might be a copyright violation. The text is quite openly available on a number of sites, in one case coupled with a suggestion to actually buy the book! The page I linked to is archived on the Wayback machine and so is at least one other. However, I cannot see that Pirsig has, or has not, licenced his book for display on these sites. Although WP:COPYLINK permits linking to Wayback, my feeling is not to do that if there is a genuine doubt as to the material's legitimacy. Thoughts? Thincat (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a blatant copyright violation, and the Wayback machine is irrelevant. Copyright is not rescinded based on how many websites pirate the material. What matters is that it has not been donated to the public domain or freely licensed, and that site is in now way fair use. --Dbratland (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thincat (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

New Gavin Trippe article
After our discussion about the deletion of Super Single, I've started an article for Gavin Trippe in my userspace; would you like to help tidy it before moving over to a new article? — Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I found a number of articles about Gavin Tripp and will add them if I have the time. --Dbratland (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gavin Trippe is posted up in article space now and added to WP Motorcycling articles. Looking forward to your additions. — Brianhe (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sid.young
We should be encouraging Sid.young - he is an obvious enthusiast and shows promise. I have posted some (hopefully) helpful advice on his talk page. Perhaps you could do the same. I have also redirected the combined GPZ1100 B1 and GPZ1100 B2 articles to the combined GPZ1100 B1/B2 article. I just don't see the point of three separate articles covering essentially the exact-same content. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was somewhat encouraging, right? While still, you know, requesting less of the unhelpful edits. --Dbratland (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zakopane Architecture style
Done! --Orestek (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done!--Orestek (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Kawasaki Ninja Logo
I uploaded a photo I took of the Ninja logo on my motorcycle (File:Kawasaki Ninja Logo-Square.jpg). How is that a copyright violation? mattofwashington (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an image of nothing but the logo, where the logo is the sole focus of the picture. It's not relevant who owns the bike or what the logo is written on. What matters is that its not a photo of something else that happens to have a logo on it. However, even though Kawasaki owns the rights to the logo, it is still possible to have a copy of it here on Wikipedia if a non-free use rationale is properly asserted. That's what Magog the Ogre did right here. There are a few special cases where copyrighted logos may be used, but the correct rationale has to be there. For you to claim that you own copyright, as here was the only problem. It's fixed now. --Dbratland (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gavin Trippe
Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Highwaymen Motorcycle Club‎
Any ideas for sources on this article and its details?  Will Beback   talk    07:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving it your attention. Some topics are harder to source than others.   Will Beback    talk    23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a ton of old newspaper clippings, but they weren't terribly interesting. As far as sourcing the colors and logo, I would argue that the image speaks for itself, unless any editor wishes to dispute it. I would call it "noncontroversial" and not in need of a citation. The fact that their colors are silk screened or painted on, rather than sew-on patches, is unique, but I could only find a blog post about it. --Dbratland (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Earth isn't flat?
At the Discussion page for the article, Patriot Guard Riders, you provided a link to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.

I clicked on the link and one of the first things I noticed was a Disclaimer Box. The words in that box could be edited and the box could be placed at the top of the page at the Patriot Guard Riders article.

If you feel this idea has merit for this particular article, could it also be used for other articles? There are so many articles where the discussion is much longer than the article itself and it is a waste of space.

I am a Copy-Editor and have been doing minor edits here for almost two years. I keep getting lost when I try to Copy-Edit. Well, I am 70 and edit when health and time permit. One of my favorite things to do is click on Random articles and when I see an especially long article I go to the bottom of the page and edit up. Many writers lose momentum near the end of an article so that is where I find stuff to fix.

I am a Patriot Guard Rider and experienced editor who recognizes the necessity for maintaining a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

My User name turned red several weeks ago and I do not know how to fix it. I can still edit and sign my name with four tildes. I should do that. Thank you. Tiyang 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs)


 * No disclaimers in articles kind of nixes that. The box at the top of Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat -- which is not an -- article, it's an essay -- is there to make sure nobody take it too literally. It's just meant to be helpful. The article already says right in the lead that PGR is not a "motorcycle club" the way that one-percenters mean "motorcycle club". No reason to beat a dead horse.And if we changed PGR to "organization" and then redefined every other club, group, association, etc. to follow the one-percenter's definitions of "motorcycle club", "riding club", "brand club", etc, then I assure you, everyone in the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and all the English speaking readers of Wikipedia would be raising hell because they don't define those words that way. That's why it won't work -- unless you are seeing something I'm missing. If you can think of a scheme that will work better than Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SPADE, then lay it out.Maybe you should look at Dispute resolution and follow the steps there to see what other options you have to get the changes you want.As far as your user name, click on View history of an article that you edited BEFORE your name turned red. Scroll down in the history until you find a change you know that you made, and copy the link to that change. Even if you don't see Tiyang next to it, if you know you did it, copy the link. Paste the link here and maybe I can guess what happened. For example, on The Matrix, I click View history, scroll down to December 27, and then click prev and sure enough, I'm the one who added Triumph Speed Triple to that article. So I paste the link right here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Matrix&diff=404495229&oldid=404413887Try giving me that link -- I suspect you weren't logged in, or you somehow have 2 accounts, but to be sure we have to find an example of one of your old edits before your name turned red. --Dbratland (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I forgot about no disclaimers in articles. I have no issue with the Patriot Guard Riders article unless I can make a purely editorial change. Period. I identified myself as a member so I would not violate any rules.

My User name is fixed at last. I received a message from SineBot. Went to Slakr's Discussion page and read FAQs. I unchecked Treat the above as Wiki markup in My preferences. If you have time, please read the message I left for Slakr on the Discussion page, Subject:Thank you for SineBot.

Thank you for taking so much of your valuable time to help me. I sincerely appreciate it. Now back to Random articles. Very Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tiyang, it's always nice to have another editor around here, especially a motorcycling editor . Let us know when you need help. Have you read Talk page guidelines? "Sign your posts" is in there, another thing is about indenting discussions, so that's something you can learn too. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be perfect- I'm horrible at copyediting, and it's always nice to have someone who can handle that part. It's sort of what makes Wikipedia go 'round- everyone has their own specialty. Dbratland and I can point you towards motorcycle articles that need editing. tedder (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Smilie/Smiley (is one British and the other American)? Could I be called a biker editor instead of a motorcycling editor?  I like biker; it's like cop meant in a friendly way.  Thanks for the info about indenting.  I guess I forgot again.  Stuff like that happens when you're 70.  Dbratland and Tedder, you certainly may point me to motorcycle articles to edit.  I haven't done a substantive edit in years.  I have been receiving Southern Biker Magazine for several years and recently deleted a bunch of issues from my Inbox.  I especially would enjoy editing motorcycle safety articles but point me where the real need is.  Two words that bother me are interment and internment.  I searched for them and found more than 450.  It may require a team to fix them all because I don't think a Bot could do it, but perhaps.  I searched for internment (burial) and found 235; then searched for Interment Camp and found 219.  THEN I searched for intered and found 46,604.  I need some help from you regarding Wikipedia's policy on the preferred spelling - one r or two.  I found an article for intered as an alternative spelling for interred, but it doesn't mention Wikipedia's preference.  Shouldn't it?  Okay, back to bikers and bikes.  Several weeks ago, I found thousands of photographs of bikers and lists of biker clubs that were in the wrong category.  Unfortunately I did not make any notes or use my Print Screen but I think I can find them again.  I go now.  Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for responding on my talk page earlier. If you have time, perhaps you could take a look at Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R‎‎ - I suspect the motorsports section could remain but only with major rework. What was there before Tedder deleted it was pretty poor. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)