User talk:CyclePat/Archive

File:Moving-camera.gif

Warning: Page under surveillance

Welcome!

Hello CyclePat/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Rschen7754 04:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric bicycle

Hello, CyclePat. Thanks for your contribution at electric bicycle. The article is well sourced and organized. However, even though the regulations are factual and useful for those interested in the subject, I'm not sure that they are appropriate for an encyclopedia (for example, the United States Constitution doesn't have the full text of the constitution, it links to it instead). I think you could make the article better by first describing in your own words what an electric bicycle is and what it is used for. It doesn't have to be perfect, just go for it. Other users will clean it up as necessary when they come by. Then you can have a section on its history and a section with more information about how it works (see the bicycle article for an example). Then you can summarize the legal status of bicycles in various countries instead of including the actual text. A link to the full text could go in a sources/external links section. If you want to save the article's current form while you work on a new version, you can move it to your talk page. If you don't know how, they should be able to help you at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks -- Kjkolb 11:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

comments

Hello Kjkolb, Thank you for your opinion. It is greatly appreciated and I will take some of your considerations into account. I understand the paradox of having a clear/summarized and understandable article for the average person vs an elaborate article for the technically inclined.

1) I agree! "... make the article better by first describing in your own words what an electric bicycle is and what it is used for."

2) I agree! And I am Happy you said "Then you can have a section on its history and a section with more information about how it works."

  -  I can add some of my own personal photo's and diagrams.
  -  People can upload their own photo's
  -  We can then add links to various trademarked and recognised (popular bicycles)

3) I dissagree! The legalise that I have writen, for example, about the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (H.T.A.)(A province within Canada) is in fact a list of all the laws (that I noticed) dealing with a motor assited bicycle, which can be considered a power-assisted bicycle. Simply adding a link to the entire H.T.A. would be rediculus and missleading. I somewhat agree that 1) the laws/regulations could be summarized but I believe that they also need to 2) be thoughfully chosen and writen from the main source, so there is no confusion.

That is why I have begun with the second part. Summarizing the vast information, for example, of the H.T.A. that deals with electric bicycles. I propose that a quick summary at the bigining of these regulations would be a solution! (I am not currently up for changing the electric bicycle page quite yet but perhaps in the future once the summaries are completed, putting a link to a new wiki page with the afformentioned second step as a "work cited"/"sources" would be interesting)

I don't agree with the fact that the wikipedia's definition of the "United states constitution" doesn't have the full text. I support the idea of having more information. I also support the good old encyclopedia developement style via (making reference to my parent's old encyclopedia) "The New Book of Knowledge," Grolier, Inc. New York, 1977. This encyclopedia has the United states constitution... it even has a photocopy of the original. (As we would say in music, urtext.)

4) "A link to the full text could go in a sources/external links section."

- isn't that what I have been doing! Well perhaps not. Can you make yourself clear on this. Because if I put for example a link to the full text, do you mean the entire laws such as the Ontario H.T.A.? I have read through the H.T.A. several times (more times than I can recall). I have picked out the laws that are pertinent to electric bicycles and placed them in it's appropriate sub-category. I do agree that it would be nice to have a summary of every regulation but that will only happen if I do my own research or summary. I would then have to put all the regulations that I picked pertaining to electric bicycles, into another web link (preferably internal) where everyone could have easy access to it! Unless there is another sugestion. --CyclePat 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric bicycle

You're a newbie, so I'm going to try to just explain some basic principles of Wikipedia. The main one is, do not take possession of articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This means that your articles will be edited, guarenteed. So the articles are not yours. They belong to everyone.

Secondly, please read What wikipedia is not. The main thing Wikipedia is not is a indiscriminate source of information. Articles on here are like encyclopedia articles. In other words, they are descriptions about other things. In this case, the article should be a description of electric bicycles and then possibly a short section on the laws involving electric bicycles. It should not be just a law on electric bicycles or a collection of laws on electric bicycles. There is actually a wiki just for documents like that called Wikisource. Maybe you should utilize that for this particular topic. The reason why I redirected the article to Mopeds is because the moped article actually describes what electric bicycle type vehicles are and how they operate. The electric bicycle article as it existed did not do this. It merely talked about a law on electric bicycles.

Another point is that articles need to be general. In this case, the article was basically just about Canadian law. The articles on here need to be much more general than that. Again, it would need to be something like a description of electric bicycles, how they operate, how widespread they are, etc.

Finally and this is the #1 rule of Wikipedia, be bold. In this case, it is not as if my decision to redirect the article is "final". Nothing on Wikipedia is final. You could have very easily reverted my changes. I will tell you how to do that in a second. Beware, though, that if you or others don't fix the article so that it's more encyclopedic, someone else will do exactly what I did.

Anyway, to revert a change, all you need to do is click on the "page history" link. You will then see a page like this. You would then click on the time/date link for the version that you want to revert back to. In this case, it would be the last version before mine. It would then open up a page like this. You would then click on the "edit this page" link and then you would save the page. In the edit summary box, it's usually a good idea to say "revert" and then explain the reversion. That's all there is to it. Like I said, you may revert my change if you wish, but again, if the article isn't made encyclopedic, someone else will do that exact same thing in a few days, tops. --Woohookitty 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you quite understood my point. Reverting it back to what you had is fine, but then the article needs to be encyclopedic. You told me I could do that. I will. I'll wipe out everything you put on there and rewrite it into an encyclopedic article. Material like you put up belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Wikisource is for laws. What you put up is basically the law in Ontario. That's great, but Wikisource is the place for laws and full documents, not Wikipedia. Moped is an example of an encyclopedia article. That's the basic form the electric bicycle article needs to be. And this is not just "my opinion". Source material like yours is not allowed on Wikipedia. Here is a place that explains that fully. It's official policy. It's not just my opinion. I'm trying to be nice here. I'm going to do something called transwiki, which means moving your article over to Wikisource. It has a place there. It doesn't have a place here. I'll give ya the link once I have the material on Wikisource. --Woohookitty 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Article talk pages vs user talk pages

Hi CyclePat. A general pointer -- please discuss article content issues on the talk page of the article itself. Personal talk pages should not be used to discuss substantive content issues. This is so other editors working on the article together can see your arguments for various things, and vice versa. I've left some comments for you on the article talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Power-assisted bicycle

The revert you asked about, [1], was performed simply because the page in question had been blanked. Immediately after the revert I also left a copy of {{blanking}} on the talk page for the IP that performed the blanking to provide information on how to better handle the things. As for which articles should contain information, and which should be redirects, I have no opinion other than the issue should be worked out on the appropriate article talk pages. --Allen3 ^talk 11:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

CyclePat, you're one revert away from violating Wikipedia's policies on reverting an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. If you revert any one article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, you can be blocked. You can read more here WP:3RR. I just wanted to warn you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not; nobody's suggesting banning you. Wikipedia has sort of a steep learning curve and it's entirely possible to end up violating policies you didn't even know existed. That's why I wanted to let you know about this one, before you ran afoul of it. You might try reading WP:RULES, it contains a lot of information you should probably familiarize yourself with if you want to keep contributing here, which I hope you do. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pages you've created

CyclePat, you really can't create "test" articles in the main articlespace, like that "CyclePat's Playground" article. Instead, you should create the article in your userspace. I've moved this article to your userspace; it can now be accessed at User:CyclePat/CyclePat's Playground Additionally, the article you created on yourself is pretty close to violating the policies on vanity articles. It's likely to be deleted; I just wanted to warn you. You're welcome to keep that information on your userpage (here: User:CyclePat, though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

== You are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Your last 2 versions are identical. You didn't list them as a revert but they are. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

NO, it was my belief that you deleted important information pertinent to the discusion of deleting the article of electric bicycle. However, then I noticed you moved it to another location, the remove the redirect, which someone might confuse my opinion on the subject of deletion the article vs my opinion of deleting the redirect. --CyclePat 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Some advice

If you want to find out how to do something on here, go to www.google.com and type in say "How to revert" and then "Wikipedia" and search and you will find the answer. The only problem I have with you is that you don't seem to seek out other articles to see what's the "norm" here. The only thing that aggravates me is that I'll do something nice, like put the vote for deletion for the redirect for electric bicycles on the right page or archive the talk page and I get accused of removing comments or of being some evil genius looking to ruin your life. I have no stake in bicycles. I haven't ridden one in 10 years. But. My job as an admin here is to keep articles in line with the generally accepted format. One cannot propogandize when they have no interest in something. I'm upholding the consensus. That's all I'm doing. Don't take it so personally. It's like when someone changes something you did. You get angry and upset. Why? Part of life on here is seeing your work edited. Frankly Pat, if that's not something you can handle, I'd find somewhere else to go. I'm not "taking control" of the article. I am just upholding what's been agreed to by Kate, Alynna, just diz guy, etc, etc. I have NO PERSONAL INTEREST in this. None. Zero. Zip. I have over 12,000 edits. I'm an admin, which takes a vote of (mostly) other admins to get. Do you think they'd give me that level of responsibility if I went on personal crusades against people? Honestly, if you can't accept that and try to keep the article in line with what we do here, then I'm not sure this is the place for you. Like I said, I'm trying to help you. Really. I did that thing with the vote for redirect...I put the moped section to the bottom so it can get consensus, whether its for your side or not. I have NO PERSONAL GAIN here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hey CyclePat, I'm from Canada too. I actually was pointed to the motorized bikes from your evco posting. I've been involved with hpvooo for a while, and my interest in green transportation led me to subscribe to evco. Thanks for the welcome!AdinaBob 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bananas from Pluto

While it's an interesting idea, I really can't condone it being in the article space. How about you move it to a user subpage? -R. fiend 16:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I temporarily undeleted the article long enough to be moved to a subpage for you: User:CyclePat/Bananas come from Pluto. I would not put into the articlespace, however, as it would be a combination of nonsense and original research. As for giving someone time to write a complete article, there are various thoughts on this. It is generally believed that an article should not be saved until it is decently complete. In any case, if someone is writing a thuroughly unencyclopedic article, there is no need to give them time to finish it. As for which of the speedy deletion criteria the article fell into, well we could debate whether I should have brought it to AFD or speedied it, but it would have been deleted either way. As another admin speedily deleted it the second time, it's clear I was not alone in thinking it was the correct course of action. -R. fiend 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No big deal. Like I said before, WP has a pretty steep learning curve sometimes, and there are a lot of folks here who (rightly) take this project pretty seriously. Don't worry about it, just learn and move on, and keep plugging away at helping create a wonderful free resource that anybody can use. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw

I took motorized bicycle off of my watchlist. I'm done with it because I've run out of patience with you. I had forgotten to take "electric bicycle" off of my list. I see that you tried to put formatting on the page, which won't work because the page is a redirect. PLEASE try to learn our formatting. The thing is...our learning curve is steep but it's not that steep. You have to make an effort to learn these things on your own and I just don't see the effort. Everything on Wikipedia is there for you to see. All you need to do is go to the search bar and type in "How to archive a talk page" or "How to revert". There is also a Help desk that you can get to with the Help link, which should be somewhere on your page. I know you don't believe this, but I was much more patient with you than the next person will be that runs into that article. I'm not sure if it's a matter of you don't want to learn how we do things or that you think we're something we're not or what. Whatever it is, I officially give up. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the award. I am sure I was harsher than I needed to be. Hopefully you'll run into an admin gentler with new people. Katefan0 is excellent at that. Maybe she'll help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually

I did the one post on the talk page and that's it. I have no plans to work on the article anymore. You are going to have one heck of a time creating an electric bicycle artie when people overwhelming voted to keep the redirect for that article. As for the timeline for motorized bicycle, I'm just not sure that's a good idea. The thing is, Pat, you have to learn the format or else you are going to keep facing roadblocks. It's just how it is. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My honest opinion

Hi CyclePat,

I've added my opinion to Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of Motorized bicycle history which as you can see is to delete or merge in this case, but the subject looks interesting and I'm sure the information you've added will be a good addition to the history section on Motorized bicycle.

22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

I have made a suggestion at Talk:Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. Responses there, please. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

École Secondaire Catholique Garneau/Urls and other facts

It's a great idea to have a temp work space, but you might want to make one in your user space. It's safer there. For instance, you could have User:CyclePat/Garneau or User:CyclePat/sandbox. Even though in your userspace, you can invite others to add to it (if you wish). Anyway, this is a *purely* voluntary suggestion on my part, and there's nothing wrong with your current approach (I'm just always personally paranoid about admins speedy deleting things in article space, without due caution). --Rob 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Motorized Bicycles

Pat, you appear to be doing everything in your power to assert your personal vision for this subject. Over the last few weeks you've unilaterally proposed merging the article with moped (no consensus to do so), split off a timeline (consensus either to merge or to widen to a more useful scope), disputed the removal of content (and freely acknowledged it is not significant), proposed yet another article with an even lower threshold of significance principally to insert your pet topic (which is in any case already covered on WP in an uncontentious place), gone to moped army and solicited meatpuppets for an AfD debate, worked against an apparent consensus (to merge) re electric and IC motorised bikes, (unnecessarily) nominated a redirect for deletion in order to recreate content previously merged, added the article to the Article Improvement Drive when it's already improving at speed, citing POV issues which despite several requests you have yet to identify. I'm sure there's more.

You've also accused me of POV and behaviour issues, and driven off Woohookitty who tried really hard to help you do things the way they like around here. Worst of all, you added references to the latter part of an exchange between us, to an RfC, without telling me which I 'seriously don't appreciate. Notwithstanding that conduct complaints belong in a user RfC not an article RfC, you also linked to the mopedarmy thread not at your originating post appealing for meatpuppets, but at a point halfway down. You are making it really difficult to assume good faith.

If you want to raise a user RfC against me, go right ahead (but at least have the courtesy to tell me if you do). Frankly, if it passes then this is not a place I want to be anyway. But I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid: to my view (and that of some others) you are acting like a bull in a china shop, and ignoring all requests to calm down. At the very least you seem to be running in every direction at once rather than calmly stating what you are trying to do and why.

I'm going to repeat a question I've asked a couple of times: would you please state your agenda and get it out in the open, so that I can at least see where you are driving at and whether some sort of accommodation can be reached. Maybe you have a wider perspective which is just masked by the parochial issues which led to your disputes with me and User:Woohookitty. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All these issues are in the past. However I guess I got a comment on them now. I'm realy not up for diging in such shity conversations and doing a smear campaign but if that makes you happy then do place all your objection right here user:CyclePat/Objectional Conduct. Please put your sources. I've done that with my a few instances of information (cough!) ... That is, place my sources. For example our famous CCM ligth Pixie motorized bicycle. (bringing up POV issues because this is a fact and we are removing it from the article) (your ain't going to here the end of that one for a while, because that my friend, (and I mean that because you've helped me to learn quite a bit), is a major issue. (I believe similar issues plague many articles) (I say plagues other articles because the issue at hand is inclusion of primary information, but, obviously some people don't like adding new facts because it may contradict their opinions, or it may totally go against other facts within the article. All this even though it is stated in WP:V,

• It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.
• Organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged

Let's go back a little now for a blast from the past. There is or was such a contrary motion on your behalf and woohookity to remove these primary facts. This information about the CCM bicycle was not from an arguable source. (just like the wright bro. airplane motorized bicycle) Anyway, if you do wish to develop the "I need to work on my objection conduct campaing" then be my quest. (Do make it well sourced if you may), we can start arguing user conduct and spending our time on that instead of the article. Trust me, I would let you know if I was doing anything against you. I'm sort of like one of those old fashioned bad guys, that admits when he's wrong(or got cough)(unlike our Liberal government) at the end and then has a drink of brandy with the detective that found him guilty. B.t.w. if you feel the comments at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/232057/231620/ are not a reflection of you then perhaps you should go for a user comment. You can always bring a request for comment up on yourself, about yourself, to see what others think. (I forget where, but you can) You might think I would say something like that but I couldn't comment.

b.t.w. Since when do you need consencus to propose and idea? A "merger", this is getting ridiculus. Next thing you know I'm going to need a concensus to propose a proposition. (If you are suggesting I did it because I had a point to prove and I was mad at your addition of the delete to the article Timeline of Motorized bicycle history, I think we could be a little more "good faithed", right? For the record the merger was added because of a discusion on www.mopedarmy.com web page. As I've indicated there are conflicting issue inbetween the two articles. I believe this might be a never ending story.

As for the insignificance, I believe I said something along the lines that (don't quote me on this one) I believe they may be less significant but that I wasn't sure (makin an analogy to a distant star maybe being so influencial that our feable minds can't comprehend it's impact) All that to go back to the idea and question... why put one fact in the encyclopedia and not another? on the earth)en I totally removed the idea of significance in the debate.

As for calmly stating it... well we have people like you that decide a new article (just starting) need to be deleted without even bothering discussing. (a 5 day process). This article needed much improvement and as you can see, right now it appears to be at least halft decent. If you're asking me to calm down, then I suggest you take a look at the antagonist.

Finally, my wider perspective is that: Motorized bicycle includes (basic history of motorcycles, mopeds, power-assisted bicycles, scooters (if they have or had pedals), manufactured or homebuilt... any addition kit. (I think the best to describe it is by making a well defined article that clear says this without constantly crossing over from one to the other. Anyway, you may think I have agenda, but really I do everything from in my head. (I've gotten rid of my agenda for the past 10 years) (Actually the only things I have in planed is an Pilot Project Opera [[2]], some christmas charoling, some teaching and well maybe if possible to fix up the broken fork in my electric bicycle (before christmas). Oh! And graduate. No seriously... my agenda is to keep an honest article by giving as much factual information as logically possible.

p.s.: You may also check my categories and things I'm doing on my user page to see what my agenda is on wikipedia. --Pat 04:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

p.p.s: Do take a look at m:Academic Standards Disease and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion --Pat 04:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Pat this is not "in the past" except in the sense that I have no crystal ball. Your edits to the article RfC - the thing to which I object most strongly - were last week, and the reason I didn't comment earlier was that you did not tell me you had done it, which I consider incredibly rude. Seriously, I was mildly irritated before but I am now really, seriously pissed off. As for your "not up for diging in such shity conversations and doing a smear campaign" - why did you link to these conversations in the article RfC if you are not in that business?

I do not want to start raising RfCs, what I am asking is that you calm down a bit, and stop making accusations. The inclusion or removal of the CCM bike is not a POV issue in the WP:NPOV sense. POV is where a stament is biased towards one or other side of a debate. In this case, there is no bias, the facts are not disputed, but you have acknowlegded that the bike is not significant (and we've had this conversation more than once now). WP:NPOV is a big deal, and accusing people of POV is therefore also a big deal. Especially when it seems that you are the one out of step (see how K-111, who you brought in from the moped army forum, also supports its non-inclusion?)

Nor is it an inclusionist argument. Your zeal has led you once again to misinterpret what is meant by inclusionism (just as it has for NPOV). The CCM bike is already included, it's in the CCM entry. Having or not having it in the motorized bicycle article is not an inclusionist debate any more than it's a POV debate. Since you have acknowledged that it has no demonstrable or provable significance to the history of the motorized bicycle, it is not in there. To get it included, all you have to do is show that it is significant in the context of the global development of the motorized bicycle. Simple as that, and previously stated in just those terms.

Nor is it a verifiability issue pewr WP:V. It is about what WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is ludicrous to suppose that every piece of information known about a subject must always be included in every article which touches on it. I am involved in the article on Robert Hooke, which is a decent-sized article. I have recently come into possession of a five-volume history of the life and works of Hooke, and I could add many hundreds of words of verifiable information stated in completely neutral terms, but it would be indiscriminate. One day, perhaps, if enough people express an interest, we could have an article on the demonstrations Hooke did for the Royal Society each year over his tenure as Curator. You'd need an article per year because he did at least one most weeks. Trivial, all, like demonstraing for the first time the deviation of magnetic and True North, and the fact that it changes over time. OK, that might yet get in, it's not that trivial. How do you think CCM adding a commercially available motor to an already-existent bike stacks up against the first observation of magnetic North moving over time? Or the invention of the anchor escapement? Or the reflecting telescope?

Look at it from my perspective: we're working on an article on a small but interesting subject, taking a bitty document made up of many different user edits and trying to polish it up a bit. Content is removed as irrelevant, duplicated or trivial, with reasons duly given and in most cases no dispute. A dispute arises, and you immediately go off and start a new article on the history of the item, when we are already working on a history section for which there is not yet any significant content, and you include in that new article only the stuff which was removed as acknowledged to be trivial and/or irrelevant! And you accuse me of bad faith? On WP what usually happens is that timelines are created to bind together many documents, or to split out an over-large history section. If you think extra help is needed, solicit help on the original article, not your new split-off article to prevent its deletion! Re-insertion of admittedly insigificant content is not, as far as I can tell, good grounds for splitting out a timeline. But there's more: when it's agreed by editors on the new article that the trivia has no place there either, what is your response? To propose yet another new article with - yes, you guessed it - the same content which by common consent is not relevant or important to the subject overall! Now, call my quirky, but I find that just the teensiest bit frustrating. And even more frutating is tracking down the places on and off Wikipedia where you are spawning new discussions stated from your perspective. Have you not noticed that with each new editor on these pages a consensus appears very rapidly? That none of the others of us seem to have a problem with anybody but you? Do you not think that might be significant?

On the subject of mergers, templates, tags and so on: when you have multiple peopel working on an article it's normal as far as I can tell to have a brief discussion between the currently active editors before making potentially far-reaching changes like merging content. What's wrong with that?

SoI will repeat my request: please calm down, work with the flow instead of against it, and above all please do not discuss other Wikipedians behind their backs without having the courtesy to inform them, or at least make sure they are actively monitoring the page on which the comment is made. In which spirit, I am informing User:Woohookitty of this discussion, since I mentioned the name. Read the comments above, there are an awful lot which amount to "er, Pat, we don't do things that way around here." I'm still learning too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To have something excluded, all you have to do show that it is insignificant in the context of global development of motorized bicycle. Simple as that! Since it is possible to infer this statement from your afformentioned logic I we must it must be correct, right? Please show me the insignificance. That beeing the case, I will begin my study to review the articles and its facts. user:CyclePat\review of motorized bicycle facts. As for you putting word in my mouth again, such as saying that I acknowledged that it has no demonstrable or provable significance, you might think I said that, but I couldn't comment on that. Except that I may ask some questions; if the information is unknown then how can a possible logical conclusion/judgement (which I believe is against wiki policy) on the articles subjects "significance" be made? Would this judgement not be original research? Wouldn't it be prety presumptious to assume insignificance? Would that assumption in itself be a type of "original research"? --Pat 04:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to have something exludedfrom an individual article, all you have to do is demonstrate it is not significant in the context of that article. Well done. To have something excluded from Wikipedia is completely different and requires one of a number of processes none of which apply at this level. If I were to try to remove the CCM article you'd have a case, but I haven't. Although now I come to think about it, have you read WP:CORP?

As for putting words in your mouth, here is what you said a week ago on 24 November: "I've talk about this with you before. There is no argumenting here on the importance/significance in the global history of motorized bicycle." You appeared to accept then (and elsewhere) that this bike is not significant in the global context of the motorized bicycle, which is entirely in line with what I can find on the subject (i.e. virtually nothing, unlike the Derny, the VeloSoleX and others). You are very free with your accusations of POV, original research, "exclusion", violation of Wiki policy etc., but you are completely ignoring the fact that thus far nobody has agreed with you re inclusion of this bike in this article - remember that word "consensus"?. It is already covered in CCM, where it should be. For the rest it is as relevant as it would be to add the Southampton Mini Centre to the Mini article because the guy there used to build conversions to order from commercial kits. Adding trivia reduces the quality of an article it doesn't improve it. And if you can find any Wikipedia policy which states otherwise I'd like to see it.

Now go to my userpage and read the section "beware of the tigers". - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're going with the WP:Corp. Either you are using this as a possible grounds for excluding the information. (which I'm not to certain would work to well in the case of CCM.) Or either you think my agenda is to eventually have my little garage company in the article (*trust me, now that I'm familiar with wiki guidelines and policy, if anyone tryed doing that, I would probably be the first to remove it). Anyway nice tiger thingy. Did you make it yourself or find elses where? Finally, for the "no argument", I probably meant that it was not appropriate for the context. Meaning something like... I can't find anything against it, or anything really for it (asside from the fact that it exist and was placed in the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada as a type of "evolutionary" phase of "bicycles/ motorized bicycle / motorcycle." I really can't comment on it's notority except for the facts that where already written and are now in the CCM (manufacturer) article. (ie.: used in Ottawa, grocery store, etc.) What worries me, is how many more new found (for us that is) motorized bicycles will be excluded or included? --Pat 22:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New Template

Hello CyclePat, Im Moe Epsilon. I hope you don’t mind but I gave you the template on your user page called Template:User Member. You can always remove it if you dont want it but I hope you like it! — Moe ε 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Electric bicycle redirect

To answer your question in the edit summary, no, there won't be a new rfd. The rfd tag was in the right spot from early November until December 1st when just diz guy moved it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved it per the recommendation in WP:RFD: "If the {{rfd}} is on the same line as the #REDIRECT, but after it, the redirect continues to work, so that people clicking on links to it will not see the warning message unless they choose to view the redirect page itself." The debate was widely circulated on the Talk pages, and what Pat wanted to do (recreate a separate article) does not require deletion; all deletion would have done is break existing wikilinks which rely on the redirect.

In any case the RfD has been closed consensus keep so the tag should not be there at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I was just about to write something like that... We just had an edit conflict. Here is what I was going to say:

• see User talk:Woohookitty#electric bicycle rfd for my most recent comment. (And yes. I do agree there is probably no need to do the rfd again because it really wasn't the correct process in the first place. The process was to request the the merge be removed to create a new article. --Pat 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that proposition. Rfd should be removed. --Pat 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s.: if only I had seen that before? --Pat 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't have such a process, Pat. We don't have an "unmerging" process. We have the process you used, which was redirects for deletion. You were asking that the redirect be removed so that the article could be recreated. It was in the right place. Trying to interpret it otherwise is gaming the system, i.e. trying to find a way around it so you can get what you want. Requesting that the "merge be removed" is requesting that the redirect be deleted so that the article could be recreated. You lost. Try to work within the consensus. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to game the system the WP:RFD states: "To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it here." (That's where we had it listed... which isn't realy appropriate because we where trying to create "a new article", that didn't have all the law citations.) Furthermore it states that "It isn't necessary to delete a redirect if you just want to replace the redirect with an article, or change where it points: see How do I change a redirect? for instructions on how to do that." --Pat 17:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We must also be clear... when they say at WP:RFD a redirect, the mean the entire page, correct? (not just the redirect, that of which I believed we where discussing all along) --Pat 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just want to point out that we also have a guideline called no POV forking. It basically means that separate articles should not be created when the expressed purpose of the second article is to push personal views instead of joining the consensus. So you can quote RfD policy all you want, Pat. You are still going to be in violation of a Wikipedia guideline. And please don't quote RfD policy to me. I know the policy. RfD was the most proper place for the discussion, instead of AfD, which is where you originally had it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Steam tricycle image

Pat, I believe you need to remove this image. I don't think the screenshot provision does not apply to website content which is restricted to registered users (which this one is). If anyone goes to the source link they get: Licensed Resource You have requested a resource that is restricted to current University of Ottawa students, faculty and staff... I don't think the image is available on any free-use websites. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew that would come up!  :\ I figured since there are more than 24000 students (presently enroled) and not counting past students that can access the file it would be worthy to put the url (event though the bibliography is there!)... okay! maybe a link to amazon books, would be better? But I figured that is the source! If you want I can send you some captured pictures of relevant book section via email. (dunno how to do that on wikipedia thought but I heard it's possible to send email) --Pat 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move this conversation on to the image page [[Image:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).JPG]]

If you can continue the conversation there it would be greatly appreciated. --Pat 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Will you be my friend?

Hi, Pat.

Do you not recognize me from viki? Or pho? - RealGrouchy 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Read this

Read POV fork. See if you recognise any of the behaviours described therein. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the Gallery article up for deletion. You're being given one more chance Pat before we open a RfC on you. You have to drop this stubborn streak to function on here. Sometimes, you are not going to get your way. It's how it is on here. Live with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking for input

Kmf164 and I are looking for some feedback on a particular external link at hybrid vehicle. We'd appreciate your feedback. (See the second "External Links" heading.) uriah923^(talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading quote?

Have you been following the Talk:WebEx thread? We are debating whether Michael Zeleny's livejournal is a good primary source for things Michael Zeleny has said. That is, the requirement which you cite at length, that the inference must be made about the owner of the website, is satisfied here. It is not an issue. I assumed everyone reading the thread would understand that.

Further, I've only taken a section of the sentence, which someone had quoted fully right before me (see the entire thread). I agree that it might be misleading to someone who read one sentence of my comment at random, but it is NOT misleading to someone who is reading the thread. --Pierremenard

Clarification: there is dispute over whether Zeleny's blog is a good primary source for what Zeleny has said, in as much as it is not considered, by most, as sufficient evidence to say anything other than "Zeleny said this" - Zeleny's repeated inisstence that the fact of his having made the statement on his blog means the statementy must be allowable in WP is highly contentious. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ice Storm of January 1998

This is a broadcast message for users that voted to select this article as the Canadian collaboration. It has been selected for the January 2006 collaboration period. Congratulations, and happy editing! Mindmatrix 17:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My voting statistic on articles for deletion

hi CyclePat -- I think you must have intended this page to be in your user space; it definitely doesn't belong in the wikipedia namespace. I believe you can create a new article called User:CyclePat/My_voting_statistic_on_articles_for_deletion and copy the stuff there -- then please mark it with {{delete}}. thanks! bikeable (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat

I only respond to requests from just diz guy. I am not involved in any of the articles involving you, so putting me under "surveillance" is a waste of time. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but isn't the picture just cool? b.t.w. you wouldn't happen to know how to make a picture from another language wikipage appear on the english one? --CylePat 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I can barely speak English. ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi, just returning the wish of a happy new year! I'm not actually a saxophonist but i like listening to the saxophone and Jazz. Have a good wiki year! Pydos 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Andre Munn

If he is a newbie just warn him. Arb and RfC is meant to be last resort. --Chazz88 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The page in question was removed. --CylePat 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Altering users' talk page comments

Please don't do that. Calling it "refactoring" doesn't make it more okay. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

many comments by user where off topic and actually I considered some of them insulting. As per Talk:Mother Teresa/FAQ and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages I sugest we concentrat our efforts on refactoring the talk pages. I will however make another keep my refactored comments under the main discusion. --CylePat 15:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also note that under wp:vandalism it is perfectly okay to do that.  :

Changing people's comments

Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)

I consider you action of reverting my refactoring more of a vandalism then my refactoring. (which stated preciselly the key point for the discussion that user was talking about) --CylePat 16:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments weren't off topic and even if they were that isn't a reason to alter them. Guy's comments also weren't vandalism, nor were they personal attacks. (The page that deals with removing personal attacks is extremely disputed, this generally is not done except in the very most egregious circumstances). So, please stop altering his comments. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

I cannot for the life of me understand why you are wasting yout time on the Talk page of motorized bicycle when there are so many other things to be done, like filling in the redlinks. Not that I care, but today among other things I filled in some redlinks on other articles and reverted several vandal edits. Refactoring talk pages is way down the agenda! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand. The vandals are a pain in the ass. You are doing excellent work. I to reverted 2 incidents of vandalism today. I think perhaps we should have a mechanism to put on suspected vandals web pages. (ie. like the moving camera I added to one vandals page... euh! not that we are vandals but it's the same one on our pages). Anyway. I don't have anything against you, I myself would be asking probably the same questions if I was on the other side. (ref. the triumph bicycle photo). The reason I seemingly ignore those comments is because it seems to avoid and dither from the subject. As to trying to answer your question, I think it questions my method of work. Which is not fair. I could understand if we where collaborating on a certain section, but we haven't agreed to do that. If you wish we can put certain subjects on the back burner (but when others where strongly involved in this article I don't remember them doing that for me). As for red links. You might not have noticed the addition of the pedelec I am working on. I would be happy to put the discussion about the photo aside, and maybe later talk about it, if we worked together on this article. (a translation from Deutch)

Pat, I wish you hadn't done that, I really do. Pedelec is a subclass of electric bicycle is a subclas of motrized bicycle. It's already mentioned in motorized bicycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Understandable; but I don't think their is room for that information in the main article. Plus the article exist in another language already. --CylePat 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedelec

• Thank you for your comments on my user page. However, you do not need to write me everytime you make a comment on the AfD. I continue to monitor pages I vote on - and in this case I will not change my vote. If you can convince JzG,yk? (which appears highly unlikely) to change his then mine will follow. Ifnord 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for your comments on my user page. I do not consider the changes made to pedelec in the last 3 days sufficient to withdraw my delete vote. I would consider at the minimum that it should consist of grammatical english with no translation artifacts. Agree its not impossible you've been unfairly treated. Suggest request for arbitration if you care enough to make the effort.AKAF 15:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at this (and imported it to Wikinfo). I liked the article. I must say I don't understand why anyone would object to it. But keep in mind that my position is far more inclusionist than the vast majority of Wikipedians, certainly more inclusionist than Wikipedia consensus. Fred Bauder 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, I emailed you a reply to your question on WebEx about the files. --FloNight 02:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Hello! I noticed that you added [[Category:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians]] to your userpage, but that category does not exist. There is, however, a Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. I decided to be bold and changed it for you. Happy editing! -- Megamix^? 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! No problemo, considering the category I'm from. LOL.  :) --CyclePat 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:CyclePat/Gallery of motorized bicycles

This page is now in your userspace. I have removed two images from it as non-free and therefore no better than fair use, and fair use images are not permitted in userspace. One of the images was non-commercial only, so is a speedy. The other, which you uploaded is not in fact PD, since the Museum is able to claim copyright on it. I have therefore listed it at WP:PUI. Do not recreate this article in the English Wikipedia unless DRV overturns the deletion, and note that in transwiki-ing to Commons that only explicitly free images are allowed (no fair-use). -Splash^talk 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

meuh! I'll just go take the picture myself at the museum. Those other pictures where of interest to me. And the fact that you removed them makes this request almost useless. I need access the document as it appeared. So I may evaluate the situation. Thank you. --CyclePat 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The removal of two images does not make it useless, since the image files themselves are still on Wikipedia at their original location. The earlier forms of the article are all in the history as usual, so you can view it from there. Please do not revert it to one of those earlier versions, however. -Splash^talk 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --CyclePat 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pat

Not notifying you of an AfD or anything, just for a change, but it occurs to me that I took your name in vain here and didn't tell you. I hope you don't take this amiss, if you do I apologise without reservation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up! I must also be honest and inform you that I am working to dig out information from your/our past. Rest assured that I will attempt to have a neutral summary of my opinion. I am currently analysing our past incidents. Hopefully this page will help us resolve these issues. You may find this information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyclePat%5Cbuilding_a_case_for_RFC . I also hope you will use your adminship powers to do good and not bad. Analysing your history (JzG contributions from X until Jan 9 2006)

I must say, I find you are more of a conservative and leaning towards deletionist. I understand, I love wikipedia, it's fabulous, but your sudden burst of rage leave me worried that you may do the same to others. In general you have demonstrated some improvement (that of which I will also attempt to highlight) I can only give you my conditinal support. That is, keep up the good work, and maybe in a month or so from now you'll be ready. (Your still you, and don't let the power get to your head!)(ie.: I hope you won't start blocking me in our current edit wars. (though we are currently at a cease fire... but we fail to have anymore discussion.) (perhaps a further process we should look into... mediation... arbitration?)--CyclePat 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You busy?

If not there's a gallery here Projects for new highrises in Lima up for deletion, if you feel like doing the needful over at Commons as you did for the motorbikes that would be nice. - JzG 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfc of JzG

Sorry, but I have enough on my plate without getting involved in this dispute at the moment - I have had no negative interactions with JzG, and am resolute in my vote on his RfA. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please follow procedure

You do not START with a request for mediation Pat. RfC first and then RfM for article stuff or RfC first and RfArb for user conduct stuff. And pick one article. They will not take 6. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:JzG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyclePat%5Cbuilding_a_case_for_RFC looks like you are clearly building a case for a RFC against User:JzG in my opinion, I noticed you two had prior conflect and it looks personal in my opnion by the tone of your oppose. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, thank you for changing your vote. You drive me potty sometimes, but I have a strong suspicion that if we met for a beer we would end up laughing not fighting. The result is not, it seems, in doubt (which is rare enough!), you could have left it at Oppose and it would not have made any odds, and perversely that makes it all the more pleasing that you changed. Now will you fill in those redlinks? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! HAHA! (I'm almost on the floor over here laughing and also pleased.) Wow! Redlinks... (chuckles) (It good to laugh... I don't mind laughting at myself either because I know my manerims are sometimes strange, and funny.) Congradulations on making the top... well the most voting! It makes me feel, and you should too, a little more comftable knowing that you have had a possitive influence for most of these people ;)... Well, let's not celebrate to much yet though! I mean there still is time for people to vote... (LOL)... Like, I think what you meant, it's about the principal and the support. Anyway! So where are those redlinks...? p.s.:(And I'd gladly have a big beer with you, if ever we meet for now... you'll have to contend with these...

Wikipedia's Very Important Brew (W-VIB). Made of 100% recycled electrons. Cheers & feel free to drink and wikify!

Garneau User Group

Anyone can put forth an AfD nomination. There is no "process" per se. Neutrality felt like it should have been deleted, so he put a nomination up. There are very few hard and fast rules as far as putting articles up for deletion. Even bad faith nominations are not removed out of hand. And most people are voting for merge, which is fine. I don't see anything wrong. And notability is a principle we go by when it comes to articles on here. If we didn't take notability into an account, we'd have articles on everything and that is unmanageable. Generally, things like groups from a high school are included in the article on the high school since the groups themselves are not notable enough for their own articles. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK cool. Yeah deletions are one of those areas where we don't have alot of hard and fast rules. There have been movements at points to define it more, but they've failed. They did finally give us the power to speedy delete vanity articles and such. But otherwise, not alot of policies on it. You kind of put a nomination up and pray. :) I am pretty sure that Neutrality didn't want a merge to come out of his nomination. Btw, not sure if Neutrality was ignoring you or if he's just busy. He's on the arbcom and they are VERY overloaded with cases right now. They are hard to get ahold of at times, even for admin types like me. I think he's just busy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Now Pat. Wait until the vote is done. :) I don't think the result will change, but you never know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to AMA!

Hey CyclePat, welcome to AMA! We appreciate your joining us and showing a willingness to participate. At the moment we're undergoing internal reorganization, hence the votes you saw going on the talk page. At the moment, suffrage in these votes is limited to people who were members at 21:46 on 6 January. In future votes you will be eligible, however, and until then please feel free to read up what resources we have on advocacy and shout back any questions you may have! Wally 17:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Hi CyclePat, and thank you for the kind words! The layout is relatively new and doesn't display correctly in Internet Explorer yet, but I'm glad you like it. :) Regards, Sango123 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hey Pat, thanks for the message! Actually, ironically enough, Oldwindybear isn't familiar at all with practices and so he just left a little blurb on the main RFC page -- so I was the one that formatted it properly into an RFC page for him (look at the page history!). :P Anyway, the issues between us are resolved and I don't think it'll be certified anyway, so I'm not planning on saying anything there. Thanks again. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your explanations. In that case, it looks like a case of a newbie biting the admin and then realizing that the admin was not their enemy. If so, enough. Robert McClenon 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, thanks to you both for taking the (significant) time required to evaluate something like this! Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

)--CyclePat If I did anything to offend you, it would have been inadvertantly, I assure you, and i do apologize for anything you found offensive, as I have Kate. I look forward to your help in my learning the ropes! You have my unqualified apology, and take care. Robert McClenon is absolutely right that this was a newbie that did not know - but will learn! I am also truly sorry that I wasted so much fo everyone's time, it won't happen again. old windy bear 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Thank you for your kindness and encouragement tonight! Before i "found wikipedia" I was finishing another degree on a scholarship, and reading history, which I have done all my life. And that was it. You, Kate, JohnTex, Kirill, Essjay, have really reached out to me, and encouraged me to use my brain -- which believe it or not remains fairly useful, despite the rest of my health not being so hot! -- and given me a purpose; to help make this the best site I can. THANK YOU for the kind words. I am truly trying. old windy bear 01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there...

You asked some questions at Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship. I answered some of it. Hope that helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem... never be afraid to ask questions. It's how we learn. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA

You left this note on my talk page:

"What happens if you want to look up a users nomination? I can't seem to find the nomination for user:Neutrality or user:woohookitty, can anyone tell me how to get that? And what happens if we can't find it? What happens if we feal an admin, may no longer be a good candidate, can we afd again and see what happens? --CyclePat 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship" --CyclePat 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)"

And to be honest, I don't know why (or how you found me or my talk page -- I'm guessing AMA?). But I can help... I hope.

What happens if you want to look up a users nomination? Considering you left a link to RfA, I'll assume you mean WP:RfA. Unsuccessful canadacies for adminship (as well as some multiple nominations, which eventually won) since April 2004, can be found at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. For successful canadacies on first try, or otherwise from 27 July 2003 onward, can be found here: Wikipedia:Recently created admins. More specifically, if you need older successful candidates (23 September 2004 - 5 January 2006), you can find the information here: Wikipedia:Recently created admins#Links to earlier successful nominations. Use CTRL+F while highlighting a word in this section, and for the "Direction," click the radio button for "Down." Some older nominations (pre-23 September 2004) can be found here: Wikipedia:Recently created admins#Archives. Also, it may just be easier to type in the address bar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/USERNAMEYOUARELOOKINGFOR , where "USERNAMEYOUARELOOKINGFOR" is the User's adminship request you are trying to find.

I can't seem to find the nomination for user:Neutrality or user:woohookitty, can anyone tell me how to get that? Using the pages above, I have found that User:Neutrality's successful nomination was on 3 October 2004 (click for details), and User:Woohookitty's was on 6 July 2005 (click for details).

And what happens if we can't find it? Then, my help has sucked, or they've never applied for Adminship.

What happens if we feal an admin, may no longer be a good candidate, can we afd again and see what happens?

If you have a problem with an Admin, I'd suggest going through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, where you:

1. Talk to the Admin (via their talk page)
2. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
3. Wikipedia:Third opinion
4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (but seeing as someone has already posted something here, it looks like you are on the right track)
5. Requests For Comment; (And it seems you've already done this too: as seen here)
6. MedCom
7. The dreaded ArbCom

And, no, you can't "unadmin" a person by a community vote just because an admin may have gone against policy; I think only ArbCom can do that, I'm not entirely sure. Hopefully, I've answered your question. If not, ask again at my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Later...

Upon examining the AfD for the article in question here, it appears to be a losing battle. In this case, I can try and promote your views as an advocate, but I don't think you or I can win. Your RfC on Neutrality also looks like a losing battle -- I'd advise listening to Just zis Guy, you know?, and heeding his advice. I trust JzGyk? a lot, and I'd look to him. Sorry! Any questions, you know where to go. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Later Later...

Well, on the RFC itself, it's not that you have too much irrelevant information (which I don't think is the case -- you have fairly good information, save the article up for deletion -- that could be removed), but rather, that the basis behind your case is too weak for any action to be taken. Because of Neutrality's disclaimer ("I'm on the Arbitration Committee, so I'm not going to get involved in liberating you from oppression directly—if I did, I'd have to recuse myself when your case was addressed by the committee"), he has the right to delete you from his talk page if he feels the case is too minor, or frankly doesn't want to get involved, be as it may that it does involve him. Also, per his disclaimer, you may have pissed him off by filing a RFC after this minor incident: "The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me." You may have annoyed him with little annoyances, like why a page was put up for deletion. His disclaimer specifically states that he has the right to do so, and you go and file an RFC because you feel like it is against Wikipedia... blah blah blah... etc. Though I don't endorse his actions (removing content from his talk page -- I keep all my talk page content for archiving purposes; however, he may delete stuff from his talk page constantly to keep archivals down, which currently number 27), I recommmend you withdraw/drop all RFCs. Furthermore, drop the Wikietiqueete (or however you spell it) request -- it simply is not necessary for a case which has no base. If you request any further of my services, please contact me via my talk page. I'd also like to note here that I still don't know what you want from me. Is it an advocate? Advice? Questions, go to my talk page. Thanks. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't condone his removal of comments from the talk page. But. That's a very weak RfC. Next time, I would suggest reading other RfCs to kind of see what the standard is for them. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and next time when people tell you not to make mountains out of molehills, do try to give the suggestion some credit! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

why do you care if he responds or not? sure it's a bit rude to ignore you, but it's not a big deal. if the issue is the afd, be aware the neutrality has no particular control over that. all he did was list it, from there it's a community decision. just make your case for keeping it, and forget about neutrality. i have no desire to 'mediate' because i don't see a problem here. just ignore him back. Derex 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cycling categories

By the way, the categories for cycling are all under Category:Cycling; Category:Bicycle(s) do not exist. Category:Cycle manufacturers is more for companies that make bikes or bike parts and accessories. --Christopherlin 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

NoSeptember's RfA is already closed. it was successful. :-) Alhutch 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple endorsements on an RfC

Hi Pat--I saw your question on JzG's talk page about having multiple endorsements on an RfC. That's not cheating or anything--people put forward statements of various viewpoints, and users "sign on" to those they agree with. It's definitely OK to endorse more than one, if more than one seems to speak for you. The intent is not to collect votes for this side or that side, but to try to get a sense of community opinion. Hopefully the views any one person endorse are at least consistent, but a complicated discussion might have several points of view with overlapping lists of endorsers--I think the Gastrich RfC is one example... Hope this is useful. Best, rodii 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome--I rmember being confused by that a couple times too. And, as it turns out you were right--Guy really did endorse one statement twice. :) rodii 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)