User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Yamaha XJ series merger...

OK Ive tried a couple of times to do a merge of the maxim article etc with the E-II but for some reason it won't work for me? If you'd be so kind as to do the actual merging of the information I'll hopefully be able to rearrange & tidy it up a bit since I can edit pages that exist still. Probably just me being dumb but would appreciate the help if you can find time. Thanks XJ750E-IIbloke (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to help with this if I have time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What do knots and motorcycle oil have in common?

Given your interest in enhancing Wikipedia's cultural/contextual content you might want to have a look at User talk:Brianhe#Knot articles and WP:NOTHOWTO. I used a bookify that you performed on Motorcycle oil as an example of what could/should be done here. — Brianhe (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Clipless pedals in BMX AFD

Howdy! I'll non-admin close your AFD as withdrawn but you might consider just speedy-redicting (boldly) to Bicycle pedal#Clipless pedals. Save yourself the trouble of waiting for an admin. If someone tries to revert your redirect, it can always be protected. Stalwart111 00:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for an admin! What was I thinking? Ha ha. All sorted. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike King (BMX rider), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mario Soto (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) 13:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Belltown, Seattle link removed

Hi, Dennis I would like to know if you removed my link, why didn't you remove all of the other external links that are similar to the one I posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrush78 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please read WP:OSE. I'm not responsible for every leaf that falls on Wikipedia. If I see something wrong, I try to fix it. But I'll take a look at the other links. Please don't use Wikipedia to advertise your web site any more, and try to edit on subjects where you don't have a conflict of interest. Overcoming a conflict of interest is extremely difficult for anybody, and usually not worth it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Engine as a stressed member

Stressed member redirects to motorcycle frame with some discussion. However it's not applicable merely to motorcycles -- the Lotus 49 was a 1967 Formula One automobile that also used the design[1]. In fact this is a decade and a half earlier than the earliest motorcycle example in the article. Thoughts on either including this in the existing text, creating a new article for the topic, or something else? — Brianhe (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like at least 9/10ths of the sources on engines as stressed members about motorcycles, and the only cars that have ever used it are one-off race cars. Perhaps there have been aircraft, boats, or rockets that have tried it once too. But in motorcycles it is a commonplace, production technique. I'd say if somebody writes a section about it in Vehicle frame then change Stressed member to a dab page, but otherwise, why give more weight to something so obscure? Also, the 1919 Harley-Davidson Model W used the engine as a stressed member, so... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that about the H-D model W. I think it should be added to the existing article, along with Formula One tech. Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a starting point for a new article at User:Brianhe/Stressed member engine. We could use considerable material outside of the motorcycle context, including images and see-also section that would be hard to incorporate. — Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the kind of thing Kevin Cameron would have once written about. Like comparing why it's cost-effective on motorcycles but not cars. Might be in one of the two books of his columns. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Created Stressed member engine this morning with examples from automobiles, electric cars, tractors, motorcycles. — Brianhe (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way at your suggestion, I bought Cameron's Top Dead Center 2. It has a couple of chapters devoted to frames, but nothing I could find specifically germane to stressed member construction. — Brianhe (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Countersteering: essential or beneficial?

"Undid revision 560187128 by Arrivisto (talk) there is zero controversy among motorcycle safety experts that countersteering is essential" In an ideal world, all motorcyclists would use countersteering. But many motorcyclists (particularly those who have not ridden off-road) have never heard of countersteering. Of course, one might argue that it is impossible to ride a bike at all without subconsciously countersteering, but I would still say (at the risk of entering into semantics) that countersteering is "beneficial" rather than "essential". Arrivisto (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Countersteering#Countersteering: essential or beneficial? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unicycle

Hi, I wasn't trying to put unicycle.com as a link. unicycle.com manufactures many unicycle so I thought it is a well known unicycle company. Maybe I misread the headline and "well-known unicycle companies" really means compaines well-known for other products they manufacture. Either way it is up to your discretion. Unicycle.com sells other brands of unicycles but as far as I know it is also a company which manufactures good, low-cost unicycles which many beginners buy. I am not an expert wikepidian so it is up to your discretian. All the best on your other projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.247.79 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all about Verifiability. Just cite reliable, independent sources that say it's a well known company. Or look at the criteria of WP:COMPANY and see if you can find sources which meet the critieria for creating an article about the company. That's what I meant by linking to WP:WTAF. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Collective Nouns

I notice you have removed the update to the Baboons collective even though this is a recognised term. My reference may have been construed as a 'personal' page so I also submit the following as supporting evidence of the legitimacy of this term: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_collective_noun_for_baboons

Collective nouns for baboons are:

   a congress of baboons
   a flange of baboons
   a rumpus of baboons
   a tribe of baboons 
   a troop of baboons

I trust this source is more trustworthy and would appreciate it if you were to undo your edit.81.134.193.196 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

'Flange' of baboons was a joke from a 1970s sketch comedy TV show. WikiAnswers is crowdsourced, user-generated content, not a reliable source. See WP:SPS.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your "behavior" accusation on jump start

What contents are you referring to that you're wanting to restore? I am using the restructure template while this is undergoing change and it would appear that you're accusing me of "behavior" issue for not following your methods. I am restoring some contents such as the injury statistics. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(Normally the place to reply to a question is at the talk page of what you're replying to. See WP:Talk. But you want to move the discussion over here to my talk page, so I'll reply here.) The following are reliable sources, not personal homepages:

• Haynes Repair Manual, Toyota Corolla 1984 thru 1992. pp. 5–2. ISBN 1-56392-064-6.
• 2004 Owner's Manual,`Toyota Camry Solara, Toyota Publication No. OM33596U, for an example of an owner's manual.
• http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/1986/1986_240/86240_03b.htm On-line version of a 1986 Volvo 240 owner's manual, page 64, shows jump start procedure
• Bauer, Horst (1996). Bosch Automotive Handbook 4th Edition. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch GmbH. pp. 806–807. ISBN 0-8376-0333-1.
• "Injuries Associated with Hazards Involving Motor Vehicle Batteries". Road Management and Engineering Journal and TranSafety. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
• Organizations such as Prevent Blindness America recommend use of splash-resistant safety goggles to protect the eyes while connecting cables. "Prevent Blindness". Prevent Blindness. Retrieved August 10, 2007.
• Schultz, Mort (December 1979). "What you may not know about jump starting". Popular Mechanics 152 (6). ISSN 0032-4558.
• Duglin Kennedy, Shirley (2005). The Savvy Guide to Motorcycles. Indy Tech Publishing. p. 33. ISBN 0-7906-1316-6, 9780790613161 Check |isbn= value (help).
• "Gearhead". American Motorcyclist 51 (12) (American Motorcyclist Assoc). December 1997. ISBN 0277-9358 Check |isbn= value (help).
• "Tech Article:24 Volt Systems". BJ Series Land Cruisers. Retrieved January 5, 2012.

Everything cited to these sources should be restored. You've hinted that there is misinterpetation or synthesis, but have you read The Savvy Guide to Motorcycles? Or the owners manuals cite? Or the government reports cited? State what the problem is at Talk:Jump start (internal combustion engine). And for the third time, would you please tell me why you won't use a workpage? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Hi Dennis,

I saw your reversions of my edits. I will do a better job paraphrasing in the future. I thought the content from this site was public domain since it is a government agency and no copyright exists on any of its pages. Thanks, Tom

Glossary of cycling

Hi Dennis: Your use of WP:Not made up was ill founded. While you could quibble about WP:RS, and I had put in a "cn" template, this is an accepted term and well known. E.g., it is used among other places at the Wolverine Sports Coub and the Walden School of Cycling, and I've heard it from a substantial number of professional cyclists. That you may not have heard of it is hardly dispositive one way or the other. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. It is a made up term. Maybe you know the people who made it up, but Wikipedia is not for slang you and your mates use. It is not widely used at all. If it were widely used, there would be sources to support it. Do not add any more unverifiable information to this article. Please read WP:BURDEN. It says "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed...The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's is not a disagreement over the quality of sources. You have explicitly added unsourced material which you know is in dispute. This violates the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability as explained in the Burden of evidence section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, please lighten up. I have found lots of blogs but for now no [WP:RS]]. Won't re-add it until I find sources, but life it too short for us to become enmeshed in a great controversy. BTW, "the horns" is another well known bicycling metaphor. Perhaps where you come from the names Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis, Mike Walden and Walden School of Cycling mean nothing. But they do in my world Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "world" is perfectly valid. But Wikipedia is not the whole world. Facts which meet the standard for verifiability are only a small subset of the world. Many things are true and well known that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia is nothing but a summary of whatever has ever appeared on any old web site, which is to say, an index of the web, which is to say a search engine. Or a crowdsourced collection of both reliable and unreliable claims. The difference between Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia is the standard of verifiability. Which is why I will not lighten up about it. Happy editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1500 Drifter

RE your suggestion that my article/edits "to the page Kawasaki Vulcan 1500 Drifter, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes" accompanied by guideline on spam, conflict of interest, policy on neutral point of view, etc... I'd simply like to clarify that while I am the host of the Drifter Riders Forum (a position I was assigned as an extension of volunteer service to the forum as a moderator), I have no relationship with either Kawasaki Heavy Industries (manufacturer of the 1500 Drifter), or with CobraUSA. The article which I posted (much of which has since been deleted through various edits) was posted relying on skills acquired through two decades of experience as a news reporter, editor and news photographer and not as a representative and/or spokesperson of either company. Thank you for the words of welcome, but I must admit that the treatment of this article (by Jjron in particular) as "blatant advertising" does little to encourage further contributions from me. WoodCarver1 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

it makes no difference who you are. Please follow the guidelines for external links.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a request

Hello, Dennis Bratland. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewart.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

UWPCE Communications

Dear Dennis, I am brand new as a contributor to Wikipedia--first time today--so I'm on a very steep learning curve as I attempt a few clarifications. Thanks for your patience as I struggle through a few things. I tried to make a few very general edits to the page about the company I work for, attempting to keep neutral tone and simply correct a few basic factual errors. Also, when I created the username/account I tried to be transparent and call it "UWPCE Communications," but now I realize I may need to change that username/account going forward? I'm still learning and not sure how to proceed with this. Procedures are complex and not altogether clear. Thanks for any help! Are you able to tell me which of the simple edits I made may be questionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UWPCE Communications (talk • contribs) 00:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Marketing or promoting your company, group or cause?

Have you read...?

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• The Grande Guide To Wikipedia
• Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool at Inc. (magazine)
• Wikipedia Marketing - 5 Steps to Visibility on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia 101 for Marketing

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kawasaki W series may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 1960 the Akashi-based Kawasaki Heavy Industries|Kawasaki Aircraft Company]] acquired an interest in the [[Meguro motorcycles|Meguro]] motorcycle company, which had obtained a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindergarten as German invention

DB: I reverted your removal of this category before seeing the history of the battlefield. I'm not sure now what is the right status here. I don't want to get involved in the messiness...but see the article talk page for more on the objective question. hgilbert (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fine if you choose to keep a change on its own merits. But see WP:EVASION for the basic principle: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Europefan sockpuppets

I read your comments at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I fully understand your frustration, and I have closed the SPI and blocked the IP addresses. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page next time. I can't promise that I will deal with it quicker than waiting for a SPI, but there's a good chance I may be able to do so. How much good blocking can do to someone so willing to keep hopping to new IP addresses is open to question, but at least we can try to slightly slow him/her down. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I am open to other approaches to this problem if anyone has any new suggestions. And if anybody can convince this guy to quit socking and play by the rules, it would be a great service to us all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to your latest message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it

Half the other clubs don't have citations. I see them riding in my area, they have a website, I know they are 1%ers. http://condemnedfewmc.com/. So what exactly are you looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiebiker (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

When you click "edit", you see a note right at the top of the page that says: "Additions without verifiable, reliable sources will be deleted. Additions must have some notability beyond just having their own web site. This should be an independent, reliable source."

All of the entries marked "citation needed" are clubs that have a Wikipedia article, meaning they already meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria. Any child can make a website. Notability means they have received substantial coverage in reliable books, news media and other quality sources. Not self-published sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle: Wikipedia Takes Seattle in September

Hi Dennis. Would you be be interesting in helping to set up a photo expedition for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America for Seattle in September? We have a little event page creation wizard at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Planning if you'd like to use that.--Pharos (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yamaha MT-09, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Cameron (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) 10:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, warning messages from Dennis Bratland

Dennis,

Thanks for your interest in my post (Steven L. Thompson), which as you've determined is indeed me (Ttrider87). It seems you are a motorcyclist. That means there is a faint chance you know my work and my racing history, which is indeed all in the public sphere (for example, my win at the 250GP in Austin, Texas, in 1969 was covered, as was the the 76-mile race at Daytona a few weeks later, in Cycle News, and yes, I have a copy). Likewise, almost everything in this post is in the public sphere, having been written about by me or someone else in journalism (auto/moto/avio) at some point.

I take your warning against self-interesed self-inflation seriously, but if you actually examine my references listed in the story, link by link, you'll see that they lead to factual support for the "claims" therein.

I have been writing for publication since 1971, have edited national magazines (Car and Driver, Cycle Guide, Autoweek, AOPA Pilot, and Road Test) and so I know a bit about conflicts of interest and worked hard my entire professional life to ensure there aren't any in my work. The same goes with the posts to this piece.

If you take down my contributions, as you seem to want to, while it might be within your Wiki-rights, it will achieve nothing regarding the factual presentation of my life and work.

I invite you to contact me at slt@slthompson.us any time to discuss this further.

Steven L. Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are free to write about yourself and your work on Wikipedia, but I think it is nearly impossible to be objective and it is generally a thankless task. Even when you do a good job, others will be suspicious of you. User:Vintagent, Paul d'Orléans, edits on the subject of motorcycles, but avoids the subject of himself, which works much better. In any event, the best policy is to be as open as possible about your intentions, and to seek consensus for edits, for example, by making suggestions to talk pages rather than to the articles themselves. These articles offer similar advice:

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• The Grande Guide To Wikipedia
• Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool at Inc. (magazine)
• Wikipedia Marketing - 5 Steps to Visibility on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia 101 for Marketing

Also, is Abcambridge123 (talk · contribs) a previous Wikipedia account you used? If so, I'd tag the account as {{retired}} and never edit with it again, to avoid being blocked for sock puppetry.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry there are so many rules. It's unavoidably complicated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dennis: I've never used "Abcambridge123" and have no other Wikipedia account.

BTW: "Low value" to motorcyclists? Interesting! If you don't mind, I'll let my colleagues at Cycle World know about your rating, and this whole exchange, which has been very enlightening.

Changes will doubtless be made to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 September 2013‎

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Assessment#Importance scale, which carries no weight or force, is an approximation of how vital the article is in the entire subject of motorcycling. The importance rankings are mostly used by editors to decide which articles are most in need of work. Raising your bio from Low to Mid importance would be saying it is on par with subjects like Honda Gold Wing, Hells Angels, David L. Hough, Moto Guzzi Le Mans, Motorcyclist (magazine), Mick Walker (motorcycling), and Suzuki Hayabusa.

If you think raising the importance is justified, you could post your reasons at Talk:Steven L. Thompson and see if others agree. But as I said, it's extremely difficult to be objective if the subject is yourself.

Good essays you might enjoy are Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Expert retention and Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. How experts can get along on a collaborative encyclopedia project with amateurs on an equal footing has been a fraught subject since the very start of Wikipedia, fueling the initial split between founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and the founding of the competing encyclopedia, Nupedia.

I don't have any special power or insight here. I'm just trying to help you understand the various viewpoints. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dennis,

Thanks for your insights. I've taken down the entire article. You might wish to do the same with the Talk Page and the title page.

I am not interested in implications of self-interested bias in what I produced, which are all statements of fact, and were supported by links and references. If I need to do something else to ensure this subject is fully deleted, please advise.

Ttrider87 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article isn't yours to take down. Everything you post here is a donation to Wikipedia. Post at Talk:Steven L. Thompson. Understand the concerns of other editors, and see if you can come to consensus. The main thing is to help find published third party sources that verify each fact in the article. If you're working from something that was published by a third party, you're golden. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to message

Your message was: Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Types of motorcycles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk)

Thank you for your message, which somewhat surprised me. You say you removed my edit as there was no reliable source. In fact, I simply rewrote what you has written, and used exactly the same reliable source as you. Q: Why did I rewrite it? A. For accuracy & clarity and to remove a hint of bias. I named the authors, calling them academics rather than experts. I wasn't impressed by their book which seemed little more than a statement of "the bleedin' obvious" (cf: Basil Fawlty to Sybil Fawlty: "You ought to be on Mastermind - Special Subject: the bleedin' obvious!"), so "academic" seemed a better description than "expert", especially as there are errors in the book. It seemed better to identify the authors by name, rather than use your "some experts", which implied a broader body of opinion. Also, I chose to avoid the word "outwith" which is archaic.

The list "bagger, cafe-racer, naked, roadster & supermoto" was somewhat tongue in cheek, as it was taken (with the crafty insertion of "roadster") from your own blog on the Types of Motorcycles talk page! I still feel that the list is useful as an example of sub-types that are commonly used, but which have yet to acquire a recognised status. Perhaps you can help to find references?

I don't wan't an editor war, but I do feel my contribution more accurately reflects the academics' views, so I'm going to restore my contribution . I know our ideas clash from time to time, but we both know we're just trying to row the good ship "Wikipaedia" forwards! Arrivisto (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, and original research. If you continue you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm amazed by your adversarial response. There is no unsourced content; my source is EXACTLY the same one you used, namely the rather unimpressive tome by Scots academics Broughton & Walker, who are no more "expert" than anyone else. Nor have I posted "original research". You are behaving as though it's your very own article. My rewriting of your text was necessary because of the faults in your contribution; yet instead of taking on board my very conciliatory rationale (above,) you issue blocking threats. Unbelievable! Arrivisto (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to keep trying to explain WP:NOR to you. Since I can't explain it to you, I suggest seeking advice from others who may be able to explain Wikipedia's policies to you better than I can. You are adding information that is not contained in the cited source. I realize you cannot see that but none the less if you continues you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be delighted to learn how I had introduced original research into this article. Was it the sentence; "Such sub-types include: bagger, cafe-racer, naked, roadster & supermoto"? If so, why not delete or amend it (with explanation)? Or was it the other sentence: "Two academics, Broughton & Walker, appear to argue that all bikes "mostly fit" into the six usual classes, and, using the sole example of the "naked" bike, they dismiss further sub-types.". If the latter, then I would say I have simply written an arguably more succinct and objective report of Broughton & Walker than your contribution. Arrivisto (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to continue wasting my time repeating the same explanations to you. Please do not add original research and unsourced content to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved my last comment to Types of Motorcycle Arrivisto (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)