User talk:Biker Biker
| This is Biker Biker's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
TUSC token 647d25d87e0c5f94f00c4735d89f90d1
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Biker Biker (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| This award is in recognition of excellent editing to improve motorcycle related articles Thruxton (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
- Aw, shucks... :) --Biker Biker (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Diplomacy Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| For keeping a calm head and a diplomatic, peaceful stance in the recent discussions at Chevrolet Vega. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks! --Biker Biker (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you've been a tremendous asset; you deserve several of these!842U (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Enterprice007
Thanks for the reverts. See also Special:Contributions/217.238.95.174. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nice one. See also MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.rolffrey.de_and_scm-shop.de --Biker Biker (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my edit to the Psychotherapy entry. This is my first edit so forgive me if I don't get things quite right here. I have posted my reply on the talk page you created for me and will post it here as well as my understanding from looking at Wiki documentation is that it does not automatically contact yourself.
The relevant citation in terms of F.M. Alexander statement is Alexander,F.M. (1996) Man's Supreme Inheritance, Conscious Guidance and Control in Relation to Civilization London: Mouritz p145 There Alexander in reference to his own work writes 'that this practical and now means visionary or untried psycho-therapy will in time supersede the tentative and restricted methods of somato-therapy,...'. This sums up Alexander's wider distinction of his work from somato-therapy and his wider claim and argument for the necessity of the development of Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual, which is the aim and end of applying the Alexander Technique. Detailed arguments for this can be found in all of his four books but in particular his second book: F.M. Alexander (1997) Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual, London: STAT Books. If you read the book you will find in detail Alexander's argument that we are psycho-physical beings and that because of changes in the way human beings now live, we are in need of re-education to raise our standards of functioning and move towards the plane of Constructive Conscious Control. John Dewey pxxx of Man's Supreme Inheritance writes of Alexander's method as 'a completed 'psycho-analysis'. Man's Supreme Inheritance was Alexander's first book and the first edition was published in 1910,the Dewey comment was in a letter he published in 1918 and that was included in later editions. Both demonstrate how Alexander originally placed and saw his work as a psycho-therapy, which it is if you understand the etymology of psyche in terms of breath, and his emphasis on the need for re-education of breathing. The edit though did not seek to add Alexander Technique to the list of psychotherapies only to remove it from the list of bodywork which it definitely is not. As far as I know, there is not textual evidence for classifying Alexander Technique as a bodywork either from within Alexander's writings or from the teacher's who he trained to succeed him. I would be interested if you could cite support for the claim that it is bodywork, that is consistent with what Alexander actually wrote and taught. To maintain that Alexander Technique is bodywork is simply factually wrong. Casebow (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casebow (talk • contribs)
Hello, my apologies if I'm writing using the incorrect format on your talk page. I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, and my efforts to educate myself on how to do this properly are thus far woefully inadequate. I'm hoping to improve on that as rapidly as possible.
I'm writing to thank you for reverting a change I made to the article on the Honda Accord; it was done for purely frivolous reasons and I did so with the understanding that it would be changed back. I was also interested in testing how that works in this system. I hope that it wasn't too annoying for an experienced editor such as yourself, and that I can learn how to be a productive and helpful member of the Wikipedia community. This may sound strange, but I greatly enjoy editing for the sake of linguistic improvement, and I find this medium highly satisfying. My great regret is how steep the learning curve seems to be. I appreciate your help.
At the risk of being overlong and/or boring, in reading your Talk page I found the discussion and comments on the Alexander technique interesting. It strikes me that I've heard it mentioned in the context of effective psychotherapies, during my education as a speech-language pathologist. I'm going to read up on it in Wikipedia and elsewhere to see if I can put myself or the technique to any use, in a humanitarian sense.
My name is Nicole, and I'm please to meet you, virtually. Thank you for reading this.
Nstringer (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed link
Can you tell me why you are removing my link from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Park,_Minnesota#External_links
- See WP:ELNO - Wikipedia isn't a what's on guide, a travel guide, or any sort of directory. It is an encyclopaedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My site is the "go to" site in our city. It's influenced elections because of its popularity. It's not a travel guide or simple blog. Instead it's the place residents go to get the facts of what's happening politically in our city. To not include it is to censor on behalf of politicians and the "official" line. I can't believe that's what Wikipedia is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjohnjordan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is. Plus if that is your site you should read WP:COI and back off adding it to Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you employee if the City of Brooklyn Park? Only a city employee could be in favor of censoring the voice of the people of our city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjohnjordan (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- No I'm simply someone who doesn't like spammers. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, spammer. Sure. Putting an appropriate link in the appropriate place is "spam". Wiki's pretty much a worthless source and now we know why, they allow city staffers to abuse it to censor legitimate sources of information. Amazing. Talk about COI, wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjohnjordan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm new to this. I felt it was appropriate to the article. I will stop. Cdmccal (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
RE Montenegrin language.
The Montenegrin language is regarded by linguists as an alternate name for Serbian http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=srp.It is spoken by only 21.96% of Montenegro according to the 2003 census 63.49% of the population speak Serbian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Montenegro#Linguistic_structure. It is not false information, please to not attempt to edit subjects you are not knowledgeable in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshfordian (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to make controversial factual changes to a long-established article then take it to the talk page of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Musicians Benevolent Fund entry
Hello Biker Biker I do work for the charity the Musicians Benevoent Fund but I noticed that our entry was very out of date and not very informative. The infomration I have added is purely factual so I can't see that there is a conflict of interest. We are trying to reach out to people who need our help, which is why I have updated the page. Kind regards RebeccaHelpmusicians (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)RebeccaHelpmusicians
- I'm sorry but what you are writing is clearly promotion and not written from a neutral point of view. Please don't add such a massive amount of information - let others do that. If you are making very small factual corrections that's probably OK but not on the scale that you do, not by copy/pasting information from elsewhere (even from your own website), and especially not when it is written like an advert. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Retired ambulance reuse
Hi, I undid your revision on the ambulance page, where you removed the section on ambulance reuse. I originally added this information to the article since it discusses some of the uses ambulances are recycled into following their retirement from front line use, or from emergency services entirely - uses that an ambulance's size and fittings (e.g. cabinets, work lights, inverter) make it more suited for, and that, I believe, are therefor pertinent to a discussion of ambulances. If you disagree, please use the article's talk page, rather than simply removing information form the article. Thanks, --Badger151 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Bracknell
You have just removed my edit that I was still in the middle of working on the edit contained links to non profit groups and therefore do not believe they where advertising in addition to what had been put I was going through the local Scouting groups to be added as this was going to be links to local organizations How can you remove the edit saying about advertising when there is a whole section on local business. all the groups that i was in the process of adding where community groups.
Don't bother leaving me on Wikipedia it is definitely biased
Mr Freegler — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFreegle (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Promoting a group/company/organisation that you belong to is a clear conflict of interest. However well meaning you think you are, or whether your organisation is setup to make money or not is irrelevant. If you don't want to continue contributing to Wikipedia that's your choice. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hepburn Bio Care
Hello. I received your input regarding Hepburn Bio Care as being an 'unremarkable company' and that references 'only shown that company exists, not that it is notable'.
This is my first written article so I am finding it a bit confusing on exactly what passes through Wikipedia, as I understand that the way something is written can create 'article considered for deletion'.
I would like to clarify that the information regarding some products created by Hepburn Bio Care have been highlighted in maritime magazines and I thought this was substantial evidence that the company is noted by the maritime industry on what it is producing and it's contribution to the environment. I read on the Seatrade website that Hepburn Bio Care won an award in 2001 under the category Countering Marine and Atmospheric Pollution, but I wasn't sure if this was just noting the company and whether is was worth putting on Wikipedia.
I'm not really sure what exactly to put regarding Hepburn Bio Care, but I do feel from the magazines that I have read they have highlighted them and what their products have been achieving should be enough to warrant them a notable company.
Hbcpks (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
One child policy
Sorry, but that is your POV interpretation of Biden's words. He didn't express outright support for the policy
- Then perhaps the wording should be changed. It is worth mentioning that Biden is at the very least not against the policy especially when Obama has expressed support for it. I don't think the addition should be deleted.GrainyMagazine (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Use the tools available
"I'm 99% certain this was previously uploaded". Remember that you can check the uploader's log and be even more certain. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Norton Classic
"(move pic to infobox)": Cheers! I tried to do it but couldn't! Arrivisto (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess the core of this issue is the statement 'perfectly describes the file format'. From a lay person point of view I'm sure you are correct. From an implementors perspective the article is actually quite sloppy. It serves (and rightly so) to provide a high level overview of what the format is about and at a basic level how it works. From an implementors perspective this is simply inadequate. There are numerous questions/details that the article does not provide information on. The reason for the additional page is to fill in those details.Brettsutton (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Motorcycle engines
This article is full of problems and I am having a stab at simplifying and improving it. Please don't interfere unnecessarily at this stage, while work is in progress. Your criticism of POV is unhelpful: nothing in that paragraph was a "point of view"; it was a neutral and factual rewrite of an earlier version showing what engine types were traditionally associated with the major factories. Despite your comment, the point of that paragraph is NOT to list that BMW make more than one type of engine. Arrivisto (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) (Last paragraph of intro is pure POV and not encyclopaedic. BMW have 5 different engine layouts/configurations, for example.)
- I make no apology for its removal. Everything in that paragraph was POV. It is a sweeping generalisation to say manufacturers have just one layout - except for HD, but that is not the exception that proves the rule. To expand on BMW, they have the 450 & 650 single, 800 parallel twin, 1200 boxer twin, 1300 four and 1600 four. I applaud your efforts to improve the article, but I will remove non-encyclopaedic, inaccurate or pure POV content. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- However we say it, I think it's worth while to point out that some brands stick with a given configuration, both to save development costs and for reasons of image and identity. Particularly H-D, Ducati, and Moto Guzzi. BMW used to be one of them, but has since branched out. It's interesting to ask why that is. And it's interesting that other companies were far more eclectic, especially the Japanese. Though Honda wouldn't touch two strokes while the others embraced them. The reasons why are interesting. But that all needs sources and I'm happy to delete it now and bring it back later when it can be cited properly.
Since Wikipedia is live, and nobody owns articles, it's not OK to tell other edtiors to stay away while you work on it. See WP:OWN. If one would like to edit in peace and then move the changes into the article namespace when you're ready, editing on workpages is the answer. The page Talk:Motorcycle engine/Workpage hasn't been deleted yet, so why not copy the current article there then copy it back when the work is done? Or create a page at User_talk:Arrivisto/Workpage. I highly recommend workpage subpages when you have a work in progress and don't want to be disturbed. I use them myself often. See Wikipedia:SUBP#Using_subpages for more instructions, or just ask if you need help.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not "telling other edtiors to stay away"; I'm asking for supervisory editors to think twice before jumping in feet first with comments like "POV" or "not encyclopaedic". I've made three revisions of this page so far. The first was to delete patent errors. (Why weren't these jumped on before?). I then mildly rewrote and simplified an existing paragraph - & this was promptly deleted (why wasn't it deleted before, if it was so POV?). The third change (one of many to come), was to pare the content down so we end up with a page that is worthy of Wikipaedia. Give me break! Arrivisto (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- You deleted some unsourced opinions and replaced them with your own unsourced opinions. Calling opinions other than your own "patent errors" is rather unconvincing when you cite nothing to support your edits.
There is no such thing as a "supervisory editor". We are equals, and we are all equally entitled to be bold. That in turn leads to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Everything you write can and will be mercilessly edited by others. It's collaboration. If you want to put the collaboration on hold for a bit, use a workpage. If you want your edits to withstand criticism and be kept, the secret is to cite, cite, cite. Cite it and you've got the ammunition you need to win. Without citations it's all just hot air. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have no objection to most of your contributions, just to the one paragraph. I don't care if it (or something like it) existed before, had I noticed it I would have deleted it for the reasons mentioned above. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)--Biker Biker (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that the Japanese were "eclectic". All the experimentation had been done in Europe and America before the war. Post war, the Japanese introduced new standards of reliability, plus the horizontally split crankcase & ohc motors; but they opted for a "vanilla" range of engine types: singles, twins, fours, V-twins & V-fours and a couple of sixes. As I recall, only a handful of triples. The term UJM didn't come from eclecticism! No fives, only one Wankel (& that was a flop). BSA alone (just before the collapse) had planned a modular range of bikes a based on a 200/250cc single, namely a twin, a triple a five, (no boring UJM four), plus a dohc 350cc twin & a twin-rotor Wankel, that surfaced as a Norton Classic after Dennis Poore's spell of asset-stripping. Arrivisto (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice. Everybody has their opinions. But what do the sources say? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that the Japanese were "eclectic". All the experimentation had been done in Europe and America before the war. Post war, the Japanese introduced new standards of reliability, plus the horizontally split crankcase & ohc motors; but they opted for a "vanilla" range of engine types: singles, twins, fours, V-twins & V-fours and a couple of sixes. As I recall, only a handful of triples. The term UJM didn't come from eclecticism! No fives, only one Wankel (& that was a flop). BSA alone (just before the collapse) had planned a modular range of bikes a based on a 200/250cc single, namely a twin, a triple a five, (no boring UJM four), plus a dohc 350cc twin & a twin-rotor Wankel, that surfaced as a Norton Classic after Dennis Poore's spell of asset-stripping. Arrivisto (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- You deleted some unsourced opinions and replaced them with your own unsourced opinions. Calling opinions other than your own "patent errors" is rather unconvincing when you cite nothing to support your edits.
- I'm not "telling other edtiors to stay away"; I'm asking for supervisory editors to think twice before jumping in feet first with comments like "POV" or "not encyclopaedic". I've made three revisions of this page so far. The first was to delete patent errors. (Why weren't these jumped on before?). I then mildly rewrote and simplified an existing paragraph - & this was promptly deleted (why wasn't it deleted before, if it was so POV?). The third change (one of many to come), was to pare the content down so we end up with a page that is worthy of Wikipaedia. Give me break! Arrivisto (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- However we say it, I think it's worth while to point out that some brands stick with a given configuration, both to save development costs and for reasons of image and identity. Particularly H-D, Ducati, and Moto Guzzi. BMW used to be one of them, but has since branched out. It's interesting to ask why that is. And it's interesting that other companies were far more eclectic, especially the Japanese. Though Honda wouldn't touch two strokes while the others embraced them. The reasons why are interesting. But that all needs sources and I'm happy to delete it now and bring it back later when it can be cited properly.
Changing speedy rationale to G10, attack in foreign language.
Hello, you recently marked the article C. E. for speedy deletion as A1, just letting you know I have changed this to G10 as Google Translate reveals it is a personal attack in another language. Thank you for your effort in NPP. --Matthew Thompson (alt) talk to me bro! 09:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- You beat me to it! --Biker Biker (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Mark Page as Patrolled
Please mark the page as patrolled once you tag or review it, thank you! Dengero (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- What? Which page? Please explain. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have noticed to have tagged a few pages with speedy deletion. Once you have (if you're doing it manually, without twinkle), then you should press this "[Mark this page as patrolled]" at the bottom right hand corner to take out the highlighting on the new pages section. Dengero (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have never done that before. I only nominate for speedy-deletion with twinkle. Thanks for the heads up, I will look. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have noticed to have tagged a few pages with speedy deletion. Once you have (if you're doing it manually, without twinkle), then you should press this "[Mark this page as patrolled]" at the bottom right hand corner to take out the highlighting on the new pages section. Dengero (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Pointers on better editing style
Thank you for your helpful comments and advice. Arrivisto (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Just shout.... --Biker Biker (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
W800
It has 48 horses (or you have an upgraded engine) --Centovalli (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)