User talk:CyclePat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oldwindybear (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 24 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
I'm fealing better Now! Thank you all for you prayers!--CyclePat 03
17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Categories

I've just removed some non-user categories from your userpage. SeventyThree(Talk) 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This [2] is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Any more and you get blocked. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And adding {disoute} and {NPOV} tags to articles without providing evidence of factual inaccuracy or bias is also vandalism. So if you do that again you're in trouble, too. God alone knows what readers must think, seeing the article on the humble motorized bicycle tagged up like the Moldovan language conflict. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid having to ask for you to be blocked (remember, I said I would not block people with whom I am in active dispute) I have protected the page. Absent evidence of real and substantive POV and accuracy disputes, there are no reaosnable grounds for your continuing to add those tags. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful at not to abuse your powers, and I would appreciate if you had another administrator do this, considering as you would often say "your fledged interest" in the subject.

--CyclePat 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the right thing to do though!! --CyclePat 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Pat, the right thing to do would be for you to stop adding the tags (which you have done before, with pretty much the same result, except without protection). There is no factual accuracy dispute, and there is no demonstrable bias. You just don't like the article being the way it is, but you are not neutral. And yes I did think twice about it and consider getting somoene else to do it, but settled for posting a summary on the noticeboard instead - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy help

What can I do for you, CyclePat? I have some limited time to assist, if you will have me: I have never been an advocate before (on Wikipedia, anyway, I do it for a living in the real world). Dyslexic agnostic 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i've read your reply and SKIMMED (too long to read) the talk page of Motorized bicycle. Wow, lots of history, and lots of confliect especially with JzG. Have you considered submitting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? or the less formal Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Also, you can create your own workspace, for example, at User:CyclePat/Motorized bicycle, and then work on your own version of this page, seeking comments from other interested parties along the way. This might give you the chance to demonstrate your own vision of how you see this page ending up.
As to whether you are acting POV, I don't realy know that I know enough about the situation to comment. The mere fact that you have some personal financial interest in electric bicycles shouldn't by itself create a POV conflict... in fact, it means you have some expertise to bring to the editing "table", so to speak.
Hope this helps. I'm a lawyer in real life, so advocacy is often important. The temptation to get nasty with the other side develops when things get heated (I know!), but it rarely helps. Good luck! Dyslexic agnostic 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Pat has already tried RfC and RfM, and neither of them gave him what he wanted. He has also forked the article to Pedelec (deleted), created an article in the main space on CyclePat (deleted), edit-warred over the redirect at Electric bicycle (redirect by consensus), forked at Timeline of motorized bicycle history (now proposed for merger folowing lack of interest after his forked content was deleted by consensus), forked it at Gallery of motorized bicycles (deleted), edit-warred over insertion of {dispute} and {NPOV} tags to Motorized bicycle and sundry other disruptions. Pat's problem is this: he is a would-be manufacturer of electric bicycles in Ontario, where there is an unfavourable regulatory climate. He has stated in the past that he wants changes to support legal moves by someone he is helping. Your best bet is to steer well clear, because every single person whoi has got involved with this subject has ended up in a battle with Pat's POV. That includes two established admins (User:Katefan0 and Woohookitty) and one editor who has been sysopped recently (me). Long experience indicates that Pat will continue forum shopping until he gets the answer he wants. If you go back through the archives of the Talk page you will find that there is plenty of conflict with other peoiple too! Believe it or not I'm actually trying to help Pat do this the right way, by consensus. Apparently this will not give the desired result quickly enough for Pat's liking. Oh, and you might want to check the Talk page archive (Pat archived it just before he went to talk to you). It includes a lot of past history on this issue, a specific description of some of his agenda, and several examples of people giving sound advice. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Take a look at my Talk page, you'll see that it's usual to copy archived stuff into a subpage so it can be read easily. I've done that for you. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada and advocacy

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if you stil wanted me to reply on my talk page, so I do it here. I've just read Talk:Motorized bicycle and part of the article. It's obvious to me that, while I'd like to help, I can't do much for these two reasons:

  • I don't know anything in this subject or relating to this.
  • Because of my lack of knowledge concerning this, I can't really see much problem with is as it is right now.

I can only say that I partly agree with you and I partly agree with the other editors. I agree with them that some things are obvious, but I also think some less obvious things could need source, but I didn't see the POV problem. I'm sorry that I can't help further resolving this conflict, but I just can't start helping you or the other editors when I'm not even sure what I'd be writing about.--DarkEvil 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde

CyclePat Hi Pat! I went into considerable detail on the discussion page on the allegations made on that article, I also reworded a couple of sections to reflect direct quotes from sources. I am at a loss how some of the critics blame Kate for any alleged error - i asked them if they have a source, or an error, bring it to me, and I will correct the article at once, in other words, if you have real information, tell it, instead of attacking the poor editor who is just trying to keep this professional! As to Bonnie and Clyde, I have every book ever written on them -- if someone wants to dispute something, do so, and we will research it, and resolve it -- don't attack people! I addressed their legitimate concerns by rewording the sections in question, and heavily sourcing, by direct quotes and even page numbers! If they have further concerns, I have asked Tru nicely to bring the info to me, and I will take care of it. Hope you are well! old windy bear 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.156.240.30

CyclePat Hi Pat! Will you take a look at this user? 68.156.240.30 - ALL of his edits are terrible, vandalism, and the one on maternal deaths just sickening. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE??? This is a great project, and instead of contributing they make work for the administrators, and users who want to contribute by having to reverse their vandalism! UGH!old windy bear 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the next few days off because I'm comming up with what maybe pneumonia. Please pray for my good health.--CyclePat 03
17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Get well soon

and next time have the flu and pneumonia jabs :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, milk being sick for all it's worth, and feel better. Next time you're out on your electric bicycle, wear warmer clothes! =) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys!! I'm feeling better after a bit of R&R and counting all my wiki edits to fall asleep. I then realized: There is a program to do that. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits ... Meuh! Go figure. In the mean time ... (My first official real wikibreak of more than 3 days.) --CyclePat 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Attempting wikibreak

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact, Chairman, 12:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

response to vandalism

I am finding sources for these articles. Give me about 15 more minutes and I will be done. Thank you. Also, please know that every time you put those tags on that page, they appear on every page that tallys that medals fgor the olympics and that is a lot. Thank you for your compassion. I just didn't want that page do be deleted when I was working on it. --Jared 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost finished with the sources. would you please be kind enough to remove the tags when I finish. They're ugly as heck and not to mention they show up on like 50+ pages. That would be great if you could do that. I'll alert you when I'm finished. Cordially, Jared 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow you...I've only been editing for a few months. What are you talking about? --Jared 17:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well thank you. Now that everything is fixed, there should be no problem when it comes to deletion because I have the proper sources in place. When it comes time for the talk of deletion, though, where will this discussion be held...in the discussion page? --Jared 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, next time you are tempted to tag up an article like that (let alone a template), please do ask around first. If you don't trust me, ask somebody else. Your action was precipitate - to suggest that an Olympic medal table "requires sources" is pressing a point too far since the sources are freely available on the Internet and published every day in the press, whether or not the people using them have accurately transcribed the figures.

Apart from anything else you apparently only half-did the process, and it was the wrong process to start with (should have been templates for deletion). Oh, and you tagged entirely the wrong article - you tagged the medal tables template, in effect demanding sources for the existence of the 2006 Winter Olympics. The article you want deleted, Olympic games medal count, does not exist and never did.

Also, you said in the delete request that all it required was citations - that is not grounds for deletion unless you believe that the article is irredeemable in that regard (i.e. original research without prospect of reliable external sources - absurd in the case of an Olympic medal table). If that sounds like "don't be a dick" then I probably got the tone about right :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism tags

Please please please do not add vandalism tags to user's talk pages. They are meant to be used for...well...vandals...people trying to deface the encyclopedia. I really wish you would see how this stuff is used before using it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, you are not seriously telling me that you aren't stalking pages yourself, are you? I mean, do you want me to believe that you just happened to see Just diz guy's posts on *my* talk page? Come now. And no, what you are describing isn't really vandalism. As I said, the tag you used is designed to warn people making serious vandal edits. Using it on a admin's talk page is absolutely not what it was designed for. I wish you'd see how this stuff is used before using it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat. Once again, the vandalism tags are used to warn vandals that what they are doing is destructive to the encyclopedia. The problem is that if we use your definition, then what you keep doing is as much "vandalism" as what JzG is doing. You are adding tags that don't belong to articles such as the Olympic games medal template. Citing sources is good, but in the case of something like the Olympics, it's completely unnecessary. And if you read the WP:CITE policy, you'd see why. But you didn't. You probably did what you usually do, which is to read the first few sentences, think you know what the policy is about and then attack others for not using it. Read the entire thing. General knowledge does not need to be sourced. So. Adding the tag you added and bringing it all up for deletion is just as much "vandalism" as JzG removing that tag. I'd argue that it's even more disruptive. Do not use the vandalism tags like you did. They are not meant to be used like that. I guarantee you that I've done a heck of alot more vandal fighting than you have and I'm telling you that those tags are not to be used in the way you used them. If they were supposed to be used that way, you would've had that tag on your page many many many times since you joined Wikipedia. We all would have. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, your Talk page is on my watchlist, along with several hundred other user Talk pages. There are a very small number of people whose contribution lists I regularly check, all for excellent reasons, and you are not one of them. If I see an edit to a Talk page with an interesting-looking edit history, I go along and read it. In this case I tried to help you not to make a complete tit of yourself but was apparently too late. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaaoooock hum-bug! This is all a WP:POINT to punish me. I sent an email to to the administrator that blocked me. And a copy to my friend JzG because inherently, it is partly because of you that I'm here. Partially. Because I didn't bring up a request for vandalism comment. (or whatever it is!) But it comes down to being my fault. I admit to doing more that 3 reverts. And to the the person that blocked me, my email, goes like this:

Thank you for pointing out the 3 RR rule. I would like to point out that yes, seemingly I did do more than 3 reverts. I would also like to point out that most of these where done to revert vandalism. At least 3 off them where in regards to vandalism. Another 3 edits where a slight accomodation. No mater the fact I would like to point out to you that.

Facts:

The Incident was solved at around 15:00 hours [3]

The reverst where reported by mike around 17:11 hours.[4]

Comment: according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Intent of the policy 3 RR: the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment, reports dredging up old incidents long past their applicability/relevance to this policy... ...are pointless. ...will not be looked upon kindly. ...may be treated as a WP:POINT violation. ...will be mocked mercilessly. ...will be sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.


The editing war was done. finito. I even had the time to go and put up the fact on the talk page that the article was listed for AFD. I now know that 3 RR is not the page for dealing with "vandalism" (please review that page for the definition of what constitutes vandalism): I now know that if I find myself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, I should list that person at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. However on my talk page woohookitty has stated that what JzG tried to do was not vandalism. So I'm all the more confused.

Finally: Arguably, some of those edits where not complete reverts and where discussed on user talk pages of JzG, my talk page, and in the AFD. I move that this block is a WP:POINT Violation. --CyclePat 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meuh! Go figure. Thank you b.t.w. for taking the time to give me a warning. Oh! Yah! That's true you didn't because all of this was done as a spitfull punishement. Good job upholding wiki policy! --CyclePat 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had a warning on 6 Nov 2005, and FYI it was I who reported your 3RR violation. Yes it does allow reverts due to vandalism, however you tagged a Template with the wrong tags, to make a WP:Point, as you admited to on JzG's talk page. Mike (T C) 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No not really. I taged the template for AFD because it was the most logical and easiest way to proceed toward receiving comments from all these article. I had every tag possible to explain my disposition on the subject. I also stated these reasons in the AFD, on the discusion page for that AFD. Again... the articles lack sources, lacking sources means that the information is possibly original research. Original research is criteria for deletion. Anyone could have easilly commented on the VfD but go figure some people though it would be better to remove the AFD from the template. --CyclePat 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the lines of disruption are drawn not by you, but by those who consider what is disruptive. Therefore, I'm afraid your current defense is not defense enough. --TML1988 06:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moped Question

On a unrelated to the wiki note, do you know anywhere in the Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa region that sells new/used mopeds?? Mike (T C) 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! There a web site called http://moped2.org/main.htm . Unfortunatelly I saw mostly American Dealer ship listings. But I would give it a look if you're interested in buying. You may find something in the for sale section. Used moped dealers I think are rare here in Ontario. I'm more into electric bicycle conversions. Many classified and personal sales exist at www.mopedarmy.com or here. You may be able to buy directly from the user. And if you ever want to add an electric hub motor to the front or back of your gas powered moped. Call me up. For the new mopeds, in Ottawa we have Duran Duran. Or Deran I should say... [5] There is also another place I saw in the yellow pages, that I've called up a couple times but there more into scooters. But for some reason they agree with my petition. --CyclePat 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple Pat

It's just not "ok" to make bad faith nominations and you've done it several times. What's a bad faith nomination? A bad faith nomination is putting something up for deletion in the hopes that it fails so that then you can bring back other articles. Or in the case of the Olympic articles, putting them up for deletion when actually, you just felt like they should be sourced. You should *only* put articles up for deletion when you want them deleted...no other purpose. There are many many ways to accomplish what you want without putting things up for deletion. As I've stated since the start, we don't hide these things. But it's disruptive to do what you've been doing. You put what...20 templates up for deletion, all in bad faith? I would call that highly disruptive, wouldn't you? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the smartest thing I've heard from anyone here on wikipedia in a long time! I think this should be writen right on the delete policy. Sorry if if I've disrupted wikipedia by following the rules to the letter. I think it’s because I here... or read the parts (Remember though, I read this from wiki policy... I don't try to make it up), that I want a hear. I exaggerate those parts in my mind. Then I say them to myself a couple times over and over. Until I know or believe it’s the correct way to go. Extreemism may be the issue. You of all people should know I'm always a couple of step a head, even if I don't have the proper foundation. (in this case slowly permited the other steps to mature... ie.: my electric bicycle company and this most recent example)... As you've said wikipedia will be a learning curve. As I've said... I think it will help in my personal developement. Thank you! --CyclePat 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
b.t.w. It was one template that was on about 50 pages. The reason being that all or most of the pages that it appeared on are missing sources. I believe those articles are a candidate for wikisource... but only after we get the citation problem fixed. And the vicious circle start all over again... This time, I'll try not to jump the gun on in the future. --CyclePat 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on the pictures

I collect Albanian memorabilia and I have several newspaper articles that talk about this lady. Not sure... can I upload them?

(above comment is from user: Sportiv)

Hello and greetings from Canada. If I may sugest a solution for you, all you really need to do is cite the source of the newspaper. The date. At this point there is probably no need to upload picture of the entire news paper cover. This may be interesting to add later on as a picture within the article to give it credibility. However, you will still need to add a proper reference\citation for the photo's. You may find the answer here at WP:CITE. p.s.: Dont' forget to sign your comments! --CyclePat 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - Found!, [6] thanks for your help[reply]

Don't forget the pictures need their sourcing. I'm not sure how wiki does it but I think it can't hurt if you put sourcing on the pictures and on the article. Good luck. Cheers --CyclePat 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiMUD

Thanks, CyclePat. This one's a hoot: [7]

bonnie and clyde

CyclePat katefano Unknown internet addresses keep putting tags on the bonnie and clyde article, without citing what precisely they are challanging. I removed it at first, but decided that it needed referring to an editor. I think when someone tags, they should be required to show cause, why factually it is tagged, then source same. This is Pig, again, with his internet addresses without names, because he is barred. Lord, when someone tags, they should at the minimum be required to cite why, and source same! At any rate, I am not playing a revert game, I have shifted it to you and Kate! Thanks! old windy bear 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyclePat&oldid=40962132"