Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 1

message: This article needs to be wikified and needs cleanup to bring it to encyclopedic quality. --Rschen7754 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I moved the original text of this article over to Wikisource. It is here. I did not put it on the transwiki log page, because there is a place on here for this article. It just needs to be heavily copyedited. But just you know, CyclePat, your original text is on one of the other wikis. --Woohookitty 04:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has been moved to Wikisource

message: Actually, in our usage, the stub tag is essentially used to denote short articles that need to be expanded. It is not used like the word can also be used, which is to mean that it's a part of another article. And when I say short, I mean a paragraph or two. This article doesn't qualify.--Woohookitty 11:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Btw

message: CyclePat...Again, the learning curve is steep on here, so don't take my words as criticism. Just trying to help you understand how things work here. Putting every law on electric bicycles on here per country or area is not encyclopedic. Discussing every law on here per every country or area is not encyclopedic. The problem is that it's original research. We can't really add sections on each of our areas. Encyclopedias do not have original research. They take research from other sources. And as I said, it just isn't encyclopedic. This article needs to follow the format of other Wikipedia articles. It needs to be...this is what electric bicycles are...this is the history of them...these are the uses of them...and here are the general principles in law with electric bicycles. The other thing is that you reverted all of the headings back to the incorrect format. The  = Format = isn't really used on here. The highest heading we use tends to be == Format ==  If you want to restore the Ontario section, go ahead. We'll then edit it from there. But please don't revert the copyedits Katefan and I made. Not yelling at ya. :) Honest. :) Just letting you know. If you want a guide as to what I am talking about, the moped article is a good guide. That article is a bit sparse. We could probably use a history section, which they don't have. But otherwise, it has what I mean. --Woohookitty 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also wanted to say that your research is good. It just doesn't belong in that form on here. --Woohookitty 00:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My revert today

message: I went ahead and fixed the headers and some spelling. Again, we don't use the = = header like it had for Jurisdictional Information. It just isn't used. I took out the laws. They weren't showing up anyway and the laws are at Wikisource already. No reason to have them here. Tonight, I'm going to find a picture to add to the article and I'll see if I can do some editing that hopefully will satisfy everyone. --Woohookitty 15:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and editors names should never ever be in the article. I had to take one mention of CyclePat out. It's considered vanity. No reason for it. If you want that kind of info on your user page, that's fine, but not in an article. --Woohookitty 15:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I see we already have an article on mopeds.  Are "electric bicycles" sufficiently different than mopeds enough to have two separate articles? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've been meaning to ask the same thing. CyclePat, is there a real difference? --Woohookitty 15:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a substantial difference between the types of vehicles.  Electric Bicycles are a new and immerging vehicle that will probably bring back the nostalgia of the mopeds.  There will be much technilogical discusion on the subject as well as social political.  The majority of duristictions presently consider an electric bicycle more or less like a regular bicycles and do not require registration, plating, and insurance.  However, some juristictions, lacking complacency to change their laws, will consider this vehicle a moped.  Again every juristiction has it's own definition.  But it all come down to the idea...  is it electric and does it meet the federal definition?  Now, we could also get into the idea of mecanics.  Less parts, different parts, different supliers, different manufactures, social political impact of importing such vehicles, etc...  etc...  To help you guys out check http://www.electric-bikes.com/bikes.htm  --CyclePat 17:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinventing the wheel? 

message: I did some rewriting to make things a bit more readable.  Something close to the previous version of the text was pasted at the top of the section afterwards.  I reverted this, because it did not appear to add any information that was not already there.  I do have a question, though: the text that was added says both "In the Ontario "Highway traffic act" a "power-assisted bicycle"(PAB) is not defined." and "For example, a PAB and a moped are both defined as...".  That would appear to contradict itself.  Can someone actually explain to me whether or not there are factual errors in the current version, which takes the latter of those two as correct?
--Alynna 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CyclePat, you should discuss article content on the related article's talk page.  That way everybody involved in editing the article can see your arguments, and the responses to them. I would encourage you to make more and better use of this talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pasted the pertinent discussion here so that everyone working on this article has a chance to see it.
You did some nice work.  But your information about having a "power-assisted bicycle defined in the HTA is wrong.  (a power-assisted bicycle is NOT defined in the HTA) I changed it once.  I'm going to do it again NOW and I expect you to leave it as is. 
--CyclePat 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you actually fix the information instead of copy-pasting a second version of the section? --Alynna 22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, a general comment.  CyclePat, as it says at the bottom of every page every time you click the edit button, If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it.  Nobody has ownership of an article -- not you, not me, not anybody.  Anyone is welcome to edit, and Wikipedia functions by consensus.  That means neither you nor anyone else can say "I expect you to leave it as is."  Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Civility.  Personally, I agree with Alynna's edits and I prefer them to the information you tried to add back in.  Since Wikipedia functions on consensus, the current consensus is for Alynna's version, not for yours.  However, I'd be open to hearing your arguments for why it should be changed back. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said, I'm open to hearing your arguments.  Prove what?  What is it you are suggesting is incorrect?  I have no idea whether it is or not because you haven't told us what you feel is wrong.   · Katefan0(scribble) 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm all for fixing inaccurate information. But it appeared to me that you had done much more than just fix one bit of inaccuracy. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's a question of personal tast and critizing my methode or work, but explain? --CyclePat 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Having received no response to this question, I've assumed this is in fact the correct interpretation and tried to make things clear accordingly.  If it's still wrong, please explain it on this talk page.  Thanks.  --Alynna 05:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yes, you're right.  The HTA does not define a PAB but a motor-assisted bicycle.  good deduction.  --CyclePat 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario 

message: Is there an established standard for how to include information like "in thus-and-so-section" in a way that's clearly distinguished from the surrounding text? Should it be a footnote, or italicised, or something? --Alynna 15:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Personally I don't think it's necessary; I removed it. Anybody can plug "electric bicycle" into their browser's search box and find it in a few seconds. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the citation in the United States section 

message: There is some discrepencies that seem to occure when Mari edited the sources in this article.  I have edited this 2 times already.  and it keeps getting changed back.  The names of the sources quotes are correct as of a few minutes ago.  The Canada Road safety code doesn't exist at the URL that was beeing provide... (Heck I don't even think it exist's at all) if you want to refer to canada... It's called the Motor vehicle safety Act.  The Url that was beeing provided is for Quebec.   
Same for Ontario's Highway Traffic Act.  The name of that law is called "Highway Traffic act" and not "the Ontario highway traffic act."...  For God sacks it's written on the top of the source.  And often it's written within the law on how it should be titled.
--CyclePat 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources cited 

message: Is the Highway Traffic Act the only thing by that name? i.e., if I'm in England or Chile or New Zealand, am I going to know that the Highway Traffic Act is something in Ontario?  Or is it possible there is another jurisdiction that has also passed a law called the Highway Traffic Act?  If the latter, we do need to specify Ontario.  --Alynna 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my point... In music, we might talk about "Handel's Messiah".  The title of the piece is just "Messiah", but it's considered appropriate to specify which one we're talking about. --Alynna 17:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should follow the proper source writing such as the Chicago style or Turabian style bibliography.  That would mean, putting the others name, the title, etc.  This is a standard that is widelly excepted and used in many publication.  If we met for an informal talk in person I would agree with you afformentioned comments (ie.: handel's messiah)  --CyclePat 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway Traffic Act 

message: here is a draft copy of my Petition (as of august 29th)  --CyclePat 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But please remember that Wikipedia is not a blog or a place to push agendas. Stuff like that belongs on personal webspace or blog or possibly a forum on bicycles. Wikipedia is none of those things. Please keep that in mind. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)  03:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - I will add that it would be permissible to mention the conflict in the article if the language is neutral (not favoring either side) and then you'd probably want a link to a discussion on the topic...hopefully a discussion by a mainstream news source. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   How about old news paper clipping?  I have a few articles from my local news papers.  There a little old but we'll have to make a bibliography.  There should be a news article comming out in the Hamilton area by a news reporter that has spoken to me last week.  (dunno when?)  But...  I don't understand how this research through old newspapers will work?--CyclePat 10:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario Petition for PAB's 

message: I have 3 small videos of approx. 3 megs. and some pictures of a PAB that legally operable in Ontario as a MOPED.  What do we do now?  How do we upload?  --CyclePat 10:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the uses of this article, I'd go with pictures. It depends on the source. Here is where you go to upload files. it's pretty simple...pretty self-explanatory. Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial is a very good article on how to put images into an article. I'd follow that. or you can go to an article like moped and see how the picture is set up on there. Either way works. If you have any issues, let us know. I'd suggest just one picture in the article for now. A picture of an electric bicycle would be very good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Consentual or Not?  I am the artist/photograph that has taken these pictures and videos.  However, what is the sugested source?  How should someone go about's to publish a picture that he didn't take? (ie.:  a picture from the local news paper or a book)  or to publish a picture that he took or does have consent to publish? (ie.: a manufacture such as CyclePat, Ecolo, Wilderness Energy that has agreeded)  Does this agreement need to be published?  More specifically, wouldn't it be an infringement to copyright laws if someones "work of art" (in this hypothetical case, a picture of an electric bicycle taken from the wherever) was placed on the wiki without his/her(the publishers) consent or without acknowlegement of his or her consent?  And finally, does all this mean there are many articles that are currently using illegal pictures?  --CyclePat 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are photographs you took yourself, you can upload them and tag them with one of the licenses you prefer, such as .  If you didn't take them, you are not allowed to upload them unless they are:  public domain images (mostly government photos), or unless you have permission from the image's copyright holder to use them under the fair use license.  Each article is evaluated for proper licensing; mostly, our photographs are either public domain, used with permission or are considered fair use (like a DVD box).  Some aren't, but if source information isn't provided they can be summarily deleted. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a video and some pictures.  What do I do now! 

message: It looks like a new anonymous editor has made a number of changes.  Does anyone know who this is? Should the changes be reverted?  There have been changes to factual information, with no explanation... I'm going to leave hir a note about using edit summaries and talk pages, but could someone with more expertise (CyclePat, i'm looking at you) take a look? --Alynna 20:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only repetitive bit is having examples in the top of Laws By Jurisdiction when they're covered later... The intro of Laws By Jurisdiction doesn't need examples, I think. --Alynna 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, essay form isn't really used. We don't want alot of repeating, but on the other hand, this isn't a research paper or a narrative. I hope that makes sense. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like whoever the anon is did some good edits tonight. It's definitely looking more encyclopedic. Still some kinks to work out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Is this original research?
Comment was by IP Dude/Anon - I moved it here b/c it seemed more appropriate in talk. --Alynna 07:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be perfectly honest.  I read through many case law's and jumped at the first oppertunity I could find where a judge indicated that "The idea that a pedestrian can walk up to and assault children on bicycles because they might brush up against them and get his clothes dirty or because they come within the definition of a vehicle in the Highway Traffic Act or some nonsense like that is just that, nonsense."  However it is all within context and within interpretation.  (Perhaps this case law might be of importance to someone that is facing various charges,  the traffic court of Guelph vs. Joseph comming up this Nov. 7th).  Case law is always a gray area.--CyclePat 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment moved from next to the bit about case law 

message: It looks like electric bicycles are essentially regular bicycles but they include a small battery-powered motor that assists in pedaling. Is this correct, CyclePat? The main difference between it and the moped is design. Here is a picture. It's from MSN, so we probably can't use the picture, but it gives Katefan and others some help as to what the difference is. It definitely helped me. :) I will ask you though, Pat. Is it completely necessary to have a separate power-assisted cycles article? I mean according to the definition here, they are essentially the same thing. I don't see a need for 2 articles. Electric bicycles do look different enough from mopeds that I can see a separate article, but another separate article on top of this one? I think that's stretching it a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct me if I'm wrong

message: I merged info from the power-assisted cycles article and made that article a redirect to this one. I did that because this is all under the same house, so to speak. Power-assisted cycles looks like another name for electric bicycles in which case, we don't need 2 articles. One is enough. Don't worry. I didn't alter any facts...I just merged it into this article. I added the references from that article into this one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. I see that you're sort of identifying yourself, but standard practice here is to use a name, time and datestamp, which the tildes fill out for you automatically.  Second, I see your point.  Maybe the solution, then, is to merge electric bicycle into power-assisted bicycle, as certainly every electric bicycle is power assisted, while not necessarily vice versa. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you are talking about edit summaries, you cannot alter them. Anyway, I unmerged the info. I'll stay out of it at this point. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this subject should be brought up again!  I agree with 64.230.etc...  Electric bikes, power assisted-cycles should have their own page. (They could be linked to from a main page such as motorized bicycles, however each vehicle but then, give the reader the oppertunaty to click back to the a seperate article on the subjet.  (for example...  I search for electric bicycles...  it redirects me to "motorized bicycles" (essentially a stub) which then has a link go every appropriate teminology.  Kind of just like someone said about bicycles having their own pages for different types...  (recumbent, mountain, etc) --CyclePat 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged info from power-assisted cycles

message: All you need to do is to click on the page history link. You will see a listing of every version of the article since it was created. You can compare versions, look at old versions, etc, etc. That's why edit summaries are important. Otherwise, it's difficult to track changes. I readded the section on types of electric bicycles for you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To 64.230.66.98

message: Would it be appropriate to merge this article, power-assisted cycles, and power-assisted bicycle?  If so, would the name power-assisted cycle or power assisted bicycle be more correct?  All the others could remain as redirects to the merged article. --Alynna 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for power-assisted bicycles. And yes, they need to be merged. We don't need multiple articles for things that are roughly the same. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Something needs to be done! (as I commented a few months ago in the discussion of power-assisted cycles --CyclePat 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm.  I never would've made that distinction; thanks for chiming in, anon.  In that context, probably Power-assisted cycle is more appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'm just confused. :) But that sounds good, anon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Power assisted cycles .... on wheels! · Katefan0(scribble) 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hua Whata? :) I've learned something today. Electric bicycles are not mopeds. Now...being facetious...they don't have enough warm days for those in Wisconsin. How do they have enough warm days in Canada. I want to know! lol I've never seen an electric bicycle around here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't forget Ontario, Canada, hey!  The odd ball exception which seems to be becoming the norm in Ontario is people registering their PAB as a Moped (motor-assisted bicycle).  IT is possible because I currently own a PAB registered as a MOPED.  humm...  and for the warm vs cold days... well all I have to say is "have you ever seen the michilan tire man?"  "where do you think he comes from?" LOL  (just kidding!) (Maybe that would be an interest part of the article...  "Winter driving" (I know here at Ottawa University we have some seminars on that) --CyclePat 20:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I'd support using this text as a skeleton and merging the rest into here.  But we might want to give it a couple days after you placed the merge tag on the other article to make sure we won't be ruffling any feathers over there.  When was the last time that article was actively edited?  (Goign to check) · Katefan0(scribble) 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So then, should the main page be called something like Motorized bicycle? · Katefan0(scribble) 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked again and that was what the anon up above suggested, so I'm going to move these pages over to that article. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergh, all the double redirects. -slog, slog- · Katefan0(scribble) 19:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new merge suggestion 

message: I found a picture we can use. Added it to the article. It is from the US Department of Energy's website. Public domain. If we do merge this into power-assisted cycles, the picture can be taken with. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! :)  --CyclePat 03:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yay!

message: Some IP guy changed the intro....  I fixed it... I changed the main intro (still has many typos').  Removed factual errors.  An electric bike doesn't necessarily have to have a small electric engine.  (what does the sized have to do with things)  (perhaps the wattage of the motor, but that depends upon jurisdictional regulations... and if you want your electric bicycle to be conform to various standard. (ie.: canada's motor vehicle safety regulations)  there is nothing that says an electric bicycle couldn't meet the definitions of various juristictional definitions of other vehicles such as a motorcycle, moped, an off-road 3 wheeler, a dirt bike.  Etc.
That is why I also changed, further down in the article, the various names to which in Ontario an electric bike is.  By law it is considered a Moped...  (In ontario, we could even twist the law a little more and sugest that it could be a wheelchair?  but we won't go there yet... or will we?)  All this to say...  every juristiction will have it's definition of an electric bicycle.  I think we should keep the article on "electric bicycles".  Most people when they think of a bicycle with a electric motor think...  electric bike... electric bicyle?  No?  --CyclePat 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric bicycle 

message: I'm pleased with our progress so far. This is the first dispute I've had in awhile where people are cooperating and I appreciate that very much. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I must say