Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Bratland/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Honda Dream CB250

Dear Dennis, the link to the site 1968k0.com you deleted on the page Honda Dream CB250, was a reference to the only published source of information about that rare Honda model. That site was made by the only known proprietor of an example of that motorcycle and has been discussed in many specialist clubs and forums. There's not other source of information - in paper or online - about the subject. For the sake of rare information, is there a way we could benefit from that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiedler (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if the author has been acknowledged as an expert by reliable books, newspapers and magazines. Otherwise it doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy of Identifying reliable sources. For example, Kevin Ash is a journalist and published author, and so his personal site on motorcycles is considered an acceptable source for some types of information. I don't see what the problem is. Why can't people just go to 1968k0.com instead of Wikipedia for this information? I can think of many other similar personal web sites that focus on a single model of motorcycle which also don't meet Wikipedia's standards, but that doesn't prevent people from getting the information. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

CCW fallout

Holy moly did CCW make a mess on Commons. Categories all borked. I suppose the uploads will all get pulled down for copyvio, so I shouldn't get too worked up. Brianhe (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

commons:Category:Cleveland CycleWerks pending cleanup, more under commons:Category:Motorcycle manufacturers by country. Sigh. Brianhe (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The interesting bit of dirt is that they tried to make Curtis Ray an un-person. Must have had a falling out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted a question at Commons Village Pump to see if they should be mass deleted or presumed to be a donation from the company. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Re Curtis Ray, that struck me too as a nasty bit of negationism. — Brianhe (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Error in List of motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition

At List of motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition, there's an illustration of a Thomas Auto-Bi, which is clearly a gasoline engine. However the body of the article (redlinked) says it's a steam bicycle. Can you check this in the original sources? I'm preparing an article on the Auto-Bi and I'd like to clarify this before it's published. Of course you're welcome to collaborate on the nascent article as well: User:Brianhe/Auto-Bi. Tx — Brianhe (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The example at the Guggenheim, Bilbao and Chichago was a 1900 Thomas owned by Sheikh Saud Al-Thoni, with the engine near the center of the frame [1], while the photo we have is a 1901 Thomas Auto-Bi from Wonders Memphis with the engine near the steering head[2], owned by John Szalay. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions!

WLL-Seattle-2012 Thanks for attending the Wikipedia Loves Libraries edit-a-thon at the Seattle Public Library! Your help was greatly appreciated. Mlet (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes@wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Map request

Hey Dennis, this map is great and I wondered if you could do another one like it for Eastside Rail Corridor? KC Government has a map I'd like to be able to duplicate and include in the article: http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues/corridor.aspx Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can get to that, in a week or two. I can also walk you through how to do it. The software is free; you can do it with Tableau Public, the no-cost download they have. It would be super easy if I could figure out how to go to OpenStreetmap.org and pull out a table of Lat/Long coordinates for a given route. They have all these trails and roads and boundaries on their maps, and the data is open source. I just don't know how you scrape it from their site yet. Instead I pull the geocooridnates off maps semi-manually. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been able to get this to work. I suspect the map at http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues/corridor.aspx is distorted, or is a different type of map projection than I'm using. I need to start over with a different map of the corridor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
If there is another map out there to start with ... this is the only one I've seen of the rail corridor. But I'll try to find another. — Brianhe (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I've got it now. I used the rail lines themselves rather than the Rail Corridor map. It could use some more decoration, like a halo showing the Tri-County Corridor, and more lines showing the connecting trails. If you want to install Tableau Public and create an account, you can download the workbook here and make changes if you like. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, I'm going to wrap an infobox around it... Brianhe (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Dennis Bratland.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve McQueen edit

I wasn't sure if I should have included this edit I made on the Steve McQueen page. I guess it wasn't that constructive at all, but I didn't know how to word it better. I did the edit because I found two pictures of Steve McQueen holding his family cat. I am sorry if it wasn't constructive, but some of these artices don't mention that the person had a pet.

Here are the two links to the pictures of Steve McQueen holding his cat: [[3]] and [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.203.102 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, those pictures certainly demonstrate that McQueen once held a cat. They don't prove it was his cat or what the cat's name was. And the fact that none of his biographers seemed to care suggests it isn't important enough to mention. Which, more generally, is why so few articles mention pets. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Imme R100 image

I cropped the image for the infobox at Imme R100. But the aspect ratio looks funny now. Before I reverted the change I wanted to get your input -- did I mess up this simple operation? One more thing, I tried setting the infobox image parameter to image=[File:Imme.jpg] at 250px, and it looks normal, so I think there's something funny about frameless with this particular image. Thx. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Maybe a caching issue? I've seen some display bugs with images, but usually it's a matter of purging the cache between WP an Commons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Very strange. It took a Purge request to server on the article page, then the problem fixed itself. Thanks for checking. — Brianhe (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

University of Washington College of Engineering

You recently stated you thought my edits to the College of Engineering page were less than neutral. I do not understand why that is so, and am curious what part of my edits you thought were not neutral. I began to expand the article by adding information about each of the College's departments, and added first to Mechanical as that is the one I know most about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyke.jonathan (talk • contribs) 06:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, "The college is known for innovation and discovery, and has produced many talented engineers. In 2011, students and faculty of the college were awarded 33 patents, more than any other school at the University." for example. It's pure marketing crap. The source you cited was the university itself. Please read WP:PEACOCK, and cite facts from independent, third party sources. The policy page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view has extensive discussion and resources on what neutral means and how to write neutral articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Assistance With Deletion Review of Pugmire Article

As you may have seen, the W. H. Pugmire article was kept, despite the apparent consensus of contributors other than the author's fan base. I would like to request a deletion review, as I feel that the "keep" decision was high handed and in error, but the syntax and procedures are simply not clear to me. Can you help in any way with this, or recommend someone who would be willing to do so? Thank you.Pernoctus (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your request here and, as the admin who closed the AfD, I hope you don't mind a few comments from me. If either of you wish to ask for a deletion review, please do. But be aware that consensus is not a vote. As an expert in genre fiction, I went through the discussion carefully and realized there were many relevant sources listed by various people--sources which proved the author's notability. These included a number of anthologies from large professional publishers like Del Rey Books and Night Shade Books containing Pugmire's stories (including two different annual editions of the prestigious Year’s Best Horror Stories from DAW Books), highly notable magazines like Weird Tales and Asimov's Science Fiction which either published Pugmire's stories or reviewed his books, and critical articles in places like The New York Review of Science Fiction (I have the Oct. 2011 issue of NYRSF in my collection and verified that it does indeed provide a critical overview of Pugmire's fiction). All of this, when combined with publication of Pugmire's books by well-known small presses, proved the author's notability.
Now, that doesn't mean the article isn't in need of a massive overhaul and rewrite. But the article's condition has no bearing on the subject's notability. If either of you have any questions about why I closed the AfD I'd be glad to attempt to answer them.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I was just about to say the next step before deletion review is to clarify the reasoning for the decision at User talk:SouthernNights, per WP:CLOSEAFD. Personally, I'm not totally convinced these citations aren't just shout outs or passing mentions of Pugmire's name, which don't meet WP:AUTHOR's criteria. Lot's of Lovecraft experts seem to like Pugmire, but what exactly is Pugmire's substantive contribution? On the other hand, I don't think running this through deletion review is likely to succeed and so I'm not convinced it's worth expending the energy it would take to get this article deleted. Probably better to spend time cleaning up all the unencyclopedic junk in the article, and replace it with a clear, straightforward description of what Pugmire has done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I hear you about shout outs, which can be a problem. However, in this case I believe the sources detailed above are not shout outs and instead reflect true notability. Having a story in a Year's Best anthology is a big deal, as are the publications in professional-level anthologies. While I'm not a specialist in horror fiction--I focus on SF and fantasy--there's enough overlap that it's easy to verify these sources of notability as extremely valid. Once reason I kept the article is that I knew if I sat down with these sources I could write an article about Pugmire which would definitely pass the notability question. If either you or Pernoctus want to work on the article to improve it, I'd be glad to help. I do have access to many of these sources. --SouthernNights (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the AfD was extremely confusing b/c so many new and anonymous editors took part. I feel that b/c these editors didn't understand how Wikipedia works their off-track or circular arguments obscured the valid points of notability some of them raised.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • SouthernNights & Dennis Bratland:
Thank you both for your replies.
First, I do understand the protocol regarding deletion reviews, but I did not contact SouthernNights about his decision because, according to his page, he is often unavailable for long periods, and I did not want the matter to grow stale.
Now, I want to add some final thoughts on why I think that the "keep" decision is in error.
Anthologies: My understanding is that appearing in anthologies, as most of Pugmire's stories do, is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Likewise, the reference to "well-known small presses" puzzles me. Well-known to whom? To other fans of the genre? Is that really enough? Further, shouldn't subjects be mentioned in more scholarly secondary sources that are indexed in databases other than those that are devoted to a particular genre, e.g., JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the like?
I also think that SouthernNights gives insufficient weight to the principle that proof of notability needs to be independent of the subject. By all evidence, Pugmire publishes widely because he has a wide network of friends who are in the small press, and he has other personal friends to puff his work. Further, the overwhelming majority of his work is not published by the major publishers SouthernNights mentions. What is more, Pugmire not only has not had a collection published by a major publishing house, but he is merely one author among many in even the fan press anthologies. Are one or two appearances in books by major publishing houses really all that is required to establish notability? And likewise, one review in a (arguably) notable publication, one which, again, caters to a genre market?
I do not agree that appearing in the Daw's Year's Best series anthology automatically confers notability. I am looking at my copy of The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series II (1972-73). It contains a story by T. K. Brown III, and (s)he does not have a Wikipedia entry.
Perhaps most important, SouthernNights fails to distinguish between genre fiction (such as horror) and fan fiction (genre fiction written in imitation of a particular author). The distinction to me is crucial, and I find it difficult to believe that Wikipedia considers fan fiction notable. Pugmire is not simply a genre author; he is a fan fiction writer, and by his own admission. (See the link to lovecraftzine.com, below).
Finally, and with all due respect, I must question SouthernNights' objectivity in this area, precisely because he is a specialist in genre fiction, and therefore, I gather, automatically sympathetic to genre writers, over-inclusively considered. Let me be clear: I mean no disrespect by this statement, nor am I impugning SouthernNights' honesty or motives. We all have our personal interests, preferences, and even biases. For that reason, I was inclined to seek a deletion review by administrators who do not share that particular interest, and who look more broadly to literary value, professional publication, and frequent citation in reputable, scholarly secondary sources. If fan fiction (which is really what we are talking about here) gets a pass in all these areas, or is to be judged according to different standards, and that is Wikipedia policy, then that should be made clear.
That said, I will defer to Dennis's judgment that the matter is not worth the effort of pursuing as far as a deletion review. Still, I do so reluctantly, as the "keep" decision is disappointing for many reasons, not least of which is that I dislike seeing the poor arguments, the flagrant misunderstandings of Wikipedia definitions, and the personal attacks by Pugmire's fan base rewarded for their efforts. Of course, I understand that the matter is not about that, but I can't pretend not to be disillusioned that my arguments and others' were given short shrift in this instance, by contrast. In fact, I see no evidence that SouthernNights accorded the "delete" arguments any weight or merit whatsoever. Apparently, I don't understand Wikipedia much better than Pugmire's fans, as I tried very hard to grasp and follow the notability criteria, and I still firmly believe that a fan fiction writer such as Pugmire can be considered notable only if "notability" means "notable to a relatively small group of fans". Obviously, I do not think that authorial or biographical notability should be diminished in that way.
My apologies for the long-winded response, but, since the other discussion is closed, and this is my last word on the matter, I did not want to omit anything. Despite all the high-minded talk, the bottom line is that I was shouted down by Pugmire's fan club, and my arguments were never seriously considered. I "lost" my case because, unlike Pugmire, I did not have an online group to whom I could publicize the situation (http://lovecraftzine.com/2013/02/01/urgent-and-important-w-h-pugmire-needs-our-help/), and exhort to swarm and do battle. Nor was I fortunate enough to have a sympathetic administrator take an interest in this discussion.
At the risk of taxing your patience further, I'll add that this process, far more than the result, has frankly discouraged me from wanting to have anything further to do with Wikipedia (cue the cheering section from Pugmire's peanut gallery!), so it is unlikely that we'll cross paths again. Despite SouthernNights' kind invitation, I certainly have no interest in working on an article about a non-notable author whose fans think that accusing me of "homophobia" is a form of legitimate argument. After all this, I begin to understand better and sympathize with Wikipedia's critics, and I think that I'll stick to reading the Britannica, in the future. At least there I won't have to run into the likes of Pugmire, or his fans, or this sort of administrative fiat. At Wikipedia, there really are too many cooks, with too many recipes (or an inability to decide upon a recipe and follow it consistently), and, to my taste, the broth is beyond spoiled.
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. It's been an educational experience!Pernoctus (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A few quick points:

According to the notability guidelines, authors must meet any of the 6 items under creative professionals. Item one reads "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Leaving aside the fact that everyone here acknowledges that Pugmire is widely cited in the Lovecraft field (I prefer not to debate how reliable many of those zines are, but a case could be made that a few are indeed valid sources), he has enough mentions in anthologies, magazines and other sources to prove notability. Anthologies are indeed a sign of notability; if an well-regarded editor or scholar selects a story for a professionally published anthology that is just as valid a citation as if that person wrote a scholarly article about the subject. In fact, anthologies often include short articles about the career of each included author.

JSTOR, Google Scholar and the like are great sources. However, those mainly focus on the academic literature. That's why the notability guidelines for creative people are different than for academics. As for your connotation that none of these sources are independent of the subject--that is a misreading of Wikipedia guidelines. Independent means the source of information must not come from the subject (ie, a subject's blog, articles the subject wrote, and so on). To say that anyone who knows Pugmire or has heard of him or read his fiction or even works in the genre is disqualified from being an objective source is pushing the term "independent" far, far beyond what Wikipedia editors intend it to mean.

As for your comment that "By all evidence, Pugmire publishes widely because he has a wide network of friends who are in the small press, and he has other personal friends to puff his work." Where is your evidence for this? You are making an extremely broad claim without any supporting, objective evidence.

Finally, with regards to what you say about me. I am indeed a specialist in genre fiction (although not horror fiction). But that no more disqualifies me from working on such subjects than physicians are disqualified from helping heal people because they know too much about medicine. Second, I have deleted thousands of articles from Wikipedia, so I have some experience with this process. Equally as important, though, are the articles I didn't delete when I studied them. AfD and other deletion requests are not a vote, and are not a debate. One must look at both consensus and the facts raised in the discussion.

Finally, I am sorry to hear of your bad taste with Wikipedia. You are a rather new editor, having made just over 200 edits. It appears that over a third of your edits revolve around Pugmire and this deletion request. I would suggest branching out and learning more about Wikipedia. So far you may be missing the forest for the individual literary trees. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Pernoctus, my take is that you might convince many, even most, editors that Pugmire is not notable, but there will always be a significant minority who disagrees. Any closing admin is going to read that as "no consensus" or "Keep". In that sense Wikipedia has an inclusionist bias; if there is a clear disagreement on solid grounds, the default is to keep and try to improve the article. Because you can always improve the article as best you can, and delete it later if consensus solidifies.

I've seen many many of these cases where a deletion discussion attracts a swarm of "votes" after somebody posted an alert to a listserv or forum. These !votes are always obvious, and the admins always ignore them, except in the rare cases when one of them cites valid evidence. I think SouthernNights made the right decision and I'm willing to AGF on the citations that Pugmire's notability rests on. I can't specifically promise when, and I'm far behind on my own to-do list, but I will try to help clean up the article when I can.

It's important to accept that you will often not get your way in Wikipedia decisions, and you have to learn to make the best of it rather than let it get to you. Wikipedia is collaborative, by definition, so nothing here is going to be entirely what you want. Not every Wikipedia decision can be correct; the process is far from infallible. Some of them must be in error. And by the same token, some of our opinions about those decisions must also be in error. We aren't infallible either. So just let it go and try to make the article better. There are many other things on Wikipedia, with much more importance and visibility, that cry out, uncontroversially, for improvement. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The tone of this AfD was also distasteful to me, as was the offsite recruitment of new "editors" who contributed to the AfD. Notwithstanding which, I accept the outcome and have taken a few minutes to improve the article. Like Dennis said, there's bigger fish to fry if you want to move on to other things on Wikipedia. Sometimes taking a break from a Wiki issue that makes you mad can be a good thing. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reworked the article to better meet Wikipedia guidelines. I'll do more work when I have time, but this will have to do for now. Let me know what everyone thinks.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suzuki Madura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liquid-cooled (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) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Piaggio

Dennis, I don't follow your post on my Talk. I correct a factual number on the page and backed it up with data on the talk page. To my knowledge I did not modify anyone else's comment? Mike163 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You must have done it by mistake. Don't worry about it. It happens sometimes. If you go to Talk:Piaggio and click View history at the top of the page, you'll see your edit listed:
(cur | prev) 00:39, 18 February 2013‎ Mike163 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (765 bytes) (-374)‎ . . (undo)
Click on "prev" to see the diff of the edit you made. On the left of the page, in yellow border, is everything that was deleted. You probably didn't mean to highlight and remove all that text. On the right in blue is what you added. On the right is my edit where I restored the deleted text and kept your comments. See also Help:Diff and Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide

Remember, always use the Preview button and review your edits before you click Save. Even then, we all make mistakes, but they're easy to fix because the article history can be restored to any point. Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Riding Into History.

Hi. Thanks for adding the citation to Riding Into History. It would be great if you would also express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riding Into History. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Dennis Bratland.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for the information you sent me about Wikipedia, accounts, and page editing.

The account I created is my account and nobody else is using it. Based on your response, I may have to change my user name.

I would like to edit the Study of Environmental Arctic Change page because the information on the page is inaccurate and misleading. As a support staff member to the scientific community engaged in SEARCH, I've been asked to take steps to correct the errors currently on the Study of Environmental Arctic Change Wikipedia page.

Please let me know of your suggestions on how to move forward.

Thanks. Arctic123 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Start with reading Wikipedia:Five pillars. Make sure you understand it. If you see something you don't understand, click on the link, and read the page it links to. Do not copy and paste any more text into articles. You have to write original prose, and you have to cite independent sources for your information. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

R1200GS Page edit

you undid a change on a page because you felt it unproductive? the change was made as the image was of a r1200gs on a track, yet talking about it being equally good off road, so felt the picture should reflect the caption. The picture i posted was granted myself, hence knowing i was able to use it legally free of charge (my pic) and shows the bike clearly not on a tarmac track, but off road, being used as such and showing that is a capable machine off road as it is on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrogoNevets (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fake. You took a screen shot from a video game. If you continue to make deceptive edits, you can be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

it is not fake! it is me, i can show you the video it was taken from. I acheived it whilst up at ystradynglais with the BMW Off Road SKills course. Call up Simon Pavey and ask him (my mate did the same on a 800gs). I do not know of any computer games that feature a r1200gs. If you would like me to provide you the video of the entire jump, i can do so

Jump Video

Me off roading to help proove i can - on my bike — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrogoNevets (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 February 2013‎

OK, fair enough. There is a minor issue in that being the subject of an image doesn't make you the copyright owner. The copyright is owned by the photographer. The more important issue is Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a medium where new facts are brought to light and published. Everything on Wikipedia should have been published elsewhere in a secondary source. So when you have an image and the image is the sole evidence of an assertion like "You can jump an R1200GS" it becomes a problem. It would be much better to cite a third party book, or magazine, or other authority about the bikes stunt capabilities, rather than rely solely on your own original evidence. If such a source can't be found, then leave it out.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be at the forefront of new knowledge; it's supposed to consist of well-established facts that are already out there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Leader

This is not a spam link. This is a link to a free online feature on the Ariel Leader and should be included on the page;http://www.sump-publishing.co.uk/ariel%20leader.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.204.126 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. The link does not offer any unique resources, but it's clear that it's heavily bent toward selling books, t shirts and other merchandise. Please submit the link at http://www.dmoz.org/ instead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't understand this, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. I thought it was a useful link that offered more information on Ariel Leaders. Other references on the Ariel page direct visitors to others commercial publications. The Sump link is not heavily bent towards selling books and T-shirts and merchandise. Only one book is actually for sale (Triumph Bonneville), the other's are free eBooks. Yes, there are a couple of T-shirts, but nothing relating to Ariel. It seems to me that we have a Wikipedia page designed to offer visitors useful information from informed sources, then denies that information based upon a spurious and inconsistent claim of commercialism. That's interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.204.126 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis is right. I checked and three other British bike articles had links to this site, all of which have now been removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get this argument, but I'm tired of discussing it. But at least get the facts right on the Leader feature. Firstly, it was NOT necessarily the first British bike to be fitted with indicators. It was the first PRODUCTION bike with them. Not a huge difference, but worth clarifying. Next, it's a myth that the engine is a copy of the Adler. Yes, there are similarities in the specification, but there are significant differences too and it's definitely not the same unit. You're doing Page and Knight an injustice. Next, the production numbers quoted are suspect. I suggest you look a little deeper into this. Next, you quoted; "... so few of the 22,000 Ariel Leaders produced were the same." Well that's not true. There certainly was a large list of options, but plenty of bikes were identical. We're talking dozens to hundreds. The term "few" is simply too loose, not least because most buyers selected a fairly limited range of options in order to stay in budget. Lastly, I'm not sure it's accurate/fair to say that the Arrow was the successor to the Leader. Yes, the Arrow followed the Leader into production, and was DEVELOPED from it, but the bikes were jointly discontinued in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.203.3 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If your goal is to provide accurate information, why not edit the article? You must have on hand published sources you can cite for these facts. Keep in mind that knowledge you have from working with these bikes isn't really much use here; it needs to be something that has been published elsewhere in quality sources. But nonetheless, you can make the article better without concern for whether there are links to your web site. Wikipedia:Five pillars is a good place to start to better understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, yes, my original aim was simply to expand knowledge of the Leader. I now wish I hadn't bothered. I've already given you a link to a published source, so take advantage of it or don't. It's your page. However, I'll monitor this feature to see if any corrections are made. If they're not, it will be revealing. Either way, my faith in Wikipedia has been damaged by this episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.201.235 (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Many newcomers lose faith when confronted with "Verifiability trumps the truth every time". Don't leave, instead register an account and start working to improve bike articles with a mixture of personal knowledge and enthusiasm backed up by reliable sources that you find. For example, Google Books contains a wealth of books and magazines that can be cited. Change the search setting to show you articles with "preview or full view" and you'll find lots of useful stuff such as these Leader-related referenceable books & mags: [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't want you to have "faith" in Wikipedia. Nobody should have faith in it. One of Wikipedia's core policies is Verifiability, which means the reader can check facts themselves, and they don't need to trust that the author was an expert.

Don't expect anything "revealing" to happen if you do nothing: I can assure you, there is nobody working on Ariel Leader. If the article is wrong now, it will remain wrong for some time. It isn't a priority, and it will take me years before I'm satisfied with important articles like Honda Super Cub and Suzuki Hayabusa and Soichiro Honda and about 20 more. So if you don't fix it, it's unlikely anybody else will.

Your personal web site is self-published, so you need to cite the independent sources your information came from. See, we can't check whether your web site is correct. We can check a citation a published book, magazine, newspaper, etc. That's verifiability. No faith required.

Note that Paul d'Orléans, The Vintagent edits Wikipedia. He doesn't just link to his website. He expands article text and cites third party sources, the same as the rest of us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, Dennis, but this doesn't convince me. You're saying that a Wikipedia visitor can "check facts" for themselves by checking the sources, but this simply presupposes that the source is correct. It sounds like you're telling me that if I write an article referencing the Sump website, then that's just my opinion and it's unverifiable. But if someone else writes an article referencing the Sump website, then that IS verifiable, and that makes it okay. Well that sounds daft to me. It makes more sense to examine the preponderance of evidence and listen to counter arguments, albeit in the form of links). I simply don't accept the assertion that just because something is published, it's reliable, and if it's not reliable, it's a "soft fact". It's just opinion. Yes, published articles are verifiable, but so what? An alternative system would be one where the Wikipedia author looks at other (offered) articles, examines them for credibility and rationality (even if the article contradicts the existing orthodoxy), and then decides whether to include a given link. But the boot-strapping system as employed by Wikipedia is illogical and is not likely to produce accurate or reliable articles. It's just as likely, if not more likely, to propogate misinformation. I won't be editing the Ariel page. Ultimately, faith underpins everything, not least the credibility of verifiable sources. If the Ariel page is wrong now, which it is, then it's will stay wrong for some time - and if that doesn't illustrate the fundamental weakness of the "verifiability" dogma, then I don't know what does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.203.76 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the Sump website is a reliable source. Nobody here thinks it is reliable. It makes no difference who adds a link to it, as a citation or external link. There is no evidence that it is considered a reliable source by anyone. Perhaps you could point out books, magazine articles, etc which say that Sump is reliable. If not, then it looks like your personal web site. Anyone may create a web site as you have done. Anyone may self-publish a book as you have done. That doesn't meet the criteria for reliable sources. If you think Biker Biker and I are mistaken, and in fact there are recognized experts in the motorcycling field who consider Sump to be reliable, then you could seek consensus on that. For example, you could open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and see if other editors agree.

You can see how verifiablitiy works if you were to find an article that said "Aprilia is challenging German and Japanese superbike brands with the new Tuono V4" and cited the New York Times. Anyone may go and read the artile and verify that it in fact says so. They don't have to believe it; perhaps they doubt the NYT. Faith or trust means nothing. The thing that we can verify is that the NYT said it, with no concern for whether it's true or not. If the cited article doesn't really say it, another editor may delete it. Even if they think it's true. Nobody really cares if it's true. We care that it matches what a recognized source says. That's all Wikipedia amounts to: a bunch of facts that point back to accepted sources.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. Read WP:5. Read WP:V and WP:RS. The policies are there for anyone to see, and if you think Biker Biker and I are incorrect about what the policy says, then you should have no trouble winning consensus for the point from others. It would probably be a good idea for you to create an account to aid in collaboration with others.

It's important to understand that I don't care what you do or don't do, and I don't care if you have faith in Wikipedia or not. All I'm doing is trying to convey what Wikipedia's policy says, and I encourage you to read the policy for yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't share your view about what is and what isn't considered a reliable source. Many of the sources cited by Wikipedia are simply NOT reliable, and are not generally viewed as such. It's nonsense. Being published in print doesn't make a magazine reliable. It simply makes it available. For your information, many of the articles that Wikipedia cites as sources, etc, were written by myself. Additionally, Sump has had quite a few links from Wikipedia, some of which appear to have been very recently edited or removed: For instance:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dennis Bratland/Archive 16.

[[Category:BSA motorcycles|Golden]] [[Category:Motorcycles introduced in 1950]]

This was on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSA_Golden_Flash&action=edit&undoafter=536091380&undo=541674103

We had another link at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSA_B50&action=edit&undoafter=541675362&undo=541886599

.[1]

We see Biker Biker attached to these. There was also a link, or reference, or whatever, on a Velocette page, and others (can't remember which). They also appear to suddenly have been removed, which is interesting. Sump is an online classic bike magazine. We get tens of thousands of visitors each month who download our pages and buy the few books we have and download our free eBooks. Our visitors write to us for help and information, and where appropriate we give it. They certainly consider Sump to be reliable and authoritative. We've had comments on eBay about Sump, and we have plenty of subscribers on YouTube, many of whom certainly consider Sump a reliable source.

This entire Wikipedia thing just gets more and more ludicrous the deeper we look into it. It's not a problem for us, except that there doesn't seem to be much point in donating further to the organisation. But it's probably worth an article on Sump sometime.

Quote: "Anyone may create a web site as you have done. Anyone may self-publish a book as you have done." Not so. Not anyone could create a website as we have done. Take a look and see. Sump is far and away better written and more consistent that a mere individual, or "anyone's" website. We have a feature on the Ariel Leader and Arrow, for instance, that's far superior to your own page. No doubt, someone will borrow from that for Wikipedia. Perhaps even yourself.

What's evident here is the general unreliability of Wikipedia. I've recently pointed out a number of errors drawn from your supposedly reliable/recognised sources, errors that are easily checked and - in some cases, are self evident - and you tell me that they'll stay there for maybe years because you're too busy to deal with them?

Incidentally, we didn't put the links (or whatever) on Wikipedia. We were surprised when we found that we had the links and simply followed them back to source. But now, as I said, it appears they've been removed. Actually, I've just been advised that we might have put ONE link somwhere (and promptly forgot about it).

And yes, we can point out numerous people who think Sump is reliable. I'm referring to magazine editors, various notable figures in the classic bike world, advertisers, specialists, etc. But there seems little point in doing so when links and references are removed willy-nilly, and when Wikipedia behaves in such an irrational way. It beggars belief.

As I said, the original link I put on the Ariel Leader page was no big deal to us. I saw the feature, thought a link to another source would help, and you removed it (presumably because you've never heard of Sump and fail to recognise it as a source). But that's okay. However, since then, it's uncovered disturbing things about Wikipedia. It's a pity, but I'd always spoken up for the organisation in the past. I'm not sure what I'll say tomorrow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.203.76 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2013‎

I've told you repeatedly that I don't think you should have faith in, or believe in, or trust Wikipedia. Yet you keep warning me that somehow because your link was deleted, your opinion of Wikipedia has suffered. And you're going to spread the word others. I think that you should tell everyone you know to not "trust" Wikipedia. Please do so. I think it's wonderful news whenever anyone comes closer to a good understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. I'm happy to hear that you've learned that Wikipedia is unreliable. It is not an authoritative source of information. It's only as good as the references it gives. I have no idea why you think I'm interested in whether or not you donate money to Wikipedia. It's your money. Do with it what you wish.

I've tried to give you the best explanation I can, but it's clear that you know quite a bit more about Wikipedia than you let on. Perhaps you have no need to create an account; maybe if you look around you'll find one or two lying around that you could log in with. I'm sure you can locate an appropriate noticeboard to see if you can win consensus for the external links you wish to add. Sorry I could not be of more assistance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello Dennis, no, it doesn't really matter whether or not you personally know we've donated to Wikipedia. That was just an offhand remark. Our donations are, naturally, a drop in the ocean. But clearly, you're out of step with your own organisation which values financial contributions and is happy to pass round the begging bowl every once in a while. The underlying point is that you've failed your own test and have fallen way short of your own criteria and standards. I'm surprised you can't see this, but perhaps I shouldn't be. As an exercise in sophism, your comments take some beating. And no, I have absolutely no interest/time/energy/enthusiasm whatsoever in editing a Wikipedia page, or opening an account, or hijacking one, or whatever. As I said, offering a link on the Ariel page was merely a passing whim. It's clear that the rules of this particular game make absolutely no sense at all. It's a moebius strip of double talk, logical fallacies and human futiity. Thanks for clarifying that. But you carry on moving the goalposts around the core argument. That way, no one can score but yourself. Good luck with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.199.49 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Introducing Protonk

Hello Dennis. I am still in NYC and will be for a while yet.

I have a friend in Boston who recently got a job in data visualization for a company called Bocoup making software that automatically generates graphics linking statistics to maps. I thought that might interest you. He edits Wikipedia as user:Protonk. He has been a big help to me on Wikipedia for a couple of years with the campus ambassador program and since I moved to this area I have been able to meet him in person occasionally. I thought that you might like to say hello to him.

I hope things are well in Seattle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This message was totally unrelated to what you just posted on my page - I think we just happened to cross paths. The process is at WP:GEONOTICE. I would be happy to post it for you if you send me the details by email or just put it on my page, and I would even setup the meetup page. I would do that this evening EST time - I have to go soon. Typically, these things are supposed to be announced about a week in advance, but I can manage, or if you post this, then I will make sure it goes live. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, wait, this is just the regular first-Tuesday meetup, right? Yes, I will post that tonight. I need no further info. Thanks for hosting it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Hmm, looks like they want 5 days' warning unless you have an important reason. Just my own tardiness. I'll try to remember to get next month's annoucement up in time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It is up - Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wikipedia:Seattle_Wikipedians. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Confederate Motor Company logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Confederate Motor Company logo.png. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is he back?

Surely, it can't be can it? This edit and then being so argumentative on [[User talk:122.62.226.243 his talk page]]. God forbid he's actually back.... --Biker Biker (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at User_talk:Darkwind#122.62.226.243 and comment if you think it is worth it. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's the same person, he's being cleverer than usual. Discrepancies as follows. Behavior: 1) He's now interested in really different topic areas (i.e. not British Isles geography/terminology and related nationalism) 2) this NZ editor actually uses edit summaries 3) time online isn't right for UK timezones (BB usually quit around 00:00). Technical: IP address doesn't match known haunts and providers (Manchester, Vodaphone, Carphone Warehouse). Brianhe (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Good points - although he may have emigrated after the shame of being found out last time! --Biker Biker (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Moped

Please see [10], these data are in the section of Individual countries/regions, in the box of table about Germany. Your explanation ("estimates about Germany are not applicable to the whole world") is wrong. This section (and table) is for the national/regional data. You're wrong. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The legal advice for all those other countries needs to be removed as well. See WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OSE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my correction to the moped post for North Carolina? It says on the one you keep putting back on that citation is needed. The information you keep putting back on is incomplete to say the least. This is what it sayd on the North Carolina DMV website. I don't understand what the problem is, why do you keep removing it and going back to the same incomplete information?

Moped Needs to be Registered: No

Requirements for Use Must be age 16 or older to operate on NC highways or public vehicular areas. A motorcycle safety helmet is required by law when operating a moped on NC highways A moped cannot have a motor of more than 50 cubic cc, an external shifting device, or have the capability of exceeding 30 miles per hour on a level surface. Not Required for Use A driver license is not required. The moped does not have to be registered, inspected or covered by liability insurance. Scootertuner1001 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop copy-pasting. You've had at least three warnings. Read WP:COPYVIO. Read WP:Copy-paste. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


I am not pasting anymore. I take what is said on the DMV website and change it to my own wording, but with the same meaning. You post about North Carolina says you can ruide them at 13 years old which is wrong. it also mentions nothing about whether insurance is needed or not, whether it needs to be inspected, whether it needs tags and lots more besides. To call the post that is on there now inaccurate is an understatement. Scootertuner1001 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I just posted the rules for North Carolina again. They are correct and only copied from my own computer after I wrote them. Scootertuner1001 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you think you're not copying. You are copy-pasting the bullet points from the moped section of http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/vehicle/title/vehicles/ . It says © Copyright NCDOT. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Dennis Bratland; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "B50 Buyers Guide". Retrieved 9 October 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Bratland/Archive_16&oldid=1052475884"