Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 8

message: No doubt there is trouble with this entry because some populations of native Californians wish to see a photograph of a moped with Stanley Chow featured.  Why, you of course ask?  Because Dr. Chow was greatly shrifted as Principal Investigator with the Research and Development Exchange program at Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development when the RDx concept was seized and implemented to benefit NATO memberships. 
Dr. Chow no doubt would have approved of the original intent and purpose of the RDx network concept:  to investigate an oracle bead shrine site within the boundaries of the state of Pennsylvania, then disseminate the findings nationwide.  23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moped-use pioneers in California, U. S. A. 

message: Hello! I have arrived at this talk page from Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In understand there is an edit war going on here. I've looked over the talk pages and suchlike and found them all rather confusing. I was hoping that someone could summarise what is being argued about, to make sure we're all reading from the same page.
Looking at the article history, I assume the debate is between this version and this version, the differences being these. From the diff shown there I would sumarise that user:CyclePat believes the article needs a large number of 'citation needed' tags and while User:JzG believes the page does not need these things. I inferr from this that CyclePat thinks the article is factually inaccurate while JzG thinks it factually accurate. Furthermore, the statements in the article which CyclePat believes are inaccurate are the ones marked as 'citation needed' in this page.
Would you say this is an accurate summary of the argument you are requesting comments on? If not, what do you feel would be an accurate summary? Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Mike. I'm glad to see someone has responded request. Thank you. I would also like to say that what you say is a fair summary. If it was up to me I would be putting a To Do list and add more references as per WP:CITE where possible. That is the fundermal problem. The problem with that problem is if we take it too seriously we could go as far as removing the information when in fact some of the information is actually true. So the idea I think not really about the information being true or not, it is about it's verifiability. --CyclePat 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mike, I would say that you need to read back through the Talk history and see the comments from people like Katefan0 and Woohookitty.  There are three admins, including me, who have contributed to this article, and we are all in agreement that the tags were unnecessary and disruptive.  Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me as if the issues on this article are now at least dormant, major edits having not been made for some time - is that correct?  If so, it's probably time to unlist the RfC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. A seaze fire between me and JzG occured a while ago. I will be posting some new evidence once I'm done with an upcomming trial in Ontarion concerning Power-assisted bicycles. --CyclePat 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of reasons for listing on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]]