Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 4

message: You are breaking your own rules in editin the talk page.  Go figure when I was writting this you went and made another edit...  forcing me to put this in another section totally unsubtianting my comments however.:  here it is: --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty, you often do make quick reverts (practically starting edit wars (reference to the electric bicycle page), perhaps we should take a little more time to discuss other peoples changes instead of reverting them write away.  In the mean time anyone that wishes to add work on a text before incorperating it can do so in my user:CyclePat/sandbox that way you save from losing your information from people that revert quickly (and believe they might own the article) --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm trying to keep this article as tidy as possible. "Breaking my own rules". How so? Moving a section to the bottom to spur discussion is not unprecented. It's done to get a consensus and since this moped issue isn't going away, I thought it'd be a good idea. If the consensus is that we should include a paragraph on it, great. I'm here to uphold the consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I don't know when you decided that I'm making this article for my own personal gain, but nothing is further from the truth. I'm actually trying to keep it up to Wikipedian standards. I'm sorry but most of the edits you have attempted and that the anons have attempted have been full of misspellings, bad grammar, etc, etc. And you know, I don't see the others (Alynna, Just diz guy, Katefan0, AdinaBob) complaining about how I'm handling this. I wish you'd quit painting me as this evil bastard who is trying to ruin your life. I'm not. Why did I revert last night? Because the anon who was doing edits added a section that did not belong here. And then he/she complained when I reverted a bit at the end of their editing, even though they had left a link to www.example.com, which doesn't even exist. I make edits like that to keep this page from becoming a joke. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw Pat, all I did was archive and move the one section down towards the bottom. I wish you'd read the stuff fully and see that instead of assuming that I removed your comments or something. You've done this several times now and then you have to correct yourself. Patience. This isn't a race. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question "Are you making this article for your own personal gain?"  I think everyone has something to gain from working collectively together.  I am personally gaining, hopefully, the ability to try and work in group and overcome some personal issues.  I don't know why anyone would say I have anything to gain more than that because wiki is a place anyone can edit and eventually remove bias opinions.  Some people have suggest that owning a bicycle shop creates a bias towards this article.  Why does owning a bicycle shop creat a bias?  Is there really a personal gain to editing articles?  --CyclePat 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm glad to hear that about working together. I like you Pat...I always have. You just have to accept the fact that I'm trying to uphold what's been agreed to. I have no personal interest in this. I don't even own a bicycle. Anyway, as for the personal bias Q, owning a bicycle shop can create bias here because obviously, you want to further the cause of electric bicycles and their use in Ontario's roads because it could mean more work and money for you. If you look at the versions you've submitted, they've all been pro the push for Ontario to accept PABs on the road in one form or another. What you need to learn is to go for the greater good. The thing is. I'm afraid I've been too harsh on you at times. Burying bias for the greater good is VERY difficult. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OUh!  geesh!  (blush) Thank you.  Yes, I have had to be pro for PABs in Ontario because all the comments in the article seemed to be against it.  (Even the web page provided by the ministry of transportation on three wheeled vehicles is biases(propaganda). (I've decided there's no us talking to the ministry, I might as well bring that up with the Ontario Ombudsman service) I've called up some engeneers at MTO whome indicated that the page only applies to one type of PAB (the one in the picture).  Honestly, the one reason I became a company is because I kinda needed to, so I may register my bicycle.  Secondly I do this part-time (I have another job elsewhere, that actually pays)  Thirdly, the main idea behind my company is "political statement."  (My company is there to mock the government as much as it can!)  All this to say; Now, if I tell everyone that I own a fully registered PAB, explain to them how to do it and legally opperate on road (even though it seemingly contradicts the facts stated by the MTO) does that makes me bias?  Okay, so maybe I might want to eventually start making profit of my sales, and might make me bias?  So, you're right about the first part but not really about the second part (money!)  Hum...  could it be that I do everything with passion?  Does passion=bias?  B.t.w.  Like I've said, you do some very fine work and though I get unerved/stressed/uneasy at mistakes other people make (or even my own typos) I admire your patience toward my lack of wiki etiquette.  I do like you too... essentially you've become a mentor for me and that's why I'm trying to still help out.  And though I stirr up some stink in unconventional ways I'm glad we're on the same team.  (Right?) Right!  Thank you. --CyclePat 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, bias is a tricky issue. The main thing is...you don't want an agenda here like pushing PABs on public roads or political activism. Like I said, it can be a hard line to walk and honestly, some folks can't do it...and that's not a knock against them. Staying objective is difficult. And no, passion doesn't automatically mean bias. It can. But you can also use it to try to write as factual an article as possible. Honestly Pat, if this article is unbiased and objective, it can still be used by you to get people into bikes. I mean we do mention the emission free part and how enviornmentally friendly these bikes are. That appeals to alot of people. I'm not sure you have to tell them that they should allow bikes on public roads. Oftentimes, being objective can be as attractive to people then if you try to tell them to do something...in fact, I think being objective is always more helpful. People respect it more I think. Anyway, I'm rambling. :) -Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDITING  

message: I found an interesting article that talks a little about motorized bikes (electric) (and other stuff).  What do you think about the source?  Is this a fiction novel or is based on reality?  Anyone from France have a say on that?  (Asside: I understand France if a very politically active country (Revolution, etc...) and the present riots.  I hope that you/they may find a healthy resolution to their political debates.)  http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/044181.html  --CyclePat 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is largely redundant.  The issue of mobility impairment is a couple of additional words in History (where it discusses why motorised bikes are becoming more popular), the point about licensing is also already covered elsewhere.  That leaves a small note on who uses them, which might arguably be added to History.  The tone of this para is also evangelical and runs against the general style of the article, which is already in danger of becoming fragmentary. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the information trust worthy though?--CyclePat 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I added some of the information to the article. Thanks! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituencies 

message: I won't do the edit yet since you might be working on the article yet, Pat, but you need to fill the ______. Otherwise, your edits look good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm... I can't find anything right now...  I guess I'll have to take it off. --CyclePat 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do it. I'll just reword it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm... Cool!  Thank you.  Well I tried to re-word it myself.  Maybe you can try again.  Something still doesn't seem right about it.  (just had the idea of adding the section for ICE engines...  I have so many ideas.  but... I'll get back at it tomorow.  Happy editing, Gnight!  --CyclePat 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fill the ______ 

message: hey!  I'm off to the museum to check this out and take some better pictures.  but if anyone wants to add this in the mean time, Thank you!   http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm  --CyclePat 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple of pictures in this article...please...no more. :) 2-3 is good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see any other exhibits in there that could lend themselves to illustrate other Wikipedia articles, by all means shoot them.  Sometimes obscure topics are difficult to illustrate with public domain images. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Didn't get any pictures but there are some available at the museum's web site http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm  (I believe that's public domain!)  :)  --CyclePat 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum of Science and tech!  New info 

message: No need to link things more than once in the article. It's one of those unofficial Wikipedia things that most articles follow. No biggie. Just thought I'd point it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah!  I went all out on my linking.  This started because I noticed some "links" where not quite appropriate for the term being used in the article.  Anyway, Thank you. Sorry. --CyclePat 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I ended up restoring your links. :) Motors/bikes/engines are kind of the gist of the article, so linking them more than once is probably alright. I was beihng a bit hasty. The general rule I follow (and this really varies among editors) is that if it's the subject of the article, linking it more than once is ok. But anyway, that's good what you did with links that didn't match up where they were supposed to go. That's *very* common on here and I think it shows your growth that you noticed it, because some don't. I run into articles every day where they will have a word like "1984" linked where its pointing to the year when it should be the album by Van Halen. It's a pain. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a little helpful note about the edits I did

message: It's about this line: ""Motorized bicycles" generally have pedals. ". Don't they always have pedals? If they don't, then we need to modify the opening paragraph  since right now the opening paragraph says that motorized bicycles have motors to "assist pedaling". We'll have to add a "usually" or something like that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my oppinion.  yes.  Motorized bicycles should have pedals.  If they don't it would be a motorcycle.  (I'm not sure exactly what section you are refering to, however if you do change it, make to pay extra special attention to see if there was not an attempt to compare to a motorcyle.) (otherwise change it!) --CyclePat 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, generally... could be a better term.  Its not so exclusive.  Mean a someone could have built a motorized bicycle with a bicycle that had pedals but removed them... (but then again, that would be what?  a noped?  (but that's a term that we use here in Ontario... so we get into the name game thingy,  maybe in Germany it's still a motorized bicycle or "motorisiertes Fahrrad"?  (I really don't know anymore) (I do know that in Ontario though you take the pedals off and it's a noped.)--CyclePat 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of what I thought, but I wanted to double check. I'll edit it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for CyclePat

message: After my excursion to the museum today (for about 40 minutes)(for free after 4 pm.) I got some info that I added.  Though I tried a little, a lot of it I could not really put in my word so we might want to be careful of copyright (I'll reread through it in the next few days)--CyclePat 05:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section updated! 

message: OK, I am now working through the article trying to polish up the flow and development.  There have been a lot of edits, some of which which have been moved or partially backed out, leading to the same concept being addressed in more than one section (mopeds, for instance).  Nothing big, it just reads slightly disjointed (natural with multiple editors).  FWIW, I believe the major historical development of IC engined motorized bikes was in France, the Veolomoteur goes back to the early years of the 20th Century.  But I am still researching that trying to find a categorical answer (it may well have developed in several places simultaneously). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting