User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2007

Fair use image removal from templates
I noticed recently you removed images from both Template:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles and Template:Toyota cars. You stated it was "Removing fair use image per terms of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation)". Did you happen to look at the copyright status of the images in question? Both of them (Image:Camry07Grille-small.jpg and Image:Evo7grille.jpg) have actually been released into public domain, which from my understanding means they are not fair use images and can therefor be placed in templates. If I am wrong then please explain it to me. Thanks.  ren0  talk 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! The concern is not with the copyright status of the images. The problem is with the use of images -- including fair use and public domain -- in the templates. My reading of Wikipedia image rules: They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) ... I also tried to use logos and public domain images in templates that I was developing and was informed that I cannot. When I saw the use of logos and pictures (even public domain) on the templates you mention, I removed them to prevent further problems with them. I am just trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines! If this is not the case and images are ok, then please let me know, thanks! CZmarlin 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the final section of Help:Edit summary: "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit". When inappropriately removing free use images from templates, do not use an edit summary which begins "Removing fair use image..." Also, please read the policies you cite, as they clearly apply only to fair use images, and not to those tagged and categorised as PD-self or User-created public domain images. The two edits referred to above, plus those of Autobianchi and Lancia, have been reverted. --DeLarge 11:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that all the images were ultimately removed from the templates per discussion and guidelines on this subject. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Postage stamps and postal history of Sharjah
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, CZmarlin! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the automatic BOT revert of the edits to this page. However, I found the following web page to be informative for the purposes of this article www.angelfire.com/ok/SHARJAHSTAMPS/ It does not seem to qualify as "spam" - at least from my limited perspective. I left it on the page, but perhaps you could check this to determine if it can be linked. Thank you, CZmarlin 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tire/Tyre
Replied on my talk page. - Vox Humana 8&#39; 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use promotional images
I saw your comment at Image talk:1955 AMC Rambler American brochure-interior.jpg. Every promotional image on WP got put in that category because they changed the licensing tag. This new tag adds all images to that category BY DEFAULT unless it is specified "image_has_rationale=yes" in the template. I went through and added that to a bunch of them that had rationales, and added rationales where I could, but there's thousands of images in that category. I'm afraid this is a sad attempt to delete promotional images behind people's backs. --Sable232 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Opera windows, etc
You're quite right, of course, and I was mistaken. I thought *you* had inserted that, and was surprised because you are a very experienced editor. The remark was not meant as an attack, but just as a simple exclamation of surprise. 87.210.41.124 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Link removed why?
Can you advise why you chose to delete our Rallyteam website link from the external links page of the "rallying" page?

Why is our web page any less important than the Canberra Rally?

N
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.83.93.94 (talk • contribs).


 * Answer: The Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. That is why your link was removed. Please see External links for more information. Moreover, please also sign all your comments on these "talk" pages. Thank you -- CZmarlin 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption issues
This is getting tiring. Maybe we should hold an RfC on this? We both know what the guidelines state about captions, and if that guideline violated a policy it wouldn't exist. I am well past assuming good faith with In1984. I think something ought to be done to end this. --Sable232 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would have to concur with your summary. It seems that Wikipedia guidelines are very clear about this topic. I have tried to explain it with every inclusion of "this logo is a logo" that this editor has made. They do not even seem to care or want to read their own talk pages. Now they are expanding this editing to other brands of automobiles. It is a waste of time for everyone. Yes, someone should do something to stop this. Thanks -- CZmarlin 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves
Please do not perform cut and paste moves. These are in violation of copyrights, as the page history must be kept for GFDL reasons. See Help:Moving a page and WP:RM for more information. I have now properly moved Run-flat tyre to Run-flat tire. Prolog 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paul Beaver ("addition lacks references"?!)
Uh, thanks for making the revert on the Paul Beaver page... I'm not too sure on your stated rationale though, unless it was tongue-in-cheek. That addition was plainly vandalism. Zephyrad 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I got tired of writing something like "removing infantile vandalism" and got a little more "creative" since the vandals came up with a more "unique" edit than just adding "poop" somewhere in an article! CZmarlin 05:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So tongue-in-cheek, then. ;-) Zephyrad 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

JP
Good job, certainly DYK-worthy - although could use one more para of text for size requirements. Go ahead and suggest a DYK at DYK page, I think it should pass. Once again, good job! You may want to post annoucements about articles you want input for at WP:PWNB for wider audience.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting, please
You have repeatedly reverted reinstating the proper link to an article (from Bob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistent Bob Evans (restaurateur)) on the Robert Evans disambiguation page. This is even after an explanation of the origin of the word "restauranteur". Please stop doing so - this is not your playground, this is a community effort. The selection of the word restauranteur was by the original author of the article about Bob Evans and it will remain named that way. Therefore, the link should not be removed. Your explanation about "bastardization" does not quite make any sense because your favorite word -- restaurateur -- also has the same origin from the French language. Moreover, you have now reached the Three-revert rule and this is your WARNING regarding your changes: ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.'' CZmarlin 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You better start reading Spellchecking and the use of MS Office for spellchecking. "Restauranteur" does not pass the MS spell checker.  It was you who elected to vandalize the word "restaurateur" to begin.  You violated Three-revert rule.  This is your WARNING.


 * The above was added on 16:10, 25 June 2007 by Iterator12n --- Please be civil and sign all your edits. Also note that the selection of the word restauranteur was by the original author of the article about Bob Evans. CZmarlin 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due civility, you have not addressed the MS Office spellchecker point, nor the fact that you reverted three times in less than 24 hours. Re. the original author: he/she must have failed to use a spellchecker.  Also: I take "vandalize" back, this is not a matter of vandalizing one way or the other; and I will remember to sign all edits.  Cheers.  Iterator12n 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I use MS Office and the spellchecker function, but cannot speak for many authors of articles. However, it is not the final arbiter because there are various variations (as well as words) that the automatic system does not understand. The best example is the word "restauranteur" - not only is it a recognized word, but it is also used in numerous articles within Wikipedia. For example, Cameron Mitchell (restauranteur) that was written on 13 August 2005. There are many more places where this word is used. Please make the changes to all the pages that show up when the word "restauranteur" is searched within Wikipedia. However, the point I am trying to make is not even the spelling, but the deliberate removal of a proper link from the disambiguation page (at least until someone moved the whole page just now). Thank you for your concern, CZmarlin 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Modified
I'm not gonna re-add it, but where does it say that un-modified is preferred to modified, since you put it in quotes? Also, what's wrong with just showing a modified one? I understand why un-modified is better, but why not just have both if we can? Please note, I'm not trying to sound mean or anything....it's just coming off that way since it's online...you know what I mean. Just in case you're not sure what article I'm talking about, it's Ford Mustang.  Bsroiaadn Talk 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject of modified and stock cars has been discussed for quite some time on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. It is not on the most recent page, but this topic is in the archives. The short version is that there are countless numbers of free web sites that owners can put up pictures of their customized cars. Even the Mustang has dedicated sites (that people seem to keep adding to the "external links" no matter if the request is {NoMoreLinks}. The objective of Wikipedia presents the subject as it was made originally. In the case of Ford's Mustang, there are more than enough "fair use" images of completely stock cars. On the other hand, this may not be the case with the Acme (automobile), for example. An image of a modified Acme would be perfectly appropriate because it would be better than nothing. Think of it this way, if I found a 1987 Belchfire that I was interested in buying and looked up its history on Wikipedia and came across a bunch of pictures that did not resemble the 1987 Belchfire that I just saw for sale — I would be very confused. Here is another quote taken from Archive #9: "Not only do these photographs inadequately illustrate the car in question, the modifications detract the viewer from the main features of the car. I hope you don't take this the wrong way." I am also going to add this answer to the Mustang Talk page so that everyone appreciates this issue. — CZmarlin 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

bad etiquette
Man, you are adding your knowledge(misconception) to article Quarter glass, dont add your misconceptions without valid reference. That 2 window image you uploaded, car has one quarter glass and that another window is opera window. You did not even care to leave a message in article's nor my talk page which was really bad etiquette, it will not be tolerated. Ali mehmood zaki 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your evaluation of my contributions to Wikipedia and specifically to the material in the quarter glass article that you seem so intent to remove. I have provided an answer and discussion regarding my edits to this article in its talk page Talk:Quarter glass. — CZmarlin 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'88 Eagles
Am I crazy?

This whole business about what badges are on the door plates seems to be ridiculous to me. Premiers had them, too. And if the sales literature makes no mention of AMC, but calls the car an Eagle...it seems that the way that it's marketed trumps the badge issue. I mean, the Alliance used AMC badges in 1983 and 84, but it was marketed as a Renault, not an AMC. In the same way, the 1988 Eagle used AMC badges, but was marketed (if you could call a two-color leaflet brochure supplement "marketing") as an Eagle, and a product of the Jeep-Eagle division of the Chrysler Corportation. He asked for any sales literature or ads that showed it as an Eagle and not an AMC. I think the '88 supplement is enough.

And, I don't know this for sure - which is why I didn't bring it up - but I'm under the impression that Chrysler didn't recall the Premiers that had already been made and re-VIN them. I know that they replaced the Renault badges with Eagle badges. But beyond that, did the 1988 Premiers show "Eagle" VINs or AMC/Renault VINs? If it was the former, then McIntosh's argument is completely untenable.

I, too, am a certifiable AMC nut. And as much as I'd have liked AMC to have continued, the facts and sources speak for themselves.

Your thoughts? Rhettro76 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are not crazy! My thoughts ... I wish AMC had continued as an independent company. After all, it was AMC people that brought us Grand Cherokees, "cab-forward" LH sedans, Vipers, etc. ... After the buyout was complete, the corporation known to us as AMC was no longer around ... even though the logos, stickers, factory paper work, as well as the products, etc. still bore AMC insignias. I experienced this with the 1987 Cherokee that was purchased just before the news of the acquisition. The warranty work a year later was under a Chrysler process. Moreover, I am sure that if - in 1988 - someone called the telephone numbers listed in the paperwork for AMC's Canadian subsidiary, it would be answered as Chrysler, not as AMC! No Premier VINs were changed for 1988. As far as I can tell, the VIN changeover took place in 1989. Here is a link to a good [VIN decoding pdf file] put out by the Mitchell organization. Look at it this way, at least this is a well-intentioned effort to try to extend the life of AMC! — CZmarlin 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree...it's well-intentioned, I suppose. However, people aren't served by misinformation. And it's good to know that the Premier's VIN wasn't changed in '88. That solidifies the argument.


 * I seriously wish that AMC were still around. I mourned the loss of the XJ, the 4.0L six, and the end of production of civillian versions of the HUMMER H1. It's a testament to the company that Chrysler used AMC's 2.5 in Dakotas, and kept AMC-designed vehicles and components around for almost 20 years after the buyout. What a shame. AMC, with their pro-consumer attitudes and history of economical small cars, would be doing great today if things had been managed better in the '70s. Rhettro76 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mustang
Heya, I'd really like to get the mustang article going again by tightening up the prose, adding interior descriptions and notable options etc. As one of the few people who actually seem interested in constructively editing this article, I'd like to pick your brain on a couple items, but the talk page is so overpopulated with nonsense, I figure you may never see them. So here goes - what do you think about 1) a list / grid format for organizing engine and interior options, etc... 2) At least a few interior pictures and maybe one under-the-hood shot for a particularly notable engine like the 428CJ 3) removing a good deal of cheesy (low-res, bad angle etc) pics 4) At some point, forking off individual articles for the different generations of mustangs- each has warranted countless books, no doubt they could each have an article, no? Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas are very good to improve the article. Regarding idea #1: A proper listing of the engines available and major options would help. For example, this would help clear up something that I had a "fight" about when identifying that the "302" was the same basic engine as the "5.0". It is amazing how marketing can affect reality, or at least perceptions that people have (and the subject area I teach is marketing). As far as item #2: Interior details are also important. For example, I have put a picture of the interior on the AMC Marlin article to help illustrate that this model was finished as a "personal luxury" model, and not a plain economy car. However, pictures of the engines may be best to include in the specific articles about them. For example, the Ford Boss 302 engine page can go into greater detail. Another reason to have the engines separate is because they were most often available in similar models such as the Mercury Cougar. Then we get to your idea #3! Why is it that some people insist on having their often inferior pictures attached that all little to the article? Needless to say, I tried to reason with one "contributor" (and even reported their reverts to have their picure of a dome light), but this will probably be an ongoing problem. As far as your last idea #4: The example that can be lollowed is with the forks to the Chevrolet Camaro generations. If it works for them, then why not the same for the Mustang?! Good luck in your endeavor to help this article! — CZmarlin 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert Rule
I did break the rule I admit but it think many other guys did too inculdeing you... My Talk Page
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 02:15, 22 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,298 bytes) (Undid revision 146208063 by 66.87.15.230 (talk)rv to an image where the car is visible in daylight) (undo)
 * 16:48, 22 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,972 bytes) (→Fourth generation (1994–2004) - rem redundant or crappy images) (undo)
 * 00:29, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146595957 by Archer5054 (talk) NP) (undo)
 * 00:40, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146650412 by Archer5054 (talk)undo AGAIN) (undo)
 * 01:09, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146654336 by Archer5054 (talk)You=wrong. No more superfluous images when there is NO CONTENT) (undo)

This doesn't justify my breaking it, I just read him say that there are to many pictures on that page I feel that the picture I tried to post was different cause it shows what custom add-ons that are popular for the mustang, many of the other pictures are redundant they are all stock mustangs. The problem is that it shows many pictures of the same year of mustangs but different packages... I wanted to show what kind of mustang people are most likely to see (I my version it best explains the mustang to the average person). The pictures on that page that should be deleted are the ones that show canvas convertible mustangs or the other available packages because people can picture that on their own, while the picture I posted shows stuff that is more in-tune with what people would what to see when reading about Mustang custom add-ons. Maybe you should report him and your self too... --Archer5054 08:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of Wikipedia guideline
Your interpretation of the image rule is pretty amazing, as you have left pictures of modified Mustangs in place. Stop trying to own the page by removing items on a whim. Duke53 | Talk 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you!!! I had the same problem, with him. --Archer5054 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Feliks Kon
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, CZmarlin! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule republika\.pl, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image removal
I will be taking this dispute to another level of admin involvement as soon as time allows (not tonight, but hopefully by tomorrow); your selective removal of certain images certainly can be considered vandalism. The biggest problem here is your lack of knowledge concerning Mustangs; if you would remove ALL modified car pictures at WP it would be one thing but you don't ... you seemed fixated on a certain few.. I also have taken a look at some of the pictures YOU have uploaded and am going to make a list of those that should be removed from WP. Duke53 | Talk 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your observations. There are several contributors whose goal is to clean up the Ford Mustang article. For example, there are still spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and other problems. Each edit tries to reduce their occurrence. Since some remain uncorrected, an individual edit does not mean there is a “selective” removal of the problems. There is no requirement that corrections have to be done all at once.
 * This is also true of the images. There are pictures of modified Mustangs that need to be removed. Several editors have done this one by one. There is no requirement that images of customized cars need to be removed all at once. Nevertheless, there is one image (Image:1987 Mustang GT.jpg -- 1987 Ford Mustang GT with Ram-Air hood and Cervini bumper cover) that keeps being replaced by you each time it is removed.
 * All the pictures should all be examined one by one. That is why I have proposed on the Talk:Ford Mustang page a process to review images before they are included in the article. This does not mean that everyone has to agree, but it should be discussed since an image of customized Mustang is repeatedly reappearing. The way to improve the article is to start with a problem -- and not to refuse to cooperate unless everything is fixed all at once.
 * Moreover, why have you have taken a special look at the pictures that I have uploaded and are going to make a list of those that should be removed from WP. Pictures of automobiles that I have taken are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and are free to be used by anyone. Thus, why target my contributions to the Wikipedia collaborative effort? Please explain the specific issues that you have with the images that I have contributed.
 * Thank you — CZmarlin 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello CZmarlin
I am writing this letter in regards to the deletion of Discount Tire's wikipedia article today, August 22nd. I would like to know how you came to the decision of deleting this article. There wasn't to much detail given except for blatant advertising. I, of course, want to meet Wikipedia's standards and I just want to know what sections of the article were more of an advertisement then factual information. If you can provide the answer to this question it would be very much appreciated. The last thing I want to do is make the same mistakes when I decide to post a new article for Discount Tire. Thank you very much!! Jlsathomas 15:19, 22 August 2007


 * The article about the Discount Tire Company was not deleted. The revision as of 19:56, 21 August 2007 was when I tagged the article as blatant advertising and lacking a neutral point of view, both are violations of Wikipedia guidelines. It was another editor (Mr.Z-man) that decided to remove the edits that were at fault on 22:31, 21 August 2007. It was their decision to trim back the article to just the basic facts. Since you would like to know what would make the article meet Wikipedia standards, then I would suggest you start with the [[Help:Contents page and the numerous tutorials. Nevertheless, the Discount Tire article was expanded to include fawning text and facts that have no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place to insert opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, promotion or advertising is not allowed. Unfortunately, the text was recently expanded to be a promotional piece for the company, thus making it only masquerading as an encyclopedic article. I hope this explanation helps. — CZmarlin 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Achieva, an Achievment of Luxury
I beg to differ, sir. The Achieva is truly an ACHIEVA-ment of modern automotive luxury, without parallel, except perhaps the Rolls Royce Phantom series. Learn more about luxury cars before contributing to the "Luxury Vehicle" article again. Good day, sir! --71.234.11.63 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are just joking with me, but I would urge you to examine the information on the Oldsmobile Achieva before trying to compare it to automobiles under the Rolls Royce nameplate. You will find that the Achieva had no "ACHIEVA-ment" in the automotive marketplace. It was a very unremarkable compact car that was produced for only a few years. Because it was quite deficient in many aspects, Oldsmobile killed the Acheva just before General Motors completely eliminated the Olds nameplate. Cheers! — CZmarlin 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Otto Schimek
Thanks for helping out with the Otto Schimek article. I had very little time, so it did not look good, but with your help, it is OK now. Good job Tymek 16:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CZmarlin#Hello_CZmarlin
Interesting to read your reply and Mr. Z-man's reply to this individual's questions. Each of you is saying the other one is responsible for the deletion/reverting back to the stub form of the article. So what is it?

Daniel Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.150.55 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review the history of edits page. You will see that I only added the comment it does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view at 19:56, 21 August 2007. Then at 22:31, 21 August 2007 Mr.Z-man reverted the Discount Tire Company article to its last non-advertising version. I hope that answers your question. — CZmarlin 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Compact car
Nice edit on Compact car. You certainly saved me some work! All too often people work on articles and don't get any recognition or thanks. All too often all editors get is complaints and edit wars when people disagree. Take this barnstar as a recognition of good work well done, and much appreciated. Keep editing! Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gallup edit
Have a look at this edit, and see if you can remember exactly what you typed. I have seen a number of places where this has been done, by various editors, and am guessing some current news template is being substed, pursuant to an instruction somewhere. Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 08:58 7 November 2007 (GMT).
 * The only thing I did was add the template with the appropriate insertions of "The Gallup Organization|Talk:The Gallup Organization#Merger proposal" based on the example on the instruction page describing the article merge process. I have no clue how all the extraneous text was added! Thanks — CZmarlin 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial Acronyms as Registered Trademarks, GETRAG/Getrag
Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. I'm starting a discussion to modify the manual to address the issue of these names. Too many people disagree, and it appears you have some interest in participating. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that some of the "rules" are strange. For example the article about Byte (magazine) looks strange when it is always written BYTE. It seems a similar situation is with this case where the name GETRAG is typically written all in caps! However, I don't know how much I can add in this matter. — CZmarlin (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well -- your opinion is valued - please let us know at Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion how you feel so we can consider it when modifying the manual of style. Thanks, Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The GETRAG capitalization issue is coming down to a vote - if you feel strongly either way - please poll at Talk:GETRAG - I appreciate your help! Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2009/2010 Camaro
You're technically correct in changing this back to 2009, as the car will be released in Jan of that year. It will be labeled a 2010 model year though, so I am editing to correct this information. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelbza (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My link is valid
Hi CZmarlin, I understand that “Wikipedia is not a collection of links.” But the link I provided is very relevant to the entry and provides further information for searchers. I’m sure they’ll find it beneficial and that’s the whole purpose of Wikipedia. It’s just as important as other web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengsha (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mengsha, please read the guidelines that state: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." It is perfectly clear that your contribution is a link to a particular company's web page to search for a particular dealership and vehicle. There are many similar web pages such as the one you are adding and none of them belong in Wikipedia. Moreover, the link to these advertising pages by "Cox Auto Trader, Inc." does not provide additional information about the characteristics, business, or operation of a car dealership. There are the reasons why this link should not be included. Thanks for your cooperation CZmarlin (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)