"Biofuels Digest is a blog, and a newsletter, with a staff of one, Jim Lane. It is not a serious journal; it is a conduit for transcribing press releases. Every article is breathless cheerleading and boosting for the biofuels industry, with zero criticism or investigation of any of the companies being promoted. While Biofuels Digest may claim to be the largest, best, most read, or whatever, there is no independent evidence of that. It's just another form of advertising and public relations"
I´m sending this post to him: I´m sure he´ll be delighted to know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you post here, I will reply here. I'll reply to posts elsewhere elsewhere.--Dbratland (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Motorcycle training
Mifter (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ducati 98
|
On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ducati 98, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
|
BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Thomas Krens
Wikiproject: Did you know 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for The Art of the Motorcycle
WP:DYK 08:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club
Wikiproject: Did you know? 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Honda DN-01
NW (Talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Suzuki Hayabusa
Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning that up.
10truck (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you think that is vandalism. As far as I am concerned, there are reasonable references. I was only trying to improve an article that has little info. - User talk:90.208.53.1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC).
- I've already explained that citing an indictment against one individual is not the same as proof that the entire group is guilty. Then there are the facts that you inserted with no citation at all. Mafia NJ is obviously not a reliable source. And so on. Don't expect me to spend time trying to analyze every one of your edits. Nobody is obligated to play games with you every day. Have you actually read WP:RS or WP:V or WP:BLP?--Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The Breed are one of the MCs that are undoubtably a crime group. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.1 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The Breed are also smaller and lesser known than the Hells Angels, Bandidos, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.1 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what is up with this IP? Some of the person's edits are obviously good ([1], [2], [3]), some create nothing but wasteful category churn ([4], [5], [6]) because Category:Gangs in Chicago, Illinois is a child category of Category:Gangs in Illinois which is itself a child of Category:Gangs in the United States, and other edits are clearly quite disputed ([7], [8]). Any clarification you could add would be much appreciated. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard to follow the back and forth on two different talk pages, but I had a conversation with this person on my talk page and on theirs today: User_talk:Dbratland#The_Breed and User_talk:90.208.53.1#The_Breed.
- They were just blocked again today at this IP: 90.208.53.1 (talk · contribs). Yesterday they were blocked at 90.211.53.217 (talk · contribs) and the day before at 90.202.94.12 (talk · contribs). Before that they were blocked at 90.208.53.17 (talk · contribs). I don't know if the blocking is getting through to them or not. I get the feeling they did not read any of the help pages I suggested. I don't think they care what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are and so they don't bother to look at them. They seem to have their own ideas about what articles should look like and they doggedly persist in reverting them every day.
- My last suggestion was for them to focus on only one topic and try to do a good job, instead of editing 50+ pages a day with low-quality edits. I don't know if that message sunk in or not.
- If this keeps up I'm going to try to get advice from somewhere. It's the same thing every day, over and over. Perhaps there is a better solution.--Dbratland (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The two most recent blocks were from me. Much like you, I am not sure where to go from here as the person behind the IP has moved to another address very easily. While page-protection is certainly an option, I do not relish semi-protecting 50+ articles. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. And without an account to tie it to, it's hard to understand why it's happening. tedder (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- While I personally care a lot more about motorcycles than I do about motorcycle gangs, I think the gangs/clubs/whatever, and any other group of living people, should be given the same consideration we give to all living persons. Wikipedia should not accuse an entire group of living people of regularly commuting murder, arson, rape, etc. without very strong, solid and verifiable proof. Currently we have 50+ articles which I believe blatantly violate the standards WP:BLP, and one or more anonymous users who work hard every day to make them worse.
- I tried an RFC to improve the situation a little, but it got sandbagged with other editors piling on so many additional issues that it has a snowball's chance of passing now. Before that I tried the BLP noticeboard but that went nowhere too.
- I see potential for flagged revisions being the solution here.--Dbratland (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would not recommend that you start holding your breath just now for that particular saviour. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And how were my edits "unconstructive"? I believe them to be just as constructive as the edits you keep adding to the Virago 535 page. Just as biased and without a shred of sourcing to back up the false claims. So excuse me for trying some eye for a eye Mr. Power Trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.135.77 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That appears to have been the product of an edit conflict. My apologies. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK. No problem.--Dbratland (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Honda DN-01 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Foo. I made one pass at it, it's still being self-promoted and has crappy sources. But I'm frustrated to deal with it any more :-) tedder (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sheesh. What a showboat. I wish I could have found a review of his book somewhere. --Dbratland (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah, it's .. annoying. Both User:Miamireporter and Kike San Martin are somehow related, I can't figure out why/how though. tedder (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Cal Rayborn/Don Vesco mixup. I should have noticed that the page is updated regularly - and thus someone helpful (like you) would see a question about the 1975 record if I had placed it on the "Talk" page rather than in the article. No 'heckle' intended... I just failed to pay attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg38 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you changed the references to Benka Pulko from Benka, back to Pulko. I have a question in regard to Wiki policy on this. According to the policy link you sent, as I read it, the legal surname should be used. This would mean her name should be changed to Carr, not Pulko. But this would make absolutely no sense, as she does not use Carr professionally. Any suggestion? Thanks. --Pocestnik (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you still using the Hayabusa workpage? Shouldn't it be deleted, so the changes occur on the main page? tedder (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- DYK might still have questions, and if there's something I lost track of I might want to find it in the earlier versions. After it goes up I'll blank the workpage and a bot should get it then.--Dbratland (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Once you are done, don't blank it, just let me know and I'll delete it. tedder (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Suzuki Hayabusa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It might seem like something is better than nothing, but adding your opinions, recollections, and experiences to this article only makes it worse. Having to verify even more uncited material just increases the work involved in cleaning up the article. If you want to help, it is far better to add one sentence that has a solid citation rather than multiple paragraphs of unsupported material. --Dbratland (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not think I took all of that into account? Wait a bit for the references! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You should expect to have your edits tagged or simply reverted if you add them to articles first and come along with citations later, expecially when you edits are very obviously somebody's subjective opinions. Doing it that way is exactly backwards. Please try to finish your research before editing the article. And yes, I know the article was in poor shape to begin with, but don't make it worse.
- Workpages, sandboxes and user pages are the way to go if you need somewhere to edit drafts. --Dbratland (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- So why did you rename the M-72 article to Dnepr M-72 with no citation and without checking the references? Pot calling kettle black! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.21.13 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Need me to walk six blocks to the library and check out the 2000 Guinness Book? Just tell me what to look for. tedder (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like they have up to 2000 but I think we need 2001. The closest one to me is in Renton, 20 miles away. I'd ride over there but I don't have a sidecar to put the baby in or a wife that would stand for it. The Seattle Public Library now charges $5 to request it on Interlibrary Loan, but Amazon sells it used for $0.01 plus $3.99 shipping. So I ordered one. But if you want to look that would be great.
- I kind of wish I'd never mentioned it. Fastest of the 20th century is kind of meaningless. Why not fastest of the millennium? Fastest motorcycle of the last ONE MILLION YEARS! Should have just stuck with eating blackbirds.--Dbratland (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Where in Seattle are you? We were in Rainier Beach (yeah, I know) before moving to Portland. Still come up occasionally for Wetleather events.
- So you/we need the 2001; what EXACTLY are we looking for? Speed records? tedder (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- In Ballard. You should stop by and look at the motorcycles I wish I had time to work on. We're looking for what title Guinness has bestowed on the Hayabusa. The 2008 Guinness Book calls the 194mph bike (presumably they mean the 1999 version) the "fastest production motorcycle." But in 2001 (or 2000), did they use the title "Fastest motorcycle of the 20th century"? DYK is satisfied that it is, and simple logic tells us it must be. So this is an entirely academic question of which specific title was given by Guinness in 2000/2001 at the end of the century/millennium. --Dbratland (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you aren't even in the USA then :-) I'll definitely let you know next time I'm up that way. I can get the 2000 one local, but not the 2001;. You ordered the 2001 from Amazon used, right? Should I wait until you get that or do you want me to check the 2000 now? tedder (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother, because the 2000 version probably went to press months before the last bikes of that model year were released. Any declaration of which is the fastest would have to be published after Dec 31 2000. Unless the publication dates and/or model year dates of bikes were fudged out of those bounds, but I doubt it. The 2001 Guinness Book is subtitled the "Millennium Edition", so that's the one that would sum up the events of the century/millennium. I think I'll try an online chat or email with a librarian in Renton and see if they can just tell me what's on that page. --Dbratland (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. That makes sense. tedder (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you help me watch for vandalism to Honda Unicorn?? It seems to attract a lot of random changes to the specifications — especially horsepower figures for some reason. IP editors, maybe one guy switching around. Thanks. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it will be easier to maintain now -- I like to avoid having a second stats section unless the infobox:motorcycle is wholly inadequate. I'm adding some refs.--Dbratland (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I always try to make my decisions and comments based on the arguments presented, without regard to who is presenting them. So of course if we happen to disagree, and you take it personally, it's not going to go well, and vice versa.
Keep up the good work with well-reasoned arguments like that one (or even half as good), and you'll keep getting the kind of comments you like from me. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The M-72 was a Soviet motorcycle made at four seperate plants. MMZ, IMZ, GMZ and KMZ, at no time was it ever called a Dnepr (a brand name that only come into effect for KMZ motorcycles with the K-650 in 1967) and certainly never the Ukrainian Dnipro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.159.142 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- What? I'm guessing you are unhappy with some article? Which one? If you have a citation to support whatever you're talking about, the article can be fixed. If there is no citation, then the article has to remain wrong. --Dbratland (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it's about this [9]. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's after I figured it out. This and this too. Maybe it's true but what sources I could find seemed to say not. Maybe they can cite something.--Dbratland (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, a citation would be helpful. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read the cited sources to the article. The Dnepr name was first used for the K-650 to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Great Socialist October Revolution in 1967. The M-72 was long out of production by then. KMZ did not build M-72 motorcycles until 1951, ten years after MMZ, GMZ and IMZ so quit your ignorant vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.159.142 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Dbratland:
Thanks for paying attention to the helmet standards debate, and posting my New York Times piece.
You might be interested to know that Arai and Shoei had me fired at Motorcyclist--for writing that New York times piece.
Funny world...
Dexter Ford
dexter.ford@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterford (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know...is Dbratland a member of a club or affiliated in order to determine what is creditable, reliable or even dubious. I used information, a review of sorts, from an accrettited website, gave a reference, and it was deleted cause you felt it was dubious? Isn't most media? What is wrong with adding a noteworthy review approved by an actual member to be mentioned. It was stated as a quote, a review and because you, one person, thought it was dubious and killed it. Also, Zaroff wasn't a member of this club at the time of the arrest in 2005,Dbratland he was sentenced in 2006 so why would any club want that mentioned? The other guy mentioned in the same paragragh, is not thrilled about his name being used as a world wide reference, children and all. Guy's got grandkids. IThere are hundreds of newspaper articles on line to reference from and somebody places one of the lamest on there and it keeps coming back. They don't want it on there, please leave it alone. f it ain't your business and you are unassociated, go somewhere else and try to be an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.249.59 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The answers to all your questions are found at WP:5, WP:V and WP:RS.--Dbratland (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits!! - More people in the world should do things constructive like you. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your remarks on the Steve McQueen talk page, but the editor I reverted is banned for life and according to WP:Ban, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason.... A banned user who evades a ban, may have all of their edits reverted without question... Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." This is a particularly incorrigible individual, and I believe strict reversion of all his edits is not only proper but called for. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
In dealing with Motorcycle ambulance we need to be mindful of the COI that exists with Pete.sonderskov (talk · contribs). He is the director of marketing for eRanger, the company which makes the sidecar ambulances that he seems so keen on promoting within the article. I have suggested through a discussion on my own talk page that he read WP:COI but the situation needs watching. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I first noticed when the pages he created The Ranger Production Company and ERANGER were up for speedy deletion. I explained that I supported deleting those in favor of broader coverage in Motorcycle ambulance. On balance his contributions have been positive, I think, keeping in mind that he is trying to promote a company. Someone should put Motorcycle ambulance up for DYK.--Dbratland (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Please accept in good faith that my interests are not "totally self serving" to the exclusion of what is good for developing countries. Motorcycle (sidecar) ambulances (whoever makes them) are making a massive contribution to the reduction of maternal mortality when applied in the correct context. My relationship with The Ranger Production Company, (btw something I have never tried to hide, although I could have) ensures that I am knowledgeable in this area through the work I do with NGO's, charities and national governments. I welcome the rigoure required of WP both as a newcomer and also as someone who has an interest in promoting the use of motorcycle (sidecar) ambulances to save lives, please don't let that that point be missed. (Pete 10:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
- No problem. It is clear you are knowledgeable about the topic and have a lot to contribute. But you do need to be careful of that COI issue, especially once you publish the Ranger Company article as other people can and will edit it and possibly make significant changes.--Biker Biker (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I'm going to need more over the next few months so do please keep me advised and on track. I'll read more about COI as I do want to avoid falling foul of any contraventions. I've enjoyed my first few weeks in WP and aim to continue to contribute where I feel qualified. (Pete 21:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.sonderskov (talk • contribs)
Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder- when removing vandalism (like this), make sure to use the user warnings. It makes it much easier to block a user if they've been given at least one warning (and optimally, full escalation of warnings).. tedder (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. BTW, I'm not using this workpage Talk:Hollister riot/Workpage; I'm working over at User talk:Dbratland/Hollister riot instead, so the blank one can be deleted if you want.--Dbratland (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Done tedder (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! The user hadn't edited in three days. Blueboy96 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. My bad.--Dbratland (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you could look at Electric motorcycles and scooters? I was trying to undo a revision someone had done to your version, and they just undid it. I can't seem to find any info that the scooter is actually a production vehicle. Thought you might be interested in the "disagreement." Hbmallin (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done by a WP:TPS. Make sure to warn users rather than repeatedly reverting. tedder (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not detriment the efforts of your peers to stop vandalism. Stopping vandals is the only way to ensure Wikipedia remains a free and knowledgeable foundation. Worrysoap24 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Skysmith (talk · contribs) is not a vandal. Please stop this rubbish. You are only going to get blocked from editing if you keep this up. --Dbratland (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. I haven't got a lot of experience with wikipedia.
Can you do anything to cancel the redirect of "Motorcycle Mechanic" to "Mechanic"? What's your opinion on the subject?
Thank you
User:Spyros Pantenas —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
Okay, here's a list for you. No surprise, the small bikes are more of a problem. You'll note I left out a major american maker of bikes.
Some current(ish) bikes that could use photos.
Others:
- Anything new from Ducati
- Anything new from BMW(?)
- KTM: we already have photos, not articles.
Have pic(s), need improving:
tedder (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Send me the Suzuki pics, I might be able to figure them out. Too bad the TU wasn't there- I saw them at a local dealer a while ago too. They'd be a great training bike, I heard they weren't able to supply the volume to meet state purchase orders. So, yay, we get more of these things. tedder (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, well I didn't take any. I took 450 photos, which is a lot of work lugging a tripod with your wife and 17 month old getting impatient. So identified first, then shot, so I didn't waste any time on bikes I couldn't identify. But the Suzuki dealer I was at today is pretty accommodating so I can always stop in again and take some on at the showroom. And from the CBR600RR experience, apparently trade show pictures aren't good enough for some people...
I added an infobox to Suzuki TU250 just now, with my pics from today. I want to expand it, with background on the Volty, Bigboy and Grasstracker -- which are versions of the TU that use the 4-valve, twin exhaust pipe, 20 bhp motor that the GZ250 uses. --Dbratland (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. No loss, really. Thanks for the pics. Was Mission Motors there? tedder (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just put lower res copies of the whole batch on Flickr [10]. If you see any there that need to be uploaded let me know. And I don't think I saw mission motors. I saw a news article somewhere about how a lot of companies, KTM, Moto Guzzi, etc, were skipping the show because of the recession. BMW wasn't even there on a corporate level; the local dealers put together their own thing. --Dbratland (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
(moving left) I don't think Mission was there, then. They just went to the CA show(s). Interesting about the marques- they've been pulling back in recent years, this year is a good excuse.
I heard Touratech was there in full force, which makes sense as their shop is just down the road. And is Soundrider's display bigger? It looks to be; I had my bike in his display in '05 or '06.
I looked through all your pics, and checked for articles that need pictures. Here's my list:
- Yamaha TW200 (needs a better pic)
- KTM Duke? Super Duke? Post a couple pics, we/I can write the article.
- Kawasaki Z1000 (needs a better pic)
- Honda Fury (has zero pictures. Needs at least 2)
- Suzuki B-King (do you have a better pic? One from another angle?)
- Suzuki DR-Z400 (you have a pic of a stock bike, which would be nice.)
I skipped the classic bikes. I figure you and VMA have that covered 
tedder (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done --Dbratland (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a COI (I teach with TO). Can you look through it, make any necessary changes, and LMK if you have any other refs, since you are really good with sources? tedder (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- After a first once-over I'd say I approve, with some copyediting. The lawsuit issue is also reviewed over on the MSF's article -- I can't think of a way to avoid duplication, since the suit can't have it's own page. Possibly the emphasis should be on what the outcome of the settlement means now, as far as the right of other schools to publish their own materials, with acknowledgment of the MSF. And thus the details of who said what against whom during the long litigation process can be treated as water under the bridge. In retrospect, the gorey details of the legal wrangling don't seem that vital any more. The same could be said for Motorcycle_safety#Controversy; it seemed like a big deal at the time but now a footnote.--Dbratland (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw it's over there, and don't know how to cover it, except maybe it's a bigger deal for Team Oregon, so more coverage should be there. (For instance, if I sued Ducati, it says more about me than about about Ducati). I couldn't find any more RSes for Team Oregon; I could ask, but that isn't the best. Guess I'll roll the article out. tedder (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. I've added the first to the article as a reference to discourage other hasty edits or reverts. However, I've learned to be not surprised when good sources can be found that show how the same term is used for different things even by respected authors. Cossalter's use of countersteering is an example that springs to mind. I even thought I might learn something new in yesterday's countersteering article excitement, but it turned out to be more about Wikipedia:Etiquette than vehicle dynamics. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
