User talk:CyclePat: Difference between revisions

I may no longer wish to release comments on this talk page under Wikipedia's GFDL licence. Hence if you wish to trully receive a response try sending me an email. Click here to send me an email

May 2009

Regarding your comments on Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please strike all of the personal attacks and accusations of hounding, TE, etc, that you have made against me on this talk page, thank you. Verbal chat 09:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this series of edits, I would be appreciative if you were to redact and amend some of your comments. Wording that I feel particularly impedes productive discussion includes: rather pathetic attempt; some sort of sick POV; it was moved very sneakily out of process; seems to have some sort of "Godly" approval; Am I having this conversation with myself? What the hell happened to building concensus? Does anyone have a constructive comments; Why does it feal like you're avoiding discussing this important dilema and simply?. More generally, if you were to adopt a less combative and more collaborative tone with fewer oblique and direct personal attacks, I think it would help this article move forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! So I've now heard it through the grape vine that I will need to work on my tone to help with the concensus building process at the article Electromagnetic therapy. Hence, I do appologize if I've scared a few people away with a few of my comments. Some of these WP:BOLD comments and questions alude to user conduct instead of content. However, that was not the intention, with the exception of the user conduct regarding Verbal and how I felt offended. In general, I believe I have commented on the article with the idea in mind to point out, for example, that there have been some edits to the article which have not met concensus. "ie.: 2 to 3 weeks of edits, sneaky POV, etc..." This is a reality regarding article content, naming, etc. and it is difficult to discuss this topic without going into the history of "user edits" or "user conduct". Anyways, as for personal attacks: To date I can only see one user to which I may have personally attacked and that is Verbal. Continuing to talk about this in-itself may be a type of harasment, but I hope and trust you understand that is in good intention to try and help resolve any issues we may have. Also, since the topic was brought up on my talk page, I would just like add my 10 cents. Hence I would like to say that my comment on may 11th 2009 was an "accusations about personal behavior" that does not lacked evidence. It does however, I concede, lack in "proper referencing" and hence I would understand why it can be viewed as a personal attack. But I am currently providing, as we discuss the article content clear examples and this evidence. I'm willing to let it be, because really, how will this help us build the article. I digress, in fact, I think Verbal brings some good points. I just don't necessarily always agreed with the way it's brought up via the "Revert and try to talk" process. Anyways, if you take a look at "What is considered a personal attack?" you will find a list of examples, one which is "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Hence, there is a fine line and gray area... but you must concede that if there is evidence, it's not really a personal attack. Anyways, I see no personal attacks. As for the general comments I've left regarding "user content", should there be a mis-interpretation, it was definatelly not intentional. Hence it would most likely be a general comment intended to reflect the article's content and/or recent development. I don't think I've done anything wrong. Nevertheless, perhaps a less combative and more collaborative tone would help? So I do appologize if I have a confrontational nature when it comes to fundemental principles and will try to to be a little more Spiritual in conveying clearly the appropriate message in the appropriate venu. Anyways, I trust we understand why I commented on user Verbals conduct... and I do appologize if this was out of place. Unfortunatelly, I still do not believe the comment should be removed from the articles talk page. --CyclePat (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So on the 20th May: heard it through the grape vine that I will need to work on my tone

21st May Note: Jaymax only has about 170 edits.

Pfft, you're stretching my WP:AGF - I came to your talk page because you mentioned same at the article talk page. a less combative and more collaborative tone would help Yup.--Jaymax (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetism

You really need to learn a bit more about electromagnetism, and what electricity, electromagnetic fields, "electrical energy", etc are, how then relate, and how the terms are used. Please revert yourself. Verbal chat 19:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what electromagnetism is and it's relationship with electrical current. We could speculate, just like I've speculated that Proton therapy has a relationship with EMFT. But these are only speculations. The idea here is that we must reflect what is written within the article and the references. Electromagnetism is not the vocabulary or terms that are currently used to describe ET. Hence, it out of line to used this different "terminology" within our present context. Please help find a relevant reference which makes the direct inference and then we may be able to use it. Thank you. (ie.; Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.) --CyclePat (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do have this very wrong. Your speculativ edits are half of the problem on that page. Please revert yourself and look into the physics a bit more. The same can be said for the perpetual motion claims you make. Elcrtomagnetic fields, etc, are part of electromagnetism. Verbal chat 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good sense of the relationship between EM, electric energy, current, etc. Also, I warn you that even if I understand or not, it is not important if it violates Wikipedia rules for inclusion. Hence, can you please try to comment on the articles content and not on "the user". Thank you. Anyways, it may sound like I'm repeating myself, but here it is - My understanding is that the scope of the current article, electrotherapy (ET), appears to be on electrical energy and not electromagnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation, etc. This is even mentioned on the top of the article whereas it is stated : "This article is about medical uses of electrical stimulation". Albeit, I have presented the new information and somewhat concede that ET does involve EMFT (the US vs. European POV), but this is only on the talk page. We need to agree to put this in the article. Also, even if the article specifically talked about these subjects, as allude with my ref. to the European vs. US POV on electrotherapy, it is still imperative that we have a reliable source which directly indicates that the term "electromagnetism" applies to ET. Otherwise this would be considered a synthesis per our Wikipedia rules on Original research. In short, if we wish to use the the term "electromagnetism", the article ET needs to clearly discuss and reference the term. --CyclePat (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Electric Stimulation Therapy

Please find one usable source for the article. Just one. A pdf from a defunct website of a company that manufactures the equipment certainly isnt a valid source.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My perusal of other valid material leads me to believe that there are more references out there to validate the material within that article or at least the uses the term. As for the reference you mention, I couldn't seem to find it. I'll need to read the article again and properly. Also, one reason I suggested that the article be merged to electrotherapy is because it clearly states in the article that this is a form of electrotherapy. If we merge, we would most likely be cutting down on some of the material which is not currently properly referenced and abiding to WP:CFORK. Unfortunately I'm a little discouraged to "want" to try and remove some of the information from the article which, most of it I gather, doesn't appear to be reference with inline citations. Anyways, I clearly remember some other reliable sources talk about this. Now I just got a try and figure out who or which references it is again? Can you please give me maybe 1-2 weeks? --CyclePat (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities with Bioelectromagnetics??? Any suggestions? --CyclePat (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CyclePat. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your edits on the talk page. Say what you want to edit (cut and paste the edit in) then give the reason. For example, Proposal: Change "XYZs such as ABCD" to "or ABCD", because according to Ref1 ABCD is not a subset of XYZ. This will allow you edits to be discussed and stop the ridiculous cycle of reverts. Also, be careful not to remove referenced material and references that are in use elsewhere. You have already admitted to violating WP:POINT, please stop your WP:TE and collaborate. Verbal chat 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notice of a minor edit

CyclePat, I hope you don't mind that in your writeup in the Mediation Case, I updated your link to the related notice on the NPOV noticeboard : [1]. It makes it easier for people (like me) reading and following this mediation to find what you are referring to. :) --stmrlbs|talk 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Proposal

I'd like your comments here. Faster you can respond the faster this mediation business gets over with. On Behalf of Mediation Cabal, Renaissancee (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of giving myself a good night's sleep to think it over. I hope that's okay if I get back to you within the next 24 hours. Thank you again for all your help. --CyclePat (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Garneau_Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Garneau_Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of École secondaire catholique Garneau

Hi Pat! I noticed your request for photos of the school here. Would you still like some photos? I live about 5 minutes from the school and could take some photos without any problem. Perhaps you could also tell me if you want a picture of the front (which is really the back ... lol) or the back. ;-) MooBaloo (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA discussion

I make a WQA submission re: your recent comments on my talk page, in which you claimed that you maintained a "black list" and had put me on it because I had removed a tangential link from a See Also section. See: [2] Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi CyclePat,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Venetian style shoe/References

The article Venetian style shoe/References has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nonstandard subpage, completely duplicates References section of article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cybercobra (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian

I'm working on reformatting it back to parenthetical. As for collapseable tables, I'm reasonably sure the MoS advises against them (for accessibility reasons IIRC). I have no idea what you mean about information being lost. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the MoS and indeed it advises against using "scrolling" tables. The important word here is scrolling. There is nothing on collapsable tables. In fact, collapsable tables are widely used in articles, particularly as a template near the bottom. Regarding the lost information: The information lost is actually the reference's link with the text. For example, Microsoft Corporation is currently placed under the category of "further reading", whereas it should be in the "reference" section. The microsoft reference (not really a further reading, though it could be as well) should be linked with paragraph 3 which is; "By the 20th century, the slip-on loafer was common male footwear." On a secondary note, which I tried to explain already, information is lost (but in the lightest of it's sense). What I mean by that is the "headings". Though headings are pretty self-evident, because when you look further into the sources you can figure out what type of reference it is, they are still quite handy. What makes them handy is that they quickly identifying (with information) what type of reference we are dealing with. So, in the strickness of it's sense information within the article is lost... Even though one may infer the type of reference. Also, you may have noticed, I'm one who likes it clearly spelt out. That's why I've added quite a few references for dictionnaries. however, some of those reference are no longer being use as references within the article. I propose, so this information is not lost, that it be included (selectively) in the "further readins" section. Finally, and I say this again, I'm proposing that "Further Readings", could include the subheading of "dictionnaries" --> we should then merge the references (of course those that are still good) that are not being used (but where at one point) and are still handy. Best regards!—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)

On a completly different train of thought, someone had mentioned merging this article? Any ideas? To loafer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)

Fair Use image

Hey cylce Pat, Not sure if you remember but you helped me out with my questions about a Hobart airport fair use image. This time I'm editing the Kingston Bypass article and was wondering what resolution this image needs to be to be classed as fair use? Cheers Wiki ian 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic Therapy

A user by the name of NottsStudent09 reverted a change that you did to the ET page that effectively inserted the word 'unproven' into the phrase characterizing low powered Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_therapy&action=historysubmit&diff=338725455&oldid=328889118

The change was done 19 January 2010 by this August 2009 vintage new user, NottsStudent09.

If the US Medicare / Medicaid has approved various PEMF machines such as the Diapulse machine for various treatments years ago, do people such as this user claim that government health insurance would pay for quackery treatments from this FDA-approved PEMF therapy machine?

Or are users like this trying to claim that “pulsed electromagnetic fields that come from approved devices” are different than “those coming from unapproved devices?” IE., that somehow the laws of physics are suspended based on whether man made government approval processes have been satisfied.

It is strange that on the one hand Pub-Med studies are accepted when for drugs, but not accepted by certain WP editors if these studies demonstrate PEMF treatment effectiveness? The WP lawyering argument then turns to the qualifications of the publishing scientists--that there were too few different scientists doing this work--or that the peer reviewers of the journals somehow must have made a mistake by accepting such study results?

I examined the Diapulse “pressure ulcer” study Cochrane systematic reviews of studies (original and revised), and found that the machines although found to be effective by all the medical doctor scientists publishing the results, the systematic findings of some British nurses, one of whom had a PhD in drugs, found the machines somehow ineffective in a way that is irreconcilable with the underlying studies' findings. And that this Pub-Med indexed Cochrane systematic review was being used by the US profit-based medical insurance companies to deny Diapulse machine treatment claims based on the treatments being experimental, and unproven in nature. Since when in a hospital do nurses ever outweigh what a doctor says? This seems like the work of “the new world order” to control practice of medicine and promote the use of completely ineffective money making drug therapies to me? On what flimsy basis could these nurses completely halt the progress of medical treatment in this way?-- And why is not something extremely forceful (punishment) being done to unjam the replication of studies progress in this field?

Violation of BLP and WP:TALK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Critics of the new world order conspiracy testify that the orchestrators in this effort for complete control of the world include a certain influential family who, it is said, have purchased the cooperation of many mainstream media outlets, stolen other people's properties, bribed and threatened politicians to get laws enacted, and participate with other rich elite to assist in depopulation efforts.

Through various maneuvers, this family pays very little of its share of many kinds of taxes, yet tightly controls its empire and the political process in many countries.

Using Google:

Search >emanuel josephson "The Man Who Misrules the World"<
Search >E. Richard Brown "Medicine Men"<
Search >Gary Allen "none dare call it conspiracy"<
Search >Newspaper editor Morris Bealle<
Search >Stan Monteith Norman Dodd Tax Exempt Foundations The Enemy Within<
Search >"Vice Presidential confirmation hearings" "no income tax" foundations million stock<
Search >cancer "Dr. Richard Day" "medical director" 1969 planned parenthood "stop taking notes"<

And examine a little bit some of the pages or books that come up as results.

One of the stories is that a foundation, “the General Education Board,” for education was formed in the early 1900s. It published lots of white papers, and studies, position papers, and whatnot. That this group wanted to effectively mind control the students from a very young age to believing in things that the particular tycoon wanted them to do so that they would be sold a bill of goods -- propaganda and quackery as peddled by the tycoon's system--including only a subset of science, history, and so on that were approved by the tycoon's advisors to help the tycoon gain and maintain various monopolies.

Google search >"general education board" "dumbing down"<

The 1980 video involving Dr. Stan Montieth and Norman Dodd states that 'a network' of influential persons was able to gain control of the US money supply through the ownership of the Federal Reserve Banking system, a private monopoly that was formed in 1913 by laws enacted by US President Woodrow Wilson on Christmas eve. Their corporation was founded in 1914 in Delaware. Although Wilson was publicly against monopoly men from Wall Street, he put these men in charge of the country's finances. Was he tricked? I don't know. Wilson's book that came out indicated that he was against monopoly control of credit and banking-- yet what happened?

Once this rich family was in firm control of the money supply, they owned most politicians because they could afford to pay them whatever bribes needed to get them to cooperate in defending the tycoon's interests.

Happy reading. Oldspammer (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Extremely low frequency. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please enter the discussion on the talk page, and justify your edits there as asked and required. Please self-revert to show good faith. Verbal chat 13:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise, please join the discussion on talk and justify your edits there. To show good faith, please self-reverted your contested additions. Unless you are willing to discuss there is no way we can move forward. Verbal chat 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are already beyond 3RR. Please self-revert to avoid further action. Verbal chat 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can give you a call or you can call me, that way we can get this resolved in no-time. You'll find my number at http://www.pedaless.ca. --CyclePat (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in private discussion, that's not how wikipedia works. Please revert and discuss on the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, "Au contraire", Wikipedia does utilize much private discussion. In fact, you will notice there is even a section for "E-mail this user". Jimmy Wales used private e-mails.[3]. One should alway remain open-minded to different possibilities or communication options which "currently exist". A telephone conversation, for example, can be recorded, and made public. John Dewey once said

"Openness of mind means accessibility of mind to any and every consideration that will throw light upon the situation that needs to be cleared up, and that will help determine the consequences of acting this way or that. Efficiency in accomplishing ends which have been settled upon as unalterable can coexist with a narrowly opened mind. But intellectual growth means constant expansion of horizons and consequent formation of new purposes and new responses. These are impossible without an active disposition to welcome points of view hitherto alien; an active desire to entertain considerations which modify existing purposes. Retention of capacity to grow is the reward of such intellectual hospitality. The worst thing about stubbornness of mind, about prejudices, is that they arrest development; they shut off the mind from new stimuli. Open-mindedness means retention of the childlike attitude; closed-mindedness means premature intellectual old age."[4]

I do concur that "Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth...", however, it's important to work and find facts. The discussion of those fact is also important. The discussion of "the process" of adding them (as I'm currently alluding) is a step, I would refer to, towards WP:Wikilawyering or, in other words, a debate which goes off-topic from the ELF article --CyclePat (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page. I'm not interesting in having a phone conversation with you, or discussing anything off topic. Verbal chat 19:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Online Etymology Dictionary.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Online Etymology Dictionary.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Bicycle

Hi CyclePat,

Would you be interested in reviewing the recent improvements to Electric bicycle and, if you feel it is merited, changing the quality rating of the article on the discussion page? Thanks! - Ebikeguy (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water power engine

You may be interested in a recent move to redirect this to hydroelectricity Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroelectricity

Hello CyclePat. Please see my response the the talkpage. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CCM Light delivery motorized bike.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CCM Light delivery motorized bike.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhumart MBI 3000 RESC Controller.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rhumart MBI 3000 RESC Controller.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography by time

Category:Geography by time, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April - National Contribution Month

Bonjour CyclePat,

Durant tout le mois d'avril, l'association Wikimédia Canada prépare le Mois national de la contribution, et nous sommes à la recherche de contributeurs d'expérience qui voudraient organiser une journée contributive (ou demi-journée) dans leur région.

Les journées contributives sont des activités où des contributeurs de Wikipédia, des étudiants ou quiconque est intéressé à contribuer à Wikipédia, se rassemblent pour améliorer collectivement un thème prédéterminé. Ces rencontres ont lieu généralement dans une bibliothèque où la documentation est facile d'accès, mais peuvent être aussi organisées dans un local communautaire. Outre l'amélioration d'articles, l'un des objectifs de ces ateliers participatifs est l'initiation des néophytes à la contribution coopérative de Wikipédia.

Si ça vous intéresse d'organiser ou de participer à une journée contributive dans votre région, communiquez avec l'équipe nationale sur la page de discussion du projet. Le déroulement de chaque événement local est laissé à l'entière discrétion de l'organisateur. De l'aide est aussi disponible pour l'organisation de la part de contributeurs qui ont déjà organisé de telles journées, alors ne soyez pas inquiet. Si vous avez des questions ou souhaitez davantage d'information, n'hésitez pas à communiquer avec nous.

Benoit Rochon (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) has been nominated for deletion.

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_therapy_%28alternative_medicine%29 has been nominated for deletion. I don't mean to step on toes but I have no idea how to re-work the article in light of the novocure break through and clinical acceptence. The only viable option I saw was then one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CCM Light delivery motorized bike.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CCM Light delivery motorized bike.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I have a COI/financial connection with the generic pharmaceuticals company Mylan. I'm currently researching the Generic Drug Scandal covered on the Food and Drug Administration page here and noticed that most of the section is cited to this source. I thought "jackpot" and went to looking for the source on Google Books, Amazon, WorldCat, etc., but can't find it anywhere. I looked through the edit-history and saw that you were the one that added it; was wondering if you had any advice on how I can get access to it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive page blanked

Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I've blanked one of your drafts (User:CyclePat/Currently Working On/template/reference/Museum/31August2008) due to your inactivity. If you decide to come back and start editing again, don't fret as the previous contents of the article are still available in the page history. Just click the "Undo" button next to my edit and everything will be back to like it was. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CyclePat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:CyclePat/CyclePat's

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:CyclePat/CyclePat's, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Calton | Talk 04:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CyclePat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CyclePat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada

Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [5]. To send messages to the list, write to general {{subst:Afd top}} discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa-Gatineau mailing list & WikiClub

Hello CyclePat,

I hope you’re doing well. You receive this short message because you are a member of the Category:Wikipedians in Ottawa, and I would like to point out that a mailing list for the Ottawa-Gatineau region now exists. Also, the newly formed Ottawa-Gatineau WikiClub might be of interest to you.

Mailing list registration: https://discussions.wikimedia.ca/lists/listinfo/ottawa-gatineau
Official page of the Ottawa-Gatineau WikiClub: https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ottawa-Gatineau_WikiClub

Thank you and have a nice day! Benoit Rochon (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 286: / Line 286: @@
 Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [https://discussions.wikimedia.ca/lists/listinfo/general]. To send messages to the list, write to general{{at}}discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. [[User:JP Béland (WMCA)|JP Béland (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:JP Béland (WMCA)|talk]]) 13:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
+== Ottawa-Gatineau mailing list & WikiClub ==
+Hello CyclePat,
+I hope you’re doing well. You receive this short message because you are a member of the Category:Wikipedians in Ottawa, and I would like to point out that a mailing list for the Ottawa-Gatineau region now exists. Also, the newly formed Ottawa-Gatineau WikiClub might be of interest to you.
+* Mailing list registration: https://discussions.wikimedia.ca/lists/listinfo/ottawa-gatineau
+* Official page of the Ottawa-Gatineau WikiClub: https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ottawa-Gatineau_WikiClub
+Thank you and have a nice day! [[User:Benoit Rochon|Benoit Rochon]] ([[User talk:Benoit Rochon|talk]]) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)