The article has been completely reedited several times, because it is quite old. I did not say you have to revert your edits, I have only replied to your "remark" that there is a lot to do here or so (I do not remember the exact words) and to the language corrections you have done (I have done this repeatedly to other users too so that they know how they are "correcting" themselves mutually) - such "remarks" used in a wrong place - instead of writing articles - and provision of wrong numbers in an encyclopaedia (30 instead of 65 km! is a big difference) are what should be changed here... don't you think, "dude" ...  

  

 Juro, thanks for elaborating on this. My comments are directed at others as well as at myself. I might not have as much time as some others and when I return to my previous contributions, it helps me to remember where I have left off. I considered my changes "work in progress", hence my comment. I felt it was best to back it all out  before I had to take even more crap. 

 If I may, I'd suggest to tread more lightly. More often than not, things are not what they may appear to be - you might be barking up the wrong tree.  

 Just out of curiosity - do you understand the contextual meaning of "dude" here in California? 

 

 As for "dude" - one can never be sure with English language slang, therefore I just took the word and used it in an analogous way as you did...:) What exactly does it mean in your usage?