User talk:Green ethyfoam

Please stop trying insert a picture from or link to roadrecumbent.com into recumbent bicycle. It falls under the definition of link spam. If you think it is notable by Wikipedia standards, please confirm that by create a new article about it first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Road and recumbent

Thanks for your response. Here's my deal- This bike happened because I biilt a chopper bicycle, which worked great on flat terrain, but was too hard to pedal uphill-- so I added a front seat. It is a fantastic bike- I jump back and forth between the front and back seat without having to stop and my butt elbows wrists and neck don't start to hurt or get stiff on long rides. It's a gift I want to give to bicyclists. Yes I would like to profit from my work, but I don't offer bikes for sale, and it says so at my site. I put a .com on my site, but it could have been .net. The only reason I tried to link to the site is because there are videos of the bikes capabilities. The last 10 or so page saves I made did not say "Roadrecumbent" or link to the site. The picture link in the last few page saves linked to a new picture at Commons that's different than any pics at my site. If I start a new article as you suggest, how will people find it? It's a completely new idea, it doesn't have a name or discription anyone is familiar with. That's why I tried to include it in "recumbent bicycles". I suppose I can put a link on the recumbent bike article if I start a new article? 2 more questions, if you will

1. Would you call this a recumbent bicycle? The rear seat is higher than most, but 2 of the bikes on the recumbent page have cranks below the hips. The seat is very recumbent style being wide with a backrest.
2. If it is a recumbent bicycle in your opinion, would you reconsider inclusion in the recumbent article if there's no question of spamming? Thank you for your time.Green ethyfoam (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue, with respect to having your bicycle included in Wikipedia, is notability. I think it is great that you have developed something new, and great that you wish to share it, but that is not the concern of an encyclopedia. If you wish to promote your bicycle, you should focus your attention on the news media, such as Bicycling magazine, VeloNews, BikeRadar, GizMag, and the like. Also note that someone has already patented a bike that converts between upright and recumbent: Your design may have advantages, but the idea is already out there. Finally, I don't have a great recommendation for what to call it. It is a hybrid between an upright and a recumbent, but "hybrid" is already used to mean something else. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)