User talk:Dennis Bratland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Motorcycle ambulance[edit]

Re this diff on Motorcycle ambulance. The blog might qualify for a WP:SPS exception if the writer is a "expert source"; he claims "I teach other people to ride as part of the NSW Roads and Traffic Authorities Compulsory Motorcycle Rider Training and Testing Scheme, and through private training" which is probably a qualifier. But I'm not going to push it. — Brianhe (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My correction is not spam. You have now reverted back to an error[edit]

The page about the Zero S bike has incorrect data. The spec link is for Zero S and the table lists Zero SR. I was clear about this error that I corrected but you still tagged my correction as spam. Did you even verify the correction I made before removing it? It took me quite some time to make those changes and I do it with no compensation expected so to spend all that time to just have it removed is quite frustrating and discourages me from future contributions. I don't have time to spend making sure my information is correct only to have it deleted. I'm glad to know you folks are quick to act to prevent errors but clearly more care needs to be taken to establish actual problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualfxpro (talkcontribs) 16:44, 10 April 2014‎

It looks an awful lot like all you're doing is promoting an unreliable personal blog, probably a scraper site, judging by the randomness of the content, or else just some guy's personal opinions. Citations should be reliable sources, not self-published sources. And threatening to withhold your contributions to get your way is passive-aggressive nonsense, and it isn't going influence me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, the data you have is incorrect. All you did is comment about the blog links. The link that I told you about "The spec link is for Zero S and the table lists Zero SR" is to the manufacturers page. How is that spam? Also, I'm not threatening you or being passive aggressive. I was simply stating a fact. The linked spec to the Zero page does not match the bike in the description. The fact it takes this much posting just to make that point does not work for a volunteer thing like this. Trust me I know. I'm 90% give and 10% get. Volunteer is core to my life. I speak for free at high schools and I do a lot of stuff to help others for free and at my expense. Whenever I run into situations like this it just turns me off and makes me not want to bother. That is just fact. You can care about that or not. I would prefer you cared because I take it you volunteered here for a positive reason and would not want to compromise that in any way.

Facts: The document refers to the SR model and then links to S model and the price inf does not match. If you follow the link which I provided to the manufacturer site you would see my information was correct I've pointed out this error about 4 times now and you have not even commented about it once

Basically what you did was see a post to a "blog" website, assume it's spam and ignored my note about the error which I corrected. So you never bothered to verify if it was correct or not. Further, even the blog post was not an issue. The blog has a video featuring the bike referenced in the spec link. The video is very popular and has been shared by the manufacturer. Bottom line is the video does not violate copyright or any policy that I know of, anymore than any other video. The point here is to provide quality information and links to quality sources. A top rated video that has been shared by the manufacturer and shows the bike that the article references adds value and is not selling anything or biased. It's simply adding more information.

However, it's naturally your call on that blog, but the article as it is, is in error. The S and SR are not the same bike. People often talk about if this site is accurate or not and here we have an example of an error that was caught by me and fought by you. So you fight to protect errors. What does that say about the accuracy of the rest of the site if even after pointing this out 4 times it's still not clear to you?

"to get your way is passive-aggressive nonsense, and it isn't going influence me"

I don't want "my way", I want the right way. The article has an error that I painstaking went out of my way to correct. It was challenging to do an edit for first time and I take it very serious to be accurate. I did not want to put another error so I took my time and double checked against the manufacturer website. So if pointing out an error on the website is passive aggressive to you then I don't know what to say. Forget about how you feel about me and just focus on making sure the data is correct, because it is not.

You may choose to read emotion into my words, but I urge you to leave the emotion out of it and focus what is important. Making sure the data on this website is accurate. It clearly is not. Are you going to correct it or will you leave it because you think I'm a spammmer still? Please forget about the "blog". That was an addition. It added value to article but fixing the error is more important. You leave the link out but to leave the error would be a violation of your responsibilities to this website. Don't let Spammer paranoia get in the way of good judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualfxpro (talkcontribs) 11 April 2014‎

Massimo Tamburini DYK[edit]

Just a reminder, Massimo Tamburini DYK is pending QPQ review. — Brianhe (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis – I have reviewed this DYK and identified two very minor issues which should be easy to fix, all being well. See my comments there. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thunder Beach Changes[edit]

Hi Dennis.

We recently made some changes to the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally page, which you removed due to "marketing phrases".

Thanks first of all, we do want to abide by the guidelines, and our mistake was out of a lack of experience, not a desire to "cheat the system".

We re-added our notes, albeit modified, before seeing your note about edits... So please do not take this as a disregard of your actions.

We do wish to make the following history of the rally known - as it is historically accurate; The Panama City Beach Motorcycle Rally first began in the Spring of 1999 when the Macon, GA HOG chapter, along with Garry Hundley of the Sandpiper Beacon Beach Resort & Tiki Bar jointly organized the very first "Bike & Beach Bash". The year 2000 saw attendance grow significantly, and in the Spring the event was renamed “Thunder Beach“.

The cited source for that information, is the following site: http://www.sandpiperbeacon.com

The remaining information about the hotel and tiki bar continuing to offer entertainment for the rally may be what was considered promotional - is that correct?

Can we work with you to get the wording agreed upon, so that the facts are there, without the marketing angle?

Thanks for your help! J — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hundley (talkcontribs) 18:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, you are the owner of sandpiperbeacon.com. You're citing yourself to add information to an article for which you have a conflict of interest, since your resort promotes the Thunder Beach Rally. Please restrict yourself to making suggestions at Talk:Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally and wait for others to make changes to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


We have taken your advice Dennis, and posed a question on the talk page for the bike rally.

It seems like a situation that cannot be resolved, if the only source for the information, is us - which therefore makes it less credible (despite it's accuracy).

Does that mean that the article will never be able to discuss the history of the bike rally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hundley (talkcontribs) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Until some third party source publishes it, is original research, which is outside of Wikipedia's scope. At issue here is the core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many facts in the world which are true, but which have not been published in sources that meet the verifiability standard, which means they are not included in Wikipedia. If this information is ever found in a reliable book, magazine, newspaper, or other media, please identify it on the Thunder Beach Rally talk page.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the whole internet. There are many other ways for people to find good information besides Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of German inventors and discoverers[edit]

Hello, Dennis. Although IPs have been evading blocks, it appears that these edits on List of German inventors and discoverers were constructive. Therefore, I would like to revert your edits on this page.Hoops gza (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert as you see fit, if you support the content of the edits on their own merits. The point of WP:EVASION is that a sockpuppeteer evading a block should be discouraged from further activity, and so their edits may be reverted without any additional justification. In the case of Europefan's sockpuppets, many of his edits have been kept by editors who, like you, think the material is constructive.

The fundamental problem with Europefan is that many of his edits are unsourced POV pushing, and he engages in talk page discussions using multiple accounts and IPs, so it creates the illusion that he has the support of multiple editors. Several of us have discussed it with him and asked that he cease this behavior, and he has been adamant that he will not stop, and he does not think anyone has the power to stop him. Hence the endless socking, reverts, and blocking.

So I have no problem with edits or reverts by anybody, as long as you are a legitimate editor and not a sock puppet of European. Please revert as you see fit. Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Diclofenac[edit]

Sorry, but I contribute to the text in the original page. There's no copyright applying here. My organisation belongs to birdlife international which is the owner of the original page, and I've the right to use the materials. Please, revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFO-SEO (talkcontribs) 15:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If that were true, why did you put "© 2014 BirdLife International" on your page? Is it copyrighted or not? And even if you removed the copyright problem, why should Wikipedia want copy-pastes of press releases and marking materials? See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Also, please be familiar with the Conflict of interest policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Massimo Tamburini[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A sentence in the article doesn't read well.
"Tamburini said that the 916 influenced his design, even though the Supermono was unveiled first, giving the impression that the 916 was derieved from the Supermono."
Since Tamburini did the 916, then did you want to say
"Tamburini said that the Supermono influenced his design, even though the Supermono was unveiled first, giving the impression that the 916 was derieved from the Supermono."
or
"Terblanche said that the 916 influenced his design, even though the Supermono was unveiled first, giving the impression that the 916 was derieved from the Supermono."
Perhaps the latter? BTW: I've fixed the typoed 'derieved' already. Shenme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I broke the sentence up to make it a little more clear, hopefully. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed Opportunity[edit]

There is very little information written that lists the OEM paint colors of vintage and modern motorcycles. Over the past 10 year I have researched thousands of motorcycle colors that can be identified with most makes and models from 1904-present. I was willing to provide this information to many motorcycles article written here on Wikipedia for motorcycle enthusiasts. For those who are restoring there bikes or simply looking for a fresh look will not find Wikipedia as a source to identify the original factory color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Paint Guy (talkcontribs) 01:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All advertisers think they are doing the world a favor. Yet when I Google "vintage honda paint" or "original motorcycle paint" or any of that stuff, your VMR Paints is always in the top 10 hits, often first or second. So your assertion that this information is hard to find is patently false. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a directory, so we don't provide lists of links where readers may go to buy stuff. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disc brake may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • The discs are commonly made from cast iron and a certain amount of [[Rust|surface rust] is normal. The disc contact area for the brake pads will be kept clean by

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OpenMarket Inc.[edit]

Hi Dennis - there is not one press release or newswire service included in OpenMarket's references and to say it references obscure blogs is a massive overstatement. The references are from reputable sources from the mobile industry, with independent editorial teams - not obscure blogs. For example, Mobile Entertainment has a monthly readership of 100,000 unique views, Mobile Marketing has 40,000 unique views per month and Mobile Marketer as 17,000 page views per day. The industry awards OpenMarket has received are well known in the mobile industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelljamesfox (talkcontribs) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your good job in alerting admins to vandalism. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Motrice Pia[edit]

Hi Dennis, hope you are enjoying the long weekend. I've started gathering info on the Motrice Pia, a contender for "first motorcycle" here: User:Brianhe/Motrice_Pia. The timeline is pretty confusing right now, I'd be glad for you to throw in anything you might have on it, if you have time. -- Brianhe (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never found mention of it in any books. There's museonicolis.com and Enciclopedia Italiana that's it. I've especially never found any experts who weighed the evidence between the Motrice Pia and the other motorcycles of the time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH[edit]

is worth a read. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not read the sources. You're assuming it's original research because you are having a hard time believieng institutional racism in Myrtle beach is real. This is a classic example of systemic bias on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have read the sources, I'm just a stickler for not distorting them for purposes of pushing POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kshama Sawant's bio organization[edit]

Hey Dennis. I feel like the organization of Sawant's article I put together is not ageing well. As her national profile expands I feel like there should be a general description of her and what she's doing that doesn't really fit into the "Other political positions" section of her bio. Keeping in mind that you're an experienced editor who wasn't happy with the old organization and likely to have an opinion on any new organization I wanted to run it by you first, to get your thoughts. Please let me know if you're interested in another reworking of the article, or not for that matter. Thanks. GraniteSand (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking more or less the same thing. I still think the coverage of the city council campaign period should have greater detail on the mundane issues, and on the 3 core issues of the campaign. But subsequent development should be expanded to show that she's become somewhat the public face of the $15/hr campaign. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
So, in regards to her bio after her House run, you want a tighter Council candidacy section? What comes next? Should subsequent entries be looked as a "tenure as X" section or should there be general section totally separate from her candidacies which covers the breadth of her non-campaign activities? As a politiican should the formatting reflect, say, George H.W. Bush or as a political activist reflect, say, Christopher Hitchens? I'm agnostic on it now but leaning toward topical. I worry a chronological section would be redundant and stuttered but a topical may lend itself to criticism coatracking. GraniteSand (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

VADA script[edit]

Ouch! It REALLY REALLY should not have done that. I will be having words with the maintainer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harley-Davidson WLA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biker culture (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) 08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Butler Petrolcycle[edit]

Hello Dennis. There are several errors on the wiwi page about Butler's Petrolcycle. I've ignored them over the years, but as I've now seen a few people quoting the page and its errors, I attempted to fix some of them. The edit regarding the front brakes was rejected by you. Here is the note that I received:

Note that the photograph is the 1887 version. The cited facts refer to the original 1881 model which was "improved over the years". Please do not conduct original research by deducing facts from a photo. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that you wrote that, but I'm unsure how Wikipedia works. My apologies if this note should be directed to somebody else. Anyway, you may know that there was no 1881 model of the machine per your note above. He presented his drawings in 1884, and it took a couple of years to construct the first version (the one with the two stroke motor). His patent drawings show the front brakes, as do the photos of the bike. They are also shown in the later photos of the bike after he changed to the four stroke motor.

There are no records anywhere of Bulter designing or using an "air-starting" mechanism on his Petrolcycle, so that note could be omitted from the wiki page. The early cylinders were double-acting, maybe that was were the confusion came from. He later set them to single-acting.

My research is thorough, and uses his official patent drawings as well as the books that were written in the 1890s and just after the turn of the century. I also have information from Butler's great niece, the Royal Automobile Club of England, the London Science Museum and the Beaulieu Museum, the Motor Car Journal issue Sept 15, 1899, Scientific American, etc, and several other books and periodicals of the era.

If you view his patent #15598 of 1887 you can see the labels for the brake lever, brake surface, etc. clearly called out. In addition, they are not only visible but are mentioned in a number of the books and periodicals.

I'm not a wikipedia guy, so I'll ask you to update the page if you would please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbitrary wiki (talkcontribs) 01:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Copied above over to Talk:Edward Butler (inventor)#Butler Petrolcycle. See discussion there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Block ip please[edit]

You already blocked 210.187.190.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) once, it is time again - (s)he's vandalizing Nissan Vanette repeatedly. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I re-reported to WP:AIV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Orient or de Dion[edit]

Did you notice that the caption on the image you added here (I mean the caption in the original book) said it was a de Dion-Bouton tricycle, not an Orient tricycle? They do look identical to me but perhaps they are not. — Brianhe (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I reverted. I thought the whole chapter was focused on the Orient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yamaha YZF R1 weights[edit]

Hi. Dunno if this is the right way to a talk, by editing user talk, but i try. The R1 weights u keep reverting to the ones measured by Sportrider.. Why? They r all wrong. For example, given weights by Sportrider for '00 R1; 188 kg dry and 201 kg wet. Difference in those is 13 kg.. WRONG! Fluids in '00 R1 weigh 19 kg's (18 liter gas, 2,5 liter coolant, 3,6 liter oil and little brake fluid.) This error by Sportrider shows their measurements can't be trusted at all. Will u please stop reverting into those figures. The weighs of R1's from '04 r the spec weights too. Thanx.

JukkaX (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Left a WP:NOR reminder on JukkaX's talk page. — Brianhe (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Europefan[edit]

Someone got mistaken for being you on deWiki: de:/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2014/05/24#Benutzer:Denniss_aka_en:User:Dennis_Bratland_.28erl..29, and the whole thing backfired in a couple of blocks. I also found the following two LTA pages: de:Benutzer:Jack User/GLGerman und seine Reinkarnationen and de:Benutzer:Seewolf/Liste_der_Schurken_im_Wikipedia-Universum#GLG_.2F_GLGerman.28n.29 obviously the user has a long history of socking not only here but also on deWiki. I will ask both to also have a look at our casepage maybe they can give as an idea for a rangeblock. Agathoclea (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. We need an admin fluent in both languages to sort it out. I can only use Google Translate on de.wikipedia and usually I lose the sense; Google doesn't understand most of the critical terms. Please let me know if you need me to take any action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I am travelling today and maybe tomorow so I try an work something out afterwards. My theory is that if we can identify the user here (which is easier) and get a block enacted on deWiki where dedection is harder, it will take the fun out of editing here. Agathoclea (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space Needle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 3 "{}"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports[edit]

RE: EDIT warring[edit]

Yes, please see that. it is NOT an excuse for edit warring. the page is going nowhere, so per the BRD cycle your BOLD, and valid edit, was reverted. so please discuss and gain consensus before insisting on YOUR version as the right one. That is the point of BRD, to prevent edit warring along the lines of the BRD crycle. I don't see where you have consensus for the changed version...that's why we maintain the status qupo to prevent wars until consensus is brought oforthLihaas (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And it does not say what you think it says. Please re-read WP:BRD more carefully. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Not sure what copyright material you refer to when edited the MSF page. The only added material from MSF, which I represent. An overview of a research project and a curriculum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Gladden (talkcontribs) 04:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit contained a wholesale copy-paste of a MSF press release from 2011 called "Groundbreaking MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study Under Way Multiple Age Groups, Various Riding Environments". The MSF has chosen to copyright its press releases. I know this because if I look at http://www.msf-usa.org/News.aspx it says right at the bottom "©2014 MOTORCYCLE SAFETY FOUNDATION". So I'm sure you do represent the MSF, but there's a split personality disorder here. The MSF says the text is copyrighted, but you say it's not. Which is it? If it's not, you need to go to http://www.msf-usa.org/News.aspx and change the copyright notice on the page to one that is compatible with Wikipedia, like Creative Commons license.

But should you? No. Because Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Press releases are not neutral. They tout their wares with peacock phrases like "landmark research initiative" and "world's first" and so on. This is self-serving, and is called a self-published source in Wikipedia terminology. If it is true that this is a landmark, first-ever initiative, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable independent source who says so with no conflict of interest. That's who you should cite for such statements, and the prose should be original, not copied from anywhere, and it should have a neutral tone.

I'm not trying to beat you up -- we appreciate your contributions. But it's very difficult to edit anything where you have a conflict of interest. You have to force yourself to think like somebody you're not. It's much easier to avoid articles like the one about your own organization, and contribute to other articles where you have some distance and objectivity. There are many motorcycling-related articles that we would love to have help on from someone like you. If you wish to continue to edit the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, I'd suggest you go to Talk:Motorcycle Safety Foundation and make suggestions there, and then let uninvolved editors make the direct changes to the article. That helps to overcome any challenges from personal bias. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the point about the less than neutral tone in the text regarding the MSF 100 Naturalistic Study. That can be edited to be straight forward stats, apart from the press release text.

What about the list of curriculum? Is there another format for listing the RiderCourses, iTunes content and iTunes U content? Don't understand why that was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.3.20.236 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we continue this discussion at Talk:Motorcycle Safety Foundation#Curriculum? — Brianhe (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)