This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, Pat.
Do you not recognize me from viki? Or pho? - RealGrouchy 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
If he is a newbie just warn him. Arb and RfC is meant to be last resort. --Chazz88 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do that. Calling it "refactoring" doesn't make it more okay. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also note that under wp:vandalism it is perfectly okay to do that. :
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)
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)
Hello, I emailed you a reply to your question on WebEx about the files. --FloNight 02:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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). -Splashtalk 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
)--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)
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)
You left this note on my talk page:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 is already closed. it was successful. :-) Alhutch 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
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)