User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bike articles

I noticed your frustration while editing the Ninja 250 article... why indeed is the overall quality of bike articles on wiki so low? No uniformity, cohesiveness... sigh... AniRaptor2001 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really feeling frustrated. Just saying how you fix one thing and that leads to ten other things that also have to be fixed. In truth I'm kind of happy to know that I won't run out of things to do. But sometimes it seems daunting...Dbratland (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Dbratland, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 15:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ducati 65T

Hi. Regarding this article you recently created; the original version was not a suitable Wikipedia page, because an article cannot be just an infobox. I've 'wikified' it a bit, and now it looks OK as a stub. Please compare the original version to the version after my edits.

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are always 'live'. If you're working on articles, planning to fix them later, you should develop them in your user space, by creating a page such as User:Dbratland/Ducati 65T - fix it up there before copying it over to mainspace.

If you need help with anything, either place a {{helpme}} on this page (with a question), or talk to us live.

You could also contact me directly, on my talk page.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorcycling Italian Motorcycles

Thanks for joining the Italian Motorcycles Special Interest Group. You are right there is a lot to do but I've had encouraging feedback from around the world for the work I've been doing on Category:British motorcycles so it is worth it. it would be good if we can do the same with the Category:Italian motorcycles Cheers Thruxton (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really excited that somehow the Berliner Motor Corporation article seemed to fall into place. I was afraid I'd couldn't pull a coherent story together about them. I'm hoping it is in a state that will attract more interest, for example from the Norton and Matchless experts who probably know a lot about that side of the Berliner story. Dbratland (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 3e54feeb1c7c7cfa37a8ee64636565ae

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Speedy deletion nomination of Aeromere/Capriolo

A tag has been placed on Aeromere/Capriolo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Garyzx (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Terra Modena.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Terra Modena.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MAIDS log.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MAIDS log.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

userboxes and bikes

Heh, nice userbox. And what bikes do you have? (I currently have a DL650 and a DRZ400S, but I've had quite a few others) tedder (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The four in the pictures. The last two pictures are actually of my bikes, and the first two are only examples of the same model. And actually the Ninja 250 is my wife's bike, and while the Yamaha Vino 125 is mine, she is the only one riding it for whatever reason. I'm hoping the Ducati Bronco will at least run, if not ride, by the end of the summer. If not I'm stuck with just the Ducati Sport1000, which is great but sometimes I think it's too much. I'm constantly thinking of selling it and getting 2 or 3 smaller, lighter, and perhaps older, bikes; so I can finally try a dual sport or supermoto, among others. But I'll probably keep it at least until the economy rebounds. My recent return to WP is due to researching the Bronco 125 and then the Berliner Motor Corporation and then one thing led to another... --Dbratland (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Wondered where the Bronco came from- good work on that article. My wife had a ninjette, which was a blast, but it isn't my type of bike. tedder (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop making personal insults such as, "certain people will stop at nothing to keep a fight going...". I'm just trying to make sure the article is accurate and that we don't perpetuate any myths. I'm sure you want that too. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source who says there is a myth that needs to be dispelled, cite them.--Dbratland (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why cite something for a claim that the article is not making, nor even implying? I honestly don't know whether "lane-splitting is always illegal in all states but California" is a myth or not. As far as I can tell, no one knows for sure. But we do have to provide reliable sources for claims made in the article. I have not seen any reliable sources that support that claim. Requiring reliable sources is how we avoid perpetuating myths that might be out there. You seem to be convinced that I have some nefarious motive other than that (which says more about you than me), but I assure you that's all this is about, and my posts are consistent with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem unable to do anything but keep the same argument going. From your history, I can see I'm not the first, nor the second, to make this observation. Others, too, have come to believe your goal is the dispute itself. Why not accept mediation? Unless you don't want it to be settled, perhaps?--Dbratland (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This has gone way out of control, but, for the record, I've done no more than you to "keep the same argument going". It takes two to tango. So if you really believe I've done anything wrong with respect to keeping the argument going, you should take a look in the mirror. Note that I don't have a problem with anything you've done, except your insistence to leave unsupported material in the article (and your disruptive filings and supporting of frivolous ANIs and Rfcs). Once again, I urge you to focus on article content and adhering to policy and guidelines. They are there for good reasons (especially policy like WP:BURDEN).

Also, I have not refused mediation. I've explained why I don't think it's necessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Can you answer born2cycle's question/comment? I'm trying to remain neutral, so if you could explain, I think it would be helpful. tedder (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

well done!

Nice job on the List of motorcycle manufacturers, especially this edit. tedder (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory?

I seem to have really gotten under you skin. Sorry about that. Here is the description about one of the key sources to the article you just claimed is "fringe theory"

Bicycling & The Law, by Bob Mionske, is a comprehensive primer on all facets of the law as it pertains to the average cyclist. Published in 2007, Bicycling & the Law is the first book on bicycle law written for the average cyclist since The Road Rights and Liabilities of Wheelmen, published at the height of the bicycle's golden age in 1895. In The Road Rights and Liabilities of Wheelmen, cyclists were advised of their right to the road, which had been secured in a series of court cases and legislation in the 1880s and 1890s. In Bicycling & The Law, cyclists are advised on their legal rights developed in the century since the publication of The Road Rights and Liabilities of Wheelmen, including their legal right to the road, extending back to those early cases. Cyclists are also advised on their legal rights and duties, as well as how to handle their own traffic ticket, common bicycle accidents, how to avoid them, and what to do if the cyclist is involved in an accident, how to insure themselves, legal responses to harassment of cyclists, lemon laws and warranties, how to protect against bicycle theft, and contractual issues cyclists commonly face.

That's fringe theory??? New ideas??? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note this issue has surfaced at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Born2cycle.2C tendentious editing and a flat refusal to engage in any sort of mediation. tedder (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC:User conduct for Born2cycle

Hi Dbratland. I know you have interacted with Born2cycle in the past, so I wanted to let you know I've created a User Conduct RFC for the user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. You are mentioned in it, feel free to endorse or decline. tedder (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And please add anything I've missed. You might be interested in a new bit of forum-shopping. Also, haven't you done this already? tedder (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to re-read the instructions and look at some archived RFCs to better understand how this works. It's rather complicated. I want to make sure I wasn't supposed to endorse rather than certify. I'm saying that I, too, attempted to dispute resolution and was refused, right? I can cite examples of that. I'm a little fuzzy on which parts of the RFC I should add to.

Incidentally, I don't think this is quite true: "...most states don't have a specific law to make it illegal, it's just lumped in with unsafe riding." I most states have explicit laws [1]; only 11 (AR, CA, DE, ID, KY, MI, MO, NJ, NM, OK, WV) have no explicit law, and CA is the only one with the liberal interpretation. The only reason that matters is that this whole thing is about the mere possibility of lane splitting in some sparsely populated states who don't care that much about lane splitting anyway because they don't have much traffic to lane split around. Should I mention this on the Talk page or is that a distraction?--Dbratland (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and mention that on the talk page, though keep in mind this is a user conduct RFC, not a content RFC. In other words, it's about the wikilawyering and refusal to gain consensus (until the ANI and RFC were raised, of course). I should probably strike some of that out, eh?

And you were right in certifying it, as you agree with the presentation of events and tried to resolve it on your own. No worries. tedder (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your last question above, I think the body of the article provides many citations to support the sentence in the lead that is under the microscope. Maybe some people don't like the (see list below) thing. Maybe they don't think the Matthews book [2] is quite good enough. It's unfortunate that I'm being accused of throwing "any old claim" around with no references.[3] I guess I would have thought the User conduct RFC would be treated with more gravity. Anyway, my feeling now is that I've said more than enough and I shouldn't repeat myself, nor should I fan the flames of battles that are not central to the RFC.--Dbratland (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of findings in the Hurt Report

A tag has been placed on List of findings in the Hurt Report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope this makes you laugh as much as it made me laugh

Have you seen this one? Wikipedia:LASTWORD. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of motorcycle training..

The new video for the Marine Corps is called 'Semper Ride'. Promo on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQHpRvlP0p0&fmt=22 .. and google has more. I'm generally avoiding the Motorcycle training article due to mild COI, so I'm passing the promo video link along. We may want to create an article for Semper Ride, I think it'll meet notability guidelines with no problem. tedder (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't have any idea that existed -- I must have read 40 articles about the new military motorcycle safety initiative.--Dbratland (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorcycling

Though a little late, welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones. If you want some suggestions of work to be done, check out the To do list. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

I don't want to seem rude or impolite but having done a load of work for the assessment department, I see that you seem to be doing drive-by assessing without too close adherence to the standards of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and apparently without there yet being any discussion or consensus on what articles should be give the top-importance rating. For instance you assessed Motorcycle history as at B-class with a top-importance rating. How can you possibly justify a B-class for any article that has few citation? It is tagged as such (definitely a "without major issues") and regarding the importance I think high-importance would be more appropriate until the group decide what articles warrant the top rating. The top-importance rating is reserved for a small number of really very important articles and not to be given lightly. Equally Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics and Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics need to be justified at a top-importance rating. I also still have some more work to do on how to perform assessments conveniently and quickly using one's monobook and a monoscript. Please excuse the criticism but it is intended to be constructive. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that I was going after the low hanging fruit. Isn't the importance of of Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics or Motorcycle history obvious? Those seem like the easy ones. I expect the quality ratings to be subject to some discussion, but how better to start the discussion than to rate the most obvious articles, and then see what the response is? Or is the process that one proposes a rating and waits for consensus?
I know it seems like drive by ratings, but these are auricles I'm familiar with and have pretty good idea what's in them already.--Dbratland (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, low hanging fruit does seem easy but, not to boast of my experience having assessed thousands of article, I tend to prefer to under-rate rather than over-rate articles and would suggest you do likewise. The top-importance and highest class rated articles are really easy to find and revisit by locating the category page from the statistics while the grunt work of assessing the lower rated bulk is what is rather tedious. Will advise on monobook as soon as I am done but likely not before the weekend. I have asked for some help in updating the {{motorcycle-stub}} articles by modifying the banner to stub-class but am not yet sure if it can be done by the people I asked. The previous editor who has such a bot is very seldom around and basically retired. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A few overrated articles won't hurt us, but yeah- what about just bot-assessing everything low, and marking articles as class=stub if they have the stub category/template? I can write a bot for that, dunno if it would happen before I get back from my moto trip (I'll be back end of Sept).
In general, the biggest concern I have is class-rating articles too high. That's the one thing that should be avoided. tedder (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the class is that sensitive I can leave it be for a while and see how it works out. I'm far more interested in the importance; I'd like to avoid getting sucked into doing too much work the low-importance articles and try to put most of my energy into the ones that matter.--Dbratland (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and assess for class, just know most moto articles are start or C at best :-) It's nice to rate them at the same time; we can then have a matrix showing which ones need work (top/high with low class). I suspect nobody touches the motorcycling articles as much as you anyhow, dbratland, so don't be afraid of doing it. tedder (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Query: DYK for The Art of the Motorcycle

Hello! Your submission of The Art of the Motorcycle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Project pages in main namespace

I noticed that you added WikiProject Motorcycling and its talk page to Category:Motorcycling on 21 July. My understanding is that main namespace and project namespace are usually kept separate. Could you take a look at the Project categories guidance and let me know if you think it applies? -- Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically that change, and the other edits I did to the category, were imitations of Category:Automobiles, and Category:Transportation. They seem to follow a convention of placing the project links (like the template category) under Greek letters so they fall at the end of the alphabet after the articles. Looking around, I see a lot of projects doing it that way with their main category, but not every project.
I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other; I was just trying to be consistent with the other projects I'd seen. The guidelines say you should use hidden categories but don't say anything about the practice of using Greek letters to sort them at the end. So I guess my answer is I don't know; whatever looks nice is fine with me. --Dbratland (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Adherence to already-established formatting policies like Project categories seems like a good idea to me unless we intend to change the policy. In this case I think the other projects are creating confusion for typical readers in their own categories. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Template:Motorcycling seems stuck in the category; might be a cache issue.--Dbratland (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Art of the Motorcycle

On August 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Art of the Motorcycle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

WP:DYK 08:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

argh

Can you look through Comanchero Motorcycle Club? I can't do it objectively anymore. I tried to remove some things that weren't supported by refs, now the refs don't match the information. If I go at it, I'm going to have an axe to grind.. tedder (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I have been editing these outlaw mc articles is that I DNGAF about them one way or the other. Only tying to make better pages. But it does get old.--Dbratland (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A little like the "we're not a club!" drama. Really, I don't care. tedder (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the the template:Infobox Criminal organization. The very existence of this template presupposes that Wikipedia editors, in their wisdom, have deemed the club a criminal org. The truth is you have accusations made by law enforcement, or the media, which are always fallible or subject to discussion, and the denials made by the clubs. Wikipedia should only report what each side says, given due weight, but not take sides. At least with extant orgs with living persons involved. Ancient history like Al Capone's gang are another matter.
I tried to get help at the BLPnoticeboard here but no luck so far. WP is a Kafkesque nightmare trying to guess which venue to ask your questions in.
I'd like to propose some actions, like replacing the criminal infobox with a more neutral group/club/org infobox, and having some minimum standards for when you can level accusations of litanies of crimes tied to the entire group, rather than members.
Do you think an RFC is a good idea? Or a thread on the Motorcycling project talk page? I'd like to lock the outlaw mc pages too (at least until they are cleaned up), but that's probably not realistic to hope for. --Dbratland (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen anything come out of BLPN. Seems to be a black hole more than anything. Something more neutral would be fine, though .. I dunno. Whatever RS we find for the "outlaws" is what we should call them. The real issue is keeping them free of unsourced material. Maybe we (you and I) should identify all of the articles and go on an improvement spree, which would make them easier to keep up, revert, etc.

It'll have to wait, I leave Monday for a 5-6 week moto trip. tedder (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep with the improvement spree and mull replacing the infobox, deepening on whether I can gin up enough support to make it stick. Enjoy your trip; wish I was riding more! --Dbratland (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE

Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category?
Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary.
Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 10:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)