User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2008

Eagle Vision page revisement
I am just wondering why The image I place was removed, and where are these guide lines saying it was wrong.

Last time I checked a 93 and 94 were in the picture, showing the difference in the side paneling and other minor changes from the 93 to 94 years.

Being that only a set of rims is the difference I see no problem here. Personally the picture of the red one is quite dreary and dosnt give these car credit for what they really look like. Where as Mine shows just how they look in a way in which give credit ot the overall design of these cars. And in fact my picture was wrong, according to your guidelines, You should have notfied me first.
 * ......Deleting images


 * 1. Contact (through their talk page) the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns. You may be able to resolve the issue at this point.
 * 2. Remove all uses of the image from articles — make it an orphan.
 * 3. Add one of these notices to the image description page
 * * copyright violations: add the copyright infringement notice for images from Wikipedia:Copyright problems to the image description page.
 * * otherwise: add the deletion notice {ifd} to the image description page.
 * 4. List the image on one of these links:
 * * copyright violations: list the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems
 * * otherwise: list the image on Wikipedia:Images for deletion
 * 5. The image can then be deleted after a week in the normal way — see our deletion policy.

To actually delete an image after following the above procedure, you must be an administrator. To do so, go to the image description page and click the (del) or Delete this page links. Deleted images can now be undeleted. --EagleESi (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer

 * Thank you for instructing me on the procedure to have images deleted from Wikipedia. However, you seem to be confusing two separate and distinct matters:
 * First are the procedures needed for the removal of images that are in violation of copyright or other serious problems.
 * Second are the day-to-day editing tasks to the articles within Wikipedia, as well as making the associated changes to any of the images that are within those articles.
 * Please note that that doing the second matter (changing images in an article) does not require the steps that you have pasted to my talk page that are concerned with the first matter (the several step process involved with having a image erased from Wikipedia). A contributing editor may deem it appropriate to change, remove, or add an image in an article; therefore, they are free to do so ... without prior or any notification.
 * Nevertheless, you should also be familiar with the Wikipedia policy regarding images of automobiles. Please follow the suggestions as listed here: WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions.
 * The specific problem with the image that I replaced in the article about the Eagle Vision was that the two vehicles in the removed picture were not clearly shown. They were placed far from camera view and the entire image was overwhelmed (almost one-third of it) showing the grass in the foreground, as well as another major portion of the image devoted to the structure in the background. Although the other picture of the red car may have not been of your car, it clearly shows the front ¾ view up close and is thus superior to the image that you provided.
 * Thanks for your interest in improving the quality of articles in Wikipedia! — CZmarlin (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again Eagle revision on plant name
Okay, Need to get your facts straight there buddy,

LH cars were built at the Bramalea (Ontario) Assembly Plant. Not Brampton. Even if they Are close Still get your Facts Straight. Any and pretty Much all searches I have done all say Bramalea, Not brampton. and according to Chrsyler it self, First and Second Gen. LH cars were built at the Bramalea (Ontario) Assembly Plant. How Do I know, My Eagle was Built there!!!!!!! Gee imagine that!!!

I would really would like you keep yourself off a page that seem you want to control as if its your own little world. Considering I Own a LH, Eagle Vision at that, and Belong to one of the premier LH Community forum and am a Respected member there. I think I know my facts.

So Sod Off unless you got hardcore proof that I'm Wrong and your Right. Cause I have not seen one piece of Information stating that the First and Second Gen LH was built a Brampton Plant, But at a seperate plant built called the Bramalea Assembly Plant.

--EagleESi (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer

 * Thank you for your king comments regarding the corrections I made to the name of the manufacturing plant that built the LH Eagle Vision. As you can note in the article about Brampton Assembly, the plant was opened by American Motors in 1986 as Bramalea Assembly to produce the Eagle Premier. There was also another AMC facility in the same area known as the "Brampton Assembly Plant" that opened in 1960 and produced a variety of AMC automobiles and Jeeps. After the Chrysler buy-out, AMC's Canadian division and both of its plants (Brampton and Bramalea) were absorbed into the new owner. AMC's state-of-the-art facility later began production of LH cars -- and sometime later was renamed to Brampton Assembly after AMC first plant in the area was torn down.
 * I hope this helps to clear up the problems caused by the name changes that may occur when corporate assets are purchased and new factories replace old ones. Please also note that no individual editor/contributors "owns" a page in Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to provide constructive edits and improvements to all the articles. Cheers! — CZmarlin (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Spirit
Hi, CZM. Been awhile (late '06, see "fuel injection" above) since we corresponded here. I've reinserted the information you deleted from Dodge Spirit. Not only is it pertinent to the subject vehicle, but it is relevant to the subsection in which it's located ("changes through the years"). Furthermore, this information is supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Deleting pertinent and supported text is not generally done. I've reformatted the text and restructured the references properly, but I do not see what you must've seen in judging this text "not pertinent". If you still see it that way, perhaps you can explain, maybe on the article's talk page, and we can try to reach consensus. For now, I think the information should stay. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer

 * The reason I took out the information about the "1994-1995 Spirits cannot legally be imported across the US/Canada border in either direction" is that this is not very significant in the history of this car. First of all, the reference material provided by the Canadian government states that U.S. market cars can't be imported, but I fail to see the prohibition of bringing in a Canadian market car into the U.S. Moreover, this pertains to only the 1994 and 1995 model years and the probability of these cars being re-registered in the other country today is rather remote. There are also many other nations that have specific rules about importation of vehicles and the types of safety equipment and I don't think that they need to be listed in the articles about those cars. If this is pertinent data to the average user of Wikipedia, then of course it should be included. My thinking tends to see the need for more relevant information about these cars, rather than if the '94 and '95 models can be brought into Canada! That's just my contribution, but your experience may be different! All the best, and keep on "fuel injecting" contributions and edits into Wikipedia!  — CZmarlin (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tarponback.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tarponback.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A replacement picture of a show car that no longer exists?
Thanks for adding your note regarding "is replaceable" on this image. I think that I have fully described the reasons for the use of this image under the "fair use" section. Please explain how a picture of a concept car from over 45 years ago fails the first "fair use" criterion? In other words, how is it possible to illustrate a subject that does not exist today and how do you create a freely licensed image of it now. Show cars like this Rambler Tarpon were destroyed; therefore, it is not possible to take a picture of it today. Would taking a picture of the factory photo qualify as "replacement" under the copyright rules? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not think another image generation could mask the "rights" of this freely distributed press release photograph. Just as I fail to see the change in rights when my upload of the AmericanMotors-logo 1970-1987.jpg image was changed by another editor to Image:American-motors.svg -- it is still the same! The purpose of including the image of the Rambler Tarpon is to help illustrate some of the characteristic designs that were incorporated from this concept car into other production cars. Therefore, I believe it adds to the value of the article about the Rambler Tarpon, in addition to the aims of Wikipedia. If you disagree, I welcome your questions and a detailed discussion of the concerns. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Johnson
Hey CZmarlin, thanks for setting me straight on the article for Howard Johnson concerning wikipedia norms for including birth-death dates. SaintCyprian  Talk  19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gremlin revert
Why did you revert my categorisation? Categorisation is standard practice. I wasted time searching for something that wasn't in the list, whereas if it was categorised, I'd have known that it was missing before I had to check every item. Your revert also undid an entry that I made that didn't exist before. I don't think you quite grasp the gravity of the situation... Seans Potato Business 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments on my edit to Gremlin (disambiguation).
 * Please review my edit and change carefully. I did not remove your entry. It is still there.
 * I am not sure what you mean by your statement that I don't "grasp the gravity of the situation" because all I did was follow Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically, the suggestions regarding the following items taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
 * "Disambiguation pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."
 * "If topical categorization of the disambiguation page seems to be needed, please bring this need up for discussion."
 * "Disambiguation pages however are non-articles and do not need catgorization other than for maintenance purposes."
 * "Separate the articles on disambiguation pages into categories only if the list is long."
 * I hope these answer your concers. The Gremlin (disambiguation) has only ten (10) items, thus no topical categories are needed on this page. It is easy to glance at all the links. Moreover, your edit adding separate categories put just one item under one topic, two under "corporations", and then lumped everything else under the "entertaiment" topic. This included an automobile and a surface-to-air missile system. Those do not seem like appropriate "entertainment" items and thus your edit did little to help readers find articles from this page.
 * Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay --Seans Potato Business 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummer
Regarding the 'unsupported statement' in the Hummer article: "A survey of manufacturers will reveal that Hummer is the only brand in the United States to offer only four-wheel drive models with high ground clearance, a low-range transfer box, and off-road tires."

What do I need to do to get this statement in the article, take a screenshot of every manufacturer's model page and post it on a webpage for proof? That would take forever. What's wrong with telling people that if they compare brands, they will find that only the Hummer brand has these attributes. It would only take one example to disprove this statement. How about if I remove the subjective terms "high ground clearance" and "off-road tires" ? 71.107.129.42 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need to take screenshots of every manufacturer's model page. All you need is to read the specifications for the Jeep Rubicon and you will see its attributes combine all of the following: four-wheel drive models with high ground clearance, a low-range transfer box, and off-road tires (standard 32-inch BFGoodrich® Off-road Tires) Wrangler Rubicon web page at Jeep.com - retrieved on: 17 March 2008. As you state: this is just one example to help disprove the claim about the Hummer being the only brand in the United States with these features. Cheers — CZmarlin (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, sorry for putting Hummer at the top - I didn't pay attention to the order. Secondly, I think you misunderstood my statement or I didn't word it correctly. I meant to say that the entire model range of Hummer has those attributes, not just one vehicle. For example, no matter which Hummer you buy (H1, H2, H3), you get off-road tires, relatively high ground clearance, and a low-range (not to mention that all Hummers are 4x4s; there are no 2wd Hummers for sale). If I were to pick a random model from Jeep (let's say, the Compass, or a 2wd Wrangler), or Land Rover (the LR2), I do not get those things. I think Jeep and Land Rover are the only other two brands that can even be compared, as the Toyota, Nissan, etc. brands all make cars as well. Therefore Hummer is the only brand whose entire model range comes with all those attributes standard. If Jeep made only 4x4 models, and the Compass/Patriot came with a real low-range, then we could argue that, but sadly, they don't. 71.107.129.42 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your restating the conditions that all Hummers come with those particular attributes makes a difference to its meaning. However, this type of descriptor ends up being more of a marketing claim and differentiation through advertising ... rather than an attribute available only on Hummers. Those may be the only unifying features among the current Hummer production, but the H2 and H3 are based on modified versions of existing GM truck platforms and the other models available from Chevrolet and GMC can also be ordered with Hummer-like features. The addition of off-road tires as standard equipment may be significant differentiation to some, but -- at least in my view -- the combination of those tires, a relatively high ground clearance, and 4WD with low-range does not seem to be particularly significant enough to be in the lead paragraph in the article about Hummers. Other makes offer those on a number of their models and thus it makes it difficult to explain the statement listing those features as unique only to Hummers in the United States. Other comments -- there are no 2WD Wranglers and when looking at these specific features, please note that Unimogs offer even more ground clearance. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I can agree with you about it not being in the lead paragraph, but can it perhaps be incorporated elsewhere in the article? Since this article is about the brand, I think it goes to show that Hummer as a brand takes their image seriously by only offering off-road ready vehicles; I think it is noteworthy and commendable for an off-road brand to offer only models with those attributes. Certainly this is unique among all brands currently being offered in the United States; some offer cars as well as 4x4s, others offer less capable 2wd versions. I believe it should be included somewhere in the article. With regards to your comments about there not being any 2wd Wranglers: the new Wrangler Unlimited model X and Sahara are offered with 2wd; it was announced before the JK was released and you can find this information on the Jeep website. Many Jeep owners were not happy. 71.107.129.42 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you state, the information about the Hummer's particular characteristics could be included in the article because it provides a greater level of detail, as well as explaining the obligatory qualifications and nuances. On the other hand, the lead paragraph should only summarize the most important points of the article. Quoting from the WP guidelines "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Therefore, it should not contain original research.
 * You are correct regarding the Wrangler 2WD models, but they are only available in the long-wheelbase 4-door "Unlimited" versions and not in the "classic" or "real" Wrangler models. The business of offering the customers anything they desire will surely mean that Hummers will be offered in not only in 2WD, but also with hybrid power and new compact versions with "street" tires. These will to help expand their market coverage and something the dealers want to offer their existing and conquest customers. Another example of this trend are the SUVs made by Porsche. Those also made that brand's enthusiasts upset. However, the new models now make up for a huge proportion of their total sales and have expanded Porsche's market. The formerly "exclusively" sports car company is now even developing a line of 4-door sedans.
 * Therefore, I would be very cautious to insert statements (with their obligatory conditions) that will be only valid for a short time. For example, when GM introduces the H4 models. Although Hummer claims that it is unlikely to launch a range of "soft-roaders" -- the sales success of the Jeep models that do not meet “Trail Tested” off-road abilities is probably too strong to ignore by the marketing managers at GM. — CZmarlin (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the H4 comes standard with a low-range, high ground clearance, and large tires, then the statement would still be valid. Why not add it somewhere in the article, and if the H4 lacks any of those things, or if Hummer starts offering 2wd models, I will gladly delete it (as the times change). Isn't the point of Wikipedia to keep up with changes in the world? 71.107.129.42 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from AMC Pacer discussion page
On the AMC Pacer article discussion page I posted this note under the headline "Help!":


 * This article needs a good clear photograph of a Pacer when new, not least because the car shown at present is incorrect in several respects. Can someone oblige? Writegeist (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You responded with:


 * As noted in the history of edits to this article, I put this car in the article because the previous image in the infobox was of a factory PR drawing of a Pacer that was deleted from Wikipedia for obvious copyright issues. In any case, for purpose of full disclosure, the following items are wrong on this car: (1) the Pacer's full wheel covers on steel wheels have been substituted with AMC's "Magnum 500" rims (not on the option list on the Pacer in 1975 - plus the ones on this car are missing the trim rings), (2) the wheel lip mouldings have not been replaced after the car was repainted, (3) the black side rub strip is slightly wider than the stock version, (4) the grille does not have the silver finish on its thin horizontal bars (it is all finished in flat black on this car), (5) the vertical black rubber bumper guards were not replaced after later model NOS bumpers were installed, and (6) the inside rear view is not yet attached to the car's windshield in this picture. Other than these problems, this "Mellow Yellow" 1975 Pacer Pacer is as it was ordered from the factory. — CZmarlin (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The subsequent discussion, which I move herewith to this page, has unfolded as follows.


 * Thanks for troubling with the details CZmarlin. Yes indeed, the car shown is "as it was ordered from the factory"—save for those significant respects in which it is, well, not as ordered from the factory, i.e. wrong wheels, wrongly finished wheel openings, wrongly finished grille, wrong bumpers, wrong rub strip. Writegeist (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Writegeist, you missed repeating item number 5 from my list of what is wrong with the car! Nevertheless, you can see how this Pacer is how it was ordered from the factory (before its official announcement) by looking at the window sticker here . Cheers — CZmarlin (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * CZmarlin, you missed that my list was only of significant deviations from stock. (A couple of which, IMHO, are to be commended, as they very slightly reduce the visual offense given by the stock item's astonishingly antisocial ugliness; though "slightly" is probably not sufficient to save weaker-hearted members of the public from cardiac arrest when they spot it waddling down the road.) Thank you for troubling to post the link to the sticker. Although of course it does not remedy or mitigate the inauthentic aspects of the car's appearance, it does reveal this version as the infamous Z********* Pacer! Na zdrowie! Writegeist (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rather astonishing that you insist on propagating your own personal opinions about the AMC Pacer's design and my contributions to Wikipedia. Please read the principles upon which guidelines concerning how opinions are to be expressed in Wikipedia -- including the following:
 * "A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one."
 * In other words, your statements are clearly uncalled for inclusion in the Wikipedia talk pages. This includes making fun of me (why "infamous"), my name, by national origin, as well as the use of a Polish language greeting when eating a meal (which has nothing to do with this article, but only evidence of some lame attempt at humor). In short, your incivility is clearly inappropriate. Likewise, please also avoid describing the AMC Pacer the way to see it through your biased eyes and then -- for example -- no one will call the "astonishingly antisocial ugliness" of your mother or the "cardiac arrest" when they spot your own car "waddling down the road".
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, since you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition may not be reliable. Moreover, "it is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized ..."
 * Specifically, your contributions to the AMC Pacer and the American Motors articles have been characteristically negative regarding the design and engineering of AMC vehicles. However, the public or professionals and experts in the industry do not share this view universally. For example, you have included references to list and books concerning the "worst cars" that are in most often compilations of non-scientific surveys or the views of non-experts (e.g. automobile insurance policy holders that voted for the worst car designs of all time) and at the same time you seem to remove positive quotes and references about AMC's products and designs. Moreover, the references to "worst cars of all time" also list numerous other automakers and their automobiles. Nevertheless, they are not included in all the Wikipedia articles about the particular automakers or automobiles mentioned in these lists because these books and lists lack of the neutral point of view (NPOV) that is required in Wikipedia.
 * Please accept my apologies in pointing out some of the problems contained in some of your contributions. I also trust that you will reciprocate by not continuing to include your bias in the article talk pages and any other contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And now to respond to your last posting.

In the AMC Pacer article I have not, to use your terminology, “propagated my personal opinon" about the car’s design (see below), having confined to the discussion page a light-hearted reference to the car’s “astonishingly antisocial ugliness" causing heart attacks in people who see it “waddling down the road." (But I am firmly of the opinion that we Pacer owners should have a sense of humor about our cars—owning one is itself an ironic statement.)

As for your contributions, I have not publicized personal opinions about them, at least not any more than you have about mine, or other people’s elsewhere. I have conscientiously explained edits where I thought appropriate. This is not “propagating [a] personal opinion" about your contributions.

The use of “infamous”: my apologies. I fell into an informal, conversational mode and the word—by which another Pacer-owning acquaintance once alluded to this particular heavily-promoted car, as if it were the car’s commonly-used sobriquet—slipped out. It was so casual and light-hearted that I didn’t think to edit it. However it was not there to make fun of you, as you accuse. It was there to describe the car, both in respect to the inaccuracy of the restoration and the assiduousness with which it is promoted. I shall not use the word again in this context.

You make the accusation that my contributions to the AMC Pacer and American Motors articles “have been characteristically negative regarding the design and engineering of AMC vehicles.” My contributions, viewed in toto, have brought quite a lot of cited material—not least technical, historical and financial—to bear on these articles. Some of the cited material can be construed as complimentary, some as critical. You object to cited material of a critical nature—“negative” in your terminology—on the grounds that it breaches NPOV. Yet cited material that, by the same token, you would characterize as “positive” (i.e. promotional in effect) never elicits the same response from you. Strong bias at work there, apparently. (Corroborated by a glance through the Nash-Healy article’s edit history, which clearly shows that in your determination to preserve the fiction that ordinary Nash-Healeys competed successfully in European endurance races you sabotaged a corrective edit.)

Where the sources I cite possess intrinsic or implied POV, I believe I still refer to them in a neutral way. If you find instances where this is not the case, please point them out and I'll put them right.

Now to: “. . . you seem to remove positive quotes and references about AMC's products and designs” (my emphasis). If this is true, and the deletions (which you do not cite) were inappropriate, I sincerely apologize and if you refer me to the relevant instances I shall reinstate the redacted material. I may have edited certain references to maintain NPOV?

If by “making fun of. . . [your] name” you mean that you are the eponymous Z*********, well, I simply didn't know. To me it was nothing more than part of the sobriquet by which the car was known (or so I thought) as a result of the restoration having been done by someone of that name.

The allegation of “making fun of. . . [your] nationality” is grave indeed. I categorically refute it, and if you read the relevant passage again I am confident that you will realize the accusation is mistaken. “Na zdrowie” takes its cue from the Polish name but does not ridicule Poland or Polishness, and an elderly Polish friend assures me it’s totally inoffensive. Furthermore, and contrary to your view, it does have to do with the article as it echoes your own parting salutation of “cheers”—itself a drinking salutation, but no more a cause for offense when used outside the drinking context than “na zdrowie” when used in similar fashion.

Your “. . . no one will call the ‘astonishingly antisocial ugliness’ of your mother or the ‘cardiac arrest’ when they spot your own car ‘waddling down the road’” makes no sense, so I cannot respond.

You accuse me of anti-Pacer bias, whereas in fact I like the Pacer as much as I like the Trabants I have also owned. This is partially out of amusement at the qualities they share—eccentricity, innovation, ugliness, poor dynamic performance and unreliability, but most of all it's to do with the fact that they’re “underdog” cars.

Owning one of AMC’s least-loved vehicles need not oblige the owner to pursue an agenda of rehabilitating his car's reputation in Wikipedia!

“Please accept my apologies. . .” etc.: apologies accepted. Mine to you likewise, I trust! Writegeist (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to continue this discussion as you have summarized your lack of understanding in your most recent description that the Pacer is "one of AMC's least-loved vehicles." This statement only confirms your one-sided perspective and a particular agenda. As I have written previously (but you did not seem to understand), I would never describe the "astonishingly antisocial ugliness" ... of, for example, your mother. Similarly I would also never describe your own car ... as "waddling down the road, " even if it was a Trabant. Therefore, you should also never describe any vehicle as "least-loved" ... no matter what brand it is. Moreover, you have no sources to support the quantifiable term "least," as well as no way of measuring the "love" expressed to an automobile. My objective is to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. Contrary to what you have written to me, It is not as to "rehabilitate" a car's reputation. Rather, my contributions are to present the facts about the subject mater and allow the reader to be informed and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, It seems that your contributions in this area are to continue promoting a personal opinion of "astonishingly antisocial ugliness" as well as submitting other POV edits. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Source for the Pacer as a "least-loved" vehicle: MSNBC, November 23, 2005: "MSNBC readers choose the least-loved American auto: Selection of the best comments on turkey cars from MSNBC.com readers."


 * Your continuing obsession with my mother is something of a curiosity, not least because you have never (so far as I know) seen her. Therefore to you she exists only as an imaginary figure. You may well, in fact, regard this maternal figment as one of "astonishingly antisocial ugliness" for all I know. Yet even imaginary mothers are so sacred to you (sacred cows?) that you say you would never dare describe an ugly one thus. This also seems odd. If, for the sake of argument, I were to imagine your mother as a person of astonishingly antisocial ugliness, there are circumstances under which I would definitely be inclined to say so, e.g. if you asked what I thought of her (imagined) appearance.


 * Funnily enough I already knew that there are people who, like you, who see a direct equivalence between Pacers and mothers. (These are the passers-by who exclaim "[Expletive deleted]! That’s one ugly mother!" when they see my Pacer.)


 * You are right to steer clear of describing a Trabant as "waddling down the road." Trabants do not waddle, they toddle down the road, squirting jets of attractive blue smoke from their tiny auspuffe. Writegeist (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again you fail to point out that the source of the MSNBC story is a totally unscientific survey that does not belong as a source according to Reliable sources guidelines. The material used is based on MSNBC citing opinion pieces from the public: "when MSNBC.com asked its readers to name their least-loved car, one name stood head and shoulders above the rest — the Chevy Vega". This is a source with reliability issues.
 * It is also curious that you are intent to heap negative descriptors concerning the AMC Pacer without following the Wikipedia guideline of balance. It calls for including opposing viewpoints and to "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." On the other hand, the MSNBC story — as well as many other lists and books concerning the "worst cars" — are often compilations of non-scientific surveys or contain the views of non-experts.
 * Your perception that I have "an agenda of rehabilitating" the image of this car is is misconstrued. I follow the guideline for writing articles in Wikipedia, which is with a "tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation." Moreover, your statement on this talk page: "Expletive deleted! That’s one ugly mother!" when they see a ____" is unwarranted and unmerited, as well as just plain rude and offensive. It is surprising that a contributor to Wikipedia has to stoop so low as part of discussion regarding the "(imagined) appearance" of mothers.
 * You seem to ignore the concept of Neutral point of view in your opinions about the expression of aesthetic opinions. You refuse to comprehend the analogy that I tried to illustrate with the use of ugliness. This example has nothing to do with "sacred cows" — rather, it is an illustration of Wikipedia guidelines what I will repeat once more: "A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one." Nevertheless, you seem to continue your idiosyncratic opinions through your contributors to the AMC Pacer article by redundantly repeating the term "ugly" to describe the vehicle.
 * You require a very high standard of proof regarding the purchase of a dark green 1976 Pacer by McKeel Hagerty, the CEO of a major collector-car insurance company. He has owned it for over three years (as of August 2007). Do you think that as an executive of his collector-car insurance company, he uses a 30-year old Pacer as daily transportation? He states that this car has gained in value compared to what he paid for it. This is more than can be expected from his modern daily driver or company car. It is clear that this Pacer is a hobby and even an investment for him, as is alluded in several sources. It is also evident that McKeel Hagerty has experience with other AMC Pacer. His company used another example of this car as a the prize in the sweepstakes in partnership with Passport Transport. He is quoted in 2002 that: "a whole new generation of owners who are just now discovering this uniquely styled little car". Several years later he purchased a Pacer for himself. Since you seem to disagree that this vehicle is NOT best described as "collector" automobile, then please provide the evidence stating otherwise. Although it is true that the citations make no mention of this individual owning a "collection" of automobiles, the descriptor that "he personally owns this Pacer as a collector or hobby car" is prudent and reasonable based on the facts.
 * Once again thank you for your thoughts. CZmarlin (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my response to the 600+ words which, somewhat curiously, you wrote as a sequel to your stated view that there was no need to continue this discussion.


 * You say, "Once again you fail to point out that the source of the MSNBC story is a totally unscientific survey".


 * With respect, and evidently contrary to your view, it is not mandatory for discussion of the Pacer article here to include slavish repetition of what is already stated in the article itself. Nevertheless, to refresh your memory:


 * "The Pacer appears in several humorous opinion-based books of "worst cars" including The World’s Worst Cars,[10] The Worst Cars Ever Sold,[11] Lemon![12] and Automotive Atrocities;[13] and also in published lists solicited from the general public, such as MSNBC.com's 2005 "least-loved american autos",[14] Time.com's 2007 "50 Worst Cars of All Time",[15] and "The Most Questionable Car Designs of All Time", a 2007 non-scientific survey of policyholders with a major collector-car insurance company."


 * You claim MSNBC.com "does not belong as a source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines" and that it is "a source with reliability issues." Incorrect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines state:


 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [. . .]  Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post. . . "


 * Does MSNBC qualify? Wikipedia’s MSNBC.com article states:


 * "msnbc.com is the news website for the NBC News family, featuring original stories and video as well as content from NBC News and partners such as . . . The Washington Post . . ."


 * Futhermore the Wikpedia article goes on to say:


 * "[MSNBC.com] is a leading online news organization . . . [that] regularly trades off with Yahoo! News and CNN.com for the top spot in online news [. . . ] The site has won several journalism and online publishing awards."


 * Hardly "a source with reliability issues", to use your dismissive phrase. (Significantly, obscure and less reputable sources whose reliability and authority are genuinely open to question, e.g. roadking.com, goliath.ecnext.com etc., yet which happen to be cited in the Pacer article by editors other than myself, draw no flak from you, do they?)


 * You say Wikipedia guidelines call for "opposing viewpoints".  Precisely.  With respect, this is not the same as calling for viewpoints in the Pacer article that only support those of CZMarlin.


 * You say my "perception that [you] have "an agenda of rehabilitating" the image of this car is is misconstrued"  and that you "follow the guideline for writing articles in Wikipedia, which is with a "tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation."


 * Again, you have erroneously rephrased what I wrote, namely that ownership of a Pacer does not oblige the owner to rehabilitate the car’s  reputation  in Wikipedia.   I still await evidence that refutes this perception. So far, with accusations of "negativity" etc, you have energetically  sought to suppress information that does not serve to rehabilitate the car’s reputation.  As for bias, please re-read the article. You will agree, I am sure, that I represent the positions taken by the public, the experts and the Pacer’s designers et al. with equal neutrality, without any implication that one is more or less correct than another.


 * You say it is surprising "that a contributor to Wikipedia has to stoop so low as part of discussion regarding the "(imagined) appearance" of mothers. You’re right: I was indeed surprised that you saw fit to allude to my mother in the form she takes in your imagination. And you cannot really be surprised that I saw fit to point out the flaws in your implied theory of equivalence between a real car and an imagined mother.


 * You accuse me of "seem[ing] to ignore the concept of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in your opinions about the expression of aesthetic opinions . . . : 'A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one.'" Yet you yourself observe that it is a vehicle, and not a person, that is described as "ugly" in the Pacer article.  And in this regard you again misrepresent my contributions.  Clearly it is not me personally who describes the car in the article as ugly, as you claim. I simply represent, without bias, the positions of those who do.


 * Contrary to your curious and, once again, erroneous assertion, I require no "very high standard of proof" that an insurance man bought a Pacer. The fact is, I have not demanded any higher standard than already exists in the citation. I am totally baffled as to why you should say I have. The reason for this strange accusation, as with all your others, is beyond me.


 * You say, "It is clear that this Pacer is a hobby and even an investment for him, as is alluded in [sic] several sources."


 * Yes indeed, it is clearly stated in the cited article(s) that he bought this old car as an investment. But if, as you state, several sources allude to the fact that he bought it as a "hobby" car (which is not the same thing) please add them to the article or be so kind as point them out to me if they’re already there.


 * You say that I "seem to disagree that this vehicle is NOT best described as 'collector' automobile [sic]". In this instance I presume you actually mean the opposite of what your wrote, i.e. that I disagree that the Pacer IS best described as a "collector automobile".  Yet again, incorrect. (Is there no end to these groundless accusations?)  I am, truth be known, undecided.  The Pacer, by reason of its age, falls into the "classic car" category (if one defines "classic car" solely by age).  But how many "collectors" have to collect a particular model before it can legitimately claim the "collector car" sobriquet?  Is one sufficient? If not, then how many?


 * In the interests of accuracy, but unfortunately to your evident displeasure, I deleted from the Pacer article the so far unsubstantiated claim that the insurance man owned a collection of vehicles. And now you (1) concede that "it is true that the citations make no mention of" him owning a collection, and (2) substitute an alternative argument, viz. that he owns the Pacer as a "collector car".  If the man is not a collector and he buys a Pacer, does that in itself justify describing the Pacer as a "collector car"?  I think not — although it may, nevertheless, be a "collector car". If a reliable source can be found that says a well-known old-car expert and collector — Jay Leno, say, or some such — has a Pacer in his collection (maybe Leno does?), I’m inclined to think that that might be persuasive, even though opinion is divided as to the definition of a "collector car" just as deeply as it is on what constitutes a "classic car."


 * Incidentally on a 2001 episode of the Tonight Show Leno did actually refer to the rusty Pacer once owned by a guest as "a fine collector automobile". Unfortunately for us Pacerheads, Leno’s chuckles showed that the accolade was ironic. Which, coming from the owner of one of the world’s most valuable vehicle collections, brings me down slightly, but not heavily, on the side of the Pacer not being sufficiently desirable to lay legitimate claim to the "collector" descriptor — at least not a claim so absolute and universally recognized as cars of the caliber of, say, Leno’s Duesenberg Speedster.


 * On reflection, it occurs to me that English might not be your native tongue, in which case your otherwise inexplicable litany of accusations and objections may arise at least partially from repeated misunderstandings of the English language?


 * I note you "once again" thank me for my thoughts. You’re welcome. Writegeist (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have used almost 1,300 words just to conclude with a belittling of me because of language skills or word choice. I would like to note that this is listed under Wikipedia Guidelines as engaging in incivility. Please familiarize yourself with the policies in Civility. It seems that you like to use the term "utter nonsense" in your comments to edits. I hope you enjoy receiving the same as well! Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My mention of your evident problems in comprehending the subtleties of the English language was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I do not belittle you. Even if I wanted to, I doubt I could make as good a job of it as you do, given your attitude. I note your request re WP policies. I also note that, in your idiosyncratic manner, you usually interpret them -- in relation to my contributions, at any rate -- erroneously and with prejudice, the latter usually arising from resentment at (a) frustration of your mission to spread AMC propaganda throughout WP (Jeez, did you work for them or what?) and (b) embarrassment when your more egregious editing errors are corrected after you have foolishly (and inexplicably) accompanied them with self-important edit summaries (your recent effort, as erroneous as it was sniffy, re. an accurate contribution about the Kamm BMW--which, please note, is now corroborated by two official BMW sources--is just the latest of numerous examples, which rather justifies my impatient response to it. (Whereas your reproach to me for linking a word in a section heading was just plain silly, coming as it did from a grizzled 2-year Wikipedia veteran to a newbie.)


 * As for the offer of the lesson in civility: you're always quick to draw other editors' attention to WP policies and guidelines, I've noticed; yet the record shows that you pay scant heed to them yourself, including WP:Civility. Why is that?


 * "Enjoy"? Sorry to dash your hopes, but it gives me neither pleasure nor displeasure. However I am quite enjoying this correspondence, as I'm sure you are!


 * I note that you thank me yet again. You're welcome. Any time. Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The following moved here from my talk page as it continues the discussion above. Writegeist (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * === Your contributions ===
 * Most automobile-related articles are written by various, often emotion-driven authors — just like yourself — and much of the material in these articles often borders on original research or they lack a neutral point of view, with the vast majority of the statements lacking references. Perhaps you have not read many other Wikipedia articles about individual makes and models (other than the few to which you have contributed), but many are accompanied by platitudes and peacock terms.


 * It is curious that you should write about a "mission to spread AMC propaganda throughout WP" and then you go on to make the allegation: "Jeez, did you work for them or what?" The answer to both of these accusations is no. All you need to do is examine my WP history, as well as the count of my WP edits. The two that I have most frequently edited (so far) in WP are the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Camaro articles. If you think that contributing anything to American Motors articles is spreading propaganda, then please take a close look at the countless automobile articles written by what I think are fanatical enthusiasts of their favorite make and model. The popular sports cars, high-performance, and many European automobiles appear to contain the most puffery. Examples include the BMW X3, Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, and Range Rover articles. They seem to have been written the automaker's marketing department, yet most do not have the "advertising" or "unreferenced" tag. Wikipedia articles about AMC-related information are not "propaganda" — they present referenced and neutral point of view. They have been developed over time by a number of different contributors, each possessing a broad range of knowledge or expertise.


 * May I remind you once again that demeaning contributors is not productive and is against Wikipedia policy. For example, statements you made within the article edit summaries include:
 * ... replace pic just to keep CZmarlin happy ...
 * ... rem extraneous material and usual AMC cuckoos from the nest, ...
 * ... edit summary utter nonsense, yet again misunderstands English ...
 * Your comments concerning your edits to existing articles that were developed by others do not meet the Wikipedia guideline to treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project. Likewise the material you have written on my talk page includes personal attacks, which are also not allowed. In short, please exhibit more civility in your contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Thank you! — CZmarlin (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your: ". . . emotion-driven authors — just like yourself. . ." Cool as a cucumber compared with you, buddy! (Vide yr. contributions above.)


 * My: ". . . did you work for them?" You missed the irony. (You always do.) I was repeating to you the uncivil and deliberately offensive remark you made to another editor in your summary re. his attempt to inveigle into an article a make of car other than an AMC, namely: removed "(including the new Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class) " do you work for Mercedes? Are there no more examples?).


 * Your: "Wikipedia articles about AMC-related information are not "propaganda . . . " They are when you object to, and try to suppress, any information that does not support your unremittingly rosy view of AMC and their products.


 * Your: "neutral point of view" -- ha, ha. (See above.)


 * My: "replace pic just to keep CZmarlin happy". It's a shame that apparently it didn't keep you happy. I thought it would.


 * My: "rem extraneous . . . nest". Metaphor perhaps unfamiliar to you?


 * Your: ". . . your edits to existing articles that were developed by others do not meet the Wikipedia guideline to treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project." Back at you. Vide your remarks in summaries re. others' contributions, e.g. your "Edit the fawning last paragraph about the Afla [sic] Romeo" in the Kammback article.


 * Your: "If you think that contributing anything to American Motors articles is spreading propaganda. . . " I am sorry you did not understand that a "mission to spread AMC propaganda throughout WP" -- which is what I wrote -- is  not the same as "contributing to American Motors articles". I was referring to your habit of adding heaps of irrelevant AMC details to articles on non-manufacturer- and non-model specific subjects -- i.e. shamelessly promoting AMC history, designers, vehicles etc. (and even your own AMC vehicles) at every opportunity outside AMC-specific articles (i.e. spreading AMC propaganda).


 * Etc., etc.


 * You repeatedly distort and misrepresent what I write, as I have repeatedly had to demonstrate. (See entire foregoing discussion. See also, since you're always so ready to tell others to comply with WP guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines/Behaviour that is unacceptable/Do not misrepresent other people.) Please desist.


 * If you tried to throw your weight around a little less, if you stopped peppering articles with AMC stuff that doesn't belong there, and if you also practised what you're oh so quick to preach, you might have less reason to fear that you're being disrespected?


 * May you enjoy making more valuable contributions to Wikipedia and treating others as you yourself wish to be treated—with respect. Meanwhile I shall try to moderate my responses to your frequent, and even sometimes determinedly enforced, errors (errors which, for example, you enforce by reverting other people's edits where they have already corrected them).


 * You sure know how to try a fellow's patience. Here endeth my engagement in this discussion with you. Writegeist (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sedan talk page
It's a case of WP:CSD. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (diff) 17:03, 15 March 2008 . . Matthead (Talk | contribs | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page)
 * 2) (diff) 17:02, 15 March 2008 . . Matthead (Talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (moved Talk:Sedan to Talk:Sedan (car): too US-centric)

Convertible Windblocker section
I wrote the section on windblockers today -- and saw your ADVERTISEMENT citation... the section reads like an advertisement for what? Can you be specific? Thanks. 842U (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1962 Rambler ChampionPlug MobilEconRun AD.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:1962 Rambler ChampionPlug MobilEconRun AD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not important distinctions?
I won't argue formatting or spelling mistakes. Halibrand I've seen spelled both ways, & it was originally 1 "l". "Fullbore" POV? Look at the photo & tell me it's not. 4-link? Again, look at the photo; it looks like it might. (I'm hoping somebody's seen it, or has better pix, & can correct it if not. I don't recall.) And I'm pretty sure that isn't a stock interior for a '32 Bantam. More to the point, the "distinctions" were re the flame jobs: those aren't "classic" styles, they're contemporary, & that needs to be mentioned, which is why I put it in to begin with. We both probably could have been more careful with the changes. Trekphiler (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Eagle Premier and Medallion as a failure
Hi, CZmarlin. You recently removed the premier from the "automobile commercial failures" category. I think the article clearly states that it was a failure: "The introduction of the Dodge Monaco resulted from a contractual obligation to use 260,000 of the PRV (Peugeot, Renault, and Volvo joint venture) V6 engines over the five years as part of the AMC buyout from Renault. However, the Monaco sold poorly, and both it and the Premier were cancelled in 1992. Chrysler tried to aim the Premier against the Ford Taurus, as well as Acura and Volvo models, but the result was that it competed against corresponding Chrysler and Dodge models. Moreover, there was little marketing support for the Premier by the Jeep-Eagle dealers themselves because they were focused on selling the highly successful and more profitable Jeep models. Furthermore, the decision to eventually dual Jeep-Eagle with Chrysler-Plymouth dealers called for the long-term corporate goal of phasing out the Eagle brand. There were 139,051 Premiers and Monacos built at Bramalea. Reportedly, Chrysler paid a penalty for every V6 engine not purchased (120,949) from Renault." Same for the Medallion: "While reviews were initially favorable, the Medallion had a poor launch into the North American market because of AMC's limited marketing resources and persistent industry rumors of problems and Chrysler's takeover of the company, which overshadowed the Medallion's introduction. Therefore, the car never sold well. Although it was a solid entry in a highly competitive market segment, Chrysler decided to cease importing this model from Renault at the end of the 1989 model year. Robert Lutz, the head of the Chrysler Corporation at the time, said in his 2003 book "Guts" that the Medallion, and its larger line mate, the Premier were "salesproof" in that no matter how attractive and competitive the cars were, customers in large enough number to ensure success just wouldn't take notice. In reality, the imported Medallion competed with Chrysler's domestic Dodge, Plymouth, and Chrysler models, which may have resulted in a lack of enthusiasm within the company for marketing the Medallion - and the Premier - properly." The Encyclopedia of American Cars by The Auto Editors of Consumer Guide also considers both cars a big flop, so i don't really see what's so strange with including them in the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzinger Z (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

SUV page
What is wrong with dwilso??? Why would he/she change the images back to crossover SUVs, especially the main image? Is he/she not aware that they have their own page? Before an edit war occurs, what do you think should be done? Plasticboob (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that the problem has been rectified after a few edits to take out the images of crossover (automobiles on the sport utility vehicle article, as well as the notices on Dwilso's talk page! — 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam Links in 'Trunk'?
Evening CZmarlin. Learning by doing here, but I think your definition spamlinks was a bit heavy- all I was trying to do was show the reader what these things look like without going to a builders merchants and garden centre and photographing every estate car I saw to illustrate this point-so I dug out a manufacturer's web site where they had their own pictures...is the etiquette problem one of not having a text explanation of the link along the lines of 'illustration of typical product may be seen ..name..'? Or is it more a problem with linking to photos that are not from commons? I need your thoughts on this so we can develop this and other articles without getting into a row. Advice is what I'm after so I don't stumble into problems that I didn't know existed, so all advice gratefully received for this (relative) newbie  Graumicchie (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, the links you added do relate to the subject of the article. However, they fall under the category of "spam" because they promote a company and its products. In Wikipedia, they are referred to as "promotional spam links". Even those links that appear to be free, they are described as spam because they gain money from their banner ads and other links within them. Thus, these links will be deleted from the articles. If you want to show the products in the article, then the best way to illustrate the item is by having a self-made picture of it and posting it in the commons. You don't need pictures of the product from every estate car (station wagon). One is enough to illustrate the item's application in those vehicles. Using a commons image avoids all the problems associated with non-free pictures and "promotional spam links". Please review the guidelines related to Spam that provide more detailed information about this topic. I hope this helps! — CZmarlin (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fastback references
Hi CZmarlin, great that you're intent on adding citations etc. to the article but it appears that those added so far don't actually link to any sources. If this is in error, you might want to correct? If you're just marking where you think citations should go, maybe the tag should be reinstated until they appear? Cheerio Writegeist (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "missing" links were due to the fact that the article did not have a section for the references. The addition of the  template did the trick for the footnotes to appear on the page. — CZmarlin (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite so. Well done. Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Post Office (Palm Beach, Florida)
Thanks for the pics! I like the one thru the trees and flowers especially, very colorful. If, by chance, you have or can get photos of any of the other historic places in and around Palm Beach, it would be muchly appreciated. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I am glad that you enjoyed the "beauty" picture across the median! I will try to take some more pictures when I am there! CZmarlin (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carburetor_one_barrel_Carter-BBD_on_a_258_CID_AMC_engine.JPG
CZ, couple things: Firstly, the photo doesn't show what you say it shows; you need a new description. In fact, this photo shows a Carter BBD ("Ball & Ball Dual-throat") 2bbl carburetor, which saw wide use on Chrysler and AMC products. AMC didn't use the BBS ("Ball & Ball Single-throat") on the 258. They used the Holley 1931 and the Carter RBS ("Remote Bowl Single-throat"). Secondly, could you please give this image a much shorter, more tractable name? This what you've named it is like eBay's three-mile-long URLs. You needn't try to incorporate a whackload of keywords into the image title; images are easily and successfully searchable without this sort of diddling. This kind of lengthy title really makes a damnuisance when trying to incorporate the image into an article. A photo title really shouldn't need more than three words, four tops. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the problems, and thank you for fixing the article to show image a simple carb. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out my mistakes with a duplicate on the Wikipedia Commons page. It helps to remind me of my wayward work! Yes, I am absolutely wrong about the one-barrel description, since it is a two-barrel model. Regarding the naming of files, I was using the image on the carburetor article as a template (1961 Ferrari 250 TR 61 Spyder Fantuzzi engine.jpg) that includes eight words, thus giving the image a description of almost everything except the color of the engine and the car! Once again, I am very sorry and thanks again for reminding me of my errors! As a more knowledgeable Wikipedian, I am sure you will now correct and change the name of this image file. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian soccer players Worldwide
You seem to have got the wrong idea about the prod. The aim was not to put them in Category:English expatriate footballers, but to create a new one, i.e. Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players. Do you object to this? If not, could you restore the prod? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, just seen that such a category does exist, rendering the list useless. Are you going to re-prod it? Regards, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear that there is already a list too - Canadian soccer players currently playing abroad. Hence I have redirected the new article to the existing one. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok ... no problem with merging the list to the Canadian footballers, but it sure did it not make any sense to merge the "Canadians" into the "English expatriates" list as was noted on the tag. So many of them were not of English origin. Now there seem to be duplicate pages for the Canadian-related players. Thanks for pointing these out and for clearing up these lists! — CZmarlin (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I wasn't aware that the category already existed, I was just using the English one as an example. Anyway, I've prodded the other list too. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gremlin
Yet again an edit summary from you that misrepresents my contribution in order to justify your deletion of it.

My contribution: The subcompact-sized 1954 Nash Metropolitan, American-conceived and American-designed for the American market, but built under contract in England utilizing a British engine (i.e. a subcompact "captive import"), was arguably "America's first subcompact."

Your edit summary: Remove editorializing and misleading digresssion [sic] about the imported Metropolitan being classified as a "subcompact" car when it was new . (Emphasis added.)

Nowhere did my edit make that statement.

With the best will in the world I cannot assume good faith on the part of an individual who repeatedly edits my work on grounds that are self-evidently spurious (vide our previous communications above). Please refrain from this practice.

Salut! Writegeist (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please quote sources correctly
Cześć! Warm greetings etc. And thank you for your contributions to Hudson Hornet. In this and other articles where you copy opinions verbatim from their sources, it helps if you put the material in quotes (" ") in addition to referencing it. See WP:Citing sources/When quoting someone. You're not alone. I sometimes forget to do this myself! Thank you. Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx for the supersonic reply. In that case it might be best to leave some sort of indication that you're working on the page? Carry on Editor!— Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On the same subject, but this time re. Fastback. Again, please will you kindly accord your citations' authors the courtesy of putting your edit text in quotes (" ") where you quote them verbatim? (And again again, please see WP:Citing sources/When quoting someone.) This well-established practice—which, incidentally, is also the norm in other languages including Polish—also makes it clear that an opinion quoted verbatim is not that of the WP editor (even if it is), which would breach WP:NPOV, but rather of the person whose opinion the WP editor is, er, quoting.


 * To try to make this clear for you:


 * "An early fastback was the Stout Scarab from the 1930s" would not require quotes because (a) it is simply a statement of verifiable fact that can be supported by your cited source, and also because (b) it is not, in this instance, written in the exact same words as those used by the author you cite; whereas "Possibly the epitome of the early fastback definition was found on the exceptional Stout Scarab from the early 1930s" is a statement of two opinions held by your cited author, repeated by you in his exact words, and therefore requiring quotes.


 * I hope this helps. Really. — Writegeist (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollo Energy Systems - Electrosport
I noticed your great work on Electrosport and was hoping you could help with the sources you have to improve Apollo Energy Systems. They are the successor company to the Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation, and would seem to be very notable for their history. Since many of your sources for that article are not available online, I was hoping you could add to the article. Thanks. Jim Miller (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Date format changes
There has been a change in the consensus view on linking of dates (see WP:CONTEXT). Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.

Since autoformatting benefits only a small number of users and it's a distraction for most readers, I'm unlinking dates whenever I'm making other improvements to articles. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Angle boy
Hi. I had to decline this speedy. If the discography is correct, then this person is notable. The article still has problems, though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "artist" or any associated discography by someone named "Angle boy" or a "Anders Pederson" from Copenhagen in any Internet search. This is unusual because the article claims they are the author of "chart-topping hits over so many decades! CZmarlin (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. There's no doubt that the article was vandalism. Still, I have to referee the tag that's there. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ponton
Your revision re. “ponton”, as with your revision re. Gaz M20 Pobeda, is erroneous. “Ponton”, as an automotive term, is indeed coupled almost exclusively to a particular series of Mercedes-Benz cars.

E.g. Google returns the following hits:


 * 98,000 for Mercedes-Benz + ponton, random samples of which return no use of the word in relation to any other car
 * 11,199 for “Mercedes-Benz ponton”
 * 4,540 for “Mercedes-Benz 180 ponton”
 * 1,350 for “Mercedes-Benz 190 ponton”
 * 1,530 for “Mercedes-Benz 220S ponton”
 * 959 for “Mercedes-Benz ponton”
 * 123 for “Opel ponton”, all of which are in foreign languages
 * 0 for “DKW ponton”
 * 1 for “Borgward ponton” – on the German eBay site
 * 8 for “Warszawa ponton”, none of which refer to the car
 * 0 for “Gaz M20 Pobeda ponton”.

Obviously "ponton" is used overwhelmingly in relation to the MB series. (Yes, once in relation to a Borgward, but on a German site written in German. This site is, ahem, in English. More or less.)

The Wiki Ponton (automobile) article’s inference that the word has a generic automotive meaning is flat-out wrong and should be corrected.

I shall undo your wrong-headed wrevision.

Cheerio then. — Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding Prof. Tumminelli's reference to "the so-called Ponton Side Design" etc. in his book Car Design. Googling "Ponton Side Design" returns a grand total of one hit -- from, er, Car Design, by one Prof. Tumminelli. So although it is altogether reasonable to include in the article a reference to the roundy, slab-sided shape as "the so-called Ponton Side Design", do you not think it is somewhat misleading to omit the fact that Prof. Tumminelli is the sole verifiable source by whom "Ponton Side Design" is, in fact, "so-called"?


 * Your edit summary loudly protesting that Mercedes-Benz did not invent the style, and that theirs were not the only cars that exemplified it etc., somewhat mystifies. Of course they did not, and were not. Did the article say that they were, or that they did? Don Quixote Syndrome? ¡Buena suerte! — Writegeist (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What "wrong-headed wrevision (sic)"? What "Don Quixote Syndrome"? Is this a way to describe fellow contributors? Please note that there are many sources that use "ponton" to describe an automobile design to this day.
 * Moreover, a sophomoric reliance on Internet search engines is not a substitute for accurate research. For example, the term “Earth is flat” using Google returns about 53,800,000 hits. However, there are only about 18,300,000 hits for the “earth is round” and just 3,070,000 for the “earth is sphere.” Based on this logic, you would change the Wikipedia description of Earth?
 * Auf Wiedersehen — CZmarlin (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "ponton" term has a generic automotive meaning and it is not exclusively related to some Mercedes-Benz cars. Your edit summaries in the fastback article that I was as "wrong-headed" and that "this body style term is inextricably associated with Mercedes-Benz cars" further underscoring (through a second revert) that it applies "almost exclusively to MB" all speak loudly enough about your bias toward the exclusive use of the "ponton" term. Moreover, I did not put into the article the image of the Warszawa automobile and label it a Gaz. That was some other editor. I would suggest a relaxing cup of herbal tea! Besides, as you have now noted in the sobriquet article, ponton is just a nickname for some M-B models! Au revoir — CZmarlin (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The "wrevision" in "wrong-headed wrevision" was a little joke which you didn’t get. You never do. (:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the curious "flat earth" non-sequitur, as one might skirt around something smelly on the sidewalk...

I have shown that the word "Ponton" is commonly appended to "Mercedes-Benz" in the English language (amusing that not one of the three words is English) to denote a particular model style, and that it is not appended likewise to any other marques that I have found in my searches.

Like it or not, it is clear that in the English-speaking world the word "Ponton", when used in an automotive context, most notably now refers to those particular models of Mercedes-Benz. My argument is not, and never was, that MB was first with the design, or its only exponent; or that Ponton was a model name. It is that (1) in contemporary English, in an automotive context "ponton" most commonly refers to the MB version of the style, and (2) MB is the only marque name to which "ponton" or "Ponton" is commonly appended to denote a set of particular models.

The fact that you think "sobriquet" has exactly the same meaning as "nickname" underlines once again the difficulty you have with English (and now also French!) nuances. I hope you will continue to let me help you in this respect. However, English translations might be available through WP to contributors who find it easier to write in their own language?

As to the herbal tea: thanks but if, as you have now given me reason to suspect, that’s what’s responsible for your misunderstandings and/or the Don Quixote syndrome, I’d really rather not!

سلام ياصحب — Writegeist (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Car dealerships in the USA
Hi CZmarlin

Thanks for the feed back.

All the other external links are clearly commercial. In fact all the links blatantly include advertising (even google add words).

My addition is clearly not ..

In fact, when I asked Discospinster to reconsider his deletion he agreed with me and undid it. But then you came right back again and deleted all over again.

It's clearly not commercial and is in fact very germane (closely or significantly related; relevant; pertinent) and adds value to the article.

I'm new to wikipedia. Can I appeal your actions?

Thanks (Estampe123 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Estampe123! I appreciate your comments about some of the the external links in the car dealerships in the USA article. Thanks for pointing out their problems. It seems that they were not checked after some contributor(s) added them. They do not meet the guidelines and have now been deleted, per WP:ELNO.
 * There is a difference between sites that should be linked (see: WP:ELYES) and your contribution which lists specialized office forms and supplies an auto dealership should have to run their business, that you also sell. Although it is not a direct link to your company's web page (which I will not note, but I have checked it and you are located in Manassas, Virginia) the indirect link that you have provided via an article in Google's Knol system of "ownership" of articles is still spam. Wikipedia specifically identifies that: [a]dding 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. Moreover, [a]dding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. There is fine line to follow in Wikipedia!
 * I hope this helps in explaining the situation with the reverts. I have noted the problem with the external link on Discospinster's talk page. I trust that you will continue to share your knowledge within Wikipedia! Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Estampe Auto Dealer Supplies
Sorry, I didn't realize Knol had a whiff of the spam about it. I thought is was something along the same lines as Wikipedia. ... disco spinster   talk  12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Car Dealership Article
Hi CZmartin,

I can now see your point completely. I'd heard about what an amazing project wikipedia was because of it's dedicated and intelligent editors. After this interaction with you I can see that's true. I'd created an account some time ago but never really studied WP. When I took a minute to study it last night I was shocked to see the 'Car Dealership' articles containing links to competitors. My postings were a kind of knee jerk reaction. As you can imagine, the ecommerce universe of 'Car Dealerships'is VERY competitive. In fact this whole article is from a major competitor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_and_Reynolds. But I respect and understand what you're doing with WP and appreciate the time you took explaining things to me. ( you're right we do have an office in Manassas. But I've a home office and PO Box in Centreville. I verified using my business phone in Centreville) Thanks again, (Estampe123 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Nice Mustang update
Hi, I like your recent to the 2nd-generation summary on the Ford Mustang page. Much nicer than the 2006 review someone had quoted that painted a very negative portrait of what was actually a nice little car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachmeyer (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zachmeyer! The summary overview of the Ford Mustang should be just the main points about the various generations. That is why I had to go in again and move the very specific reviews and discussion about the second-generation models from the Mustang II overview (|see here). There are many articles and books bout each of the Mustang's generations and those should be included in the appropriate articles. However, the objective of the main article is to present the reader a history of each model. At the time, the Mustang II was quite a popular car. Given today's hindsight, some may consider it "lamentable" and that should be described in a "reviews" section within the second-generation Ford Mustang article. If every section in the overall history was expanded with such contributions, then the article would bloat up again and what purpose would the generation articles serve? Moreover, getting the individual details could be too specific! For comparison, is interesting to note that the Honda Accord only has a brief unreferenced mention of the rust problems of the early models. Everything else about those cars seems to be described in glowing terms. Yet, the truth is that those cars did not last very long and were subject to recalls. However, I don't see the inclusion of the details and paragraphs of "hindsight" reviews, as was in the case of the Mustang II. — CZmarlin (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

pony car
I agree the Camaro could be considered a pony car, but I do not feel like the term "pony car" is objective and encyclopedic. This being the case, I don't think the term should be used to describe any vehicle here on Wikipedia. I group "pony car" into the same group as "hot hatch" and "supercar" terminology and those have definitely been discussed before about not using them. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "pony car" is a well defined class of vehicles. There are many references to the definition of "pony car" in reliable sources. The pony car market segment is "an expressly American creation" (Roy, Rex. "Car culture: A child's Pony Car education essential" The Detroit News, February 27, 2008) and consists of a limited number of models (the Mustang, Cougar, Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda, Challenger, and Javelin according to John Gunnell in the book "American Cars of The 1960s: A Decade of Diversity" published by Krause Publications, in 2005 pages 47-50). Therefore, there is no debate as to this class of vehicles. This is not the case as with the open ended (and undefined) "hot hatch" and "supercar" terms. Moreover, the following are just a small sample of books that provide the definition that the Camaro is a pony car: "Camaro" by Holder and Kunz, "The Story of Camaro" by John Gunnell, "Big Book of Camaro Data, 1967-1973" by J. Hooper,  "Camaro, 1967-2000" by Peter Sessler, "Camaro" by Anthony Young, etc. Furthermore, the classification of the Camaro (and the other pony cars) as sports cars is a major stretch. Not only did all of the pony cars originate from rudimentary economy car platforms, but the vast majority of them were sold in economical six-cylinder and small V8 engine versions, without any real performance other than their styling. I hope this helps explain the difference of the limited number of models in the "pony car" class compared with the broader, as well as debatable, "sports car", "supercar", or  "hot hatch" classifications. — CZmarlin (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree the Camaro is a pony car and I agree on the definition of what a pony car is. My argument against using it is due to the term not being a legitimate car class. If anything, it's a marketing term made up by car manufacturers to make consumers feel like the vehicle they are getting is unique. This is much in the same way BMW use SAV (sport activity vehicle) or, to a less extent, CUV. Can you find a reference used back in 1966 that calls these vehicles "pony cars"? Is this the same case as, say, a Honda CR-V that was always known as a small SUV until recently when CUV became a popular term for manufacturers to throw around? And then there's the actual pony car article. Is there a single non-biased source listed there that is not directly connected to the term "pony car"? Can you find that term listed by a reputable source that defines all classes of vehicles such as the EPA or DOT? Are you able to understand why I have this argument?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of additional comments. Of course you're going to get citations of a pony car class when you're citing things like a book called "Camaro" and "The Plymouth Barracuda: First Pony Car". That's like saying writing "AIDS doesn't exist" in the AIDS article and then citing a AIDS denialist book. The sources are catered to the subject. This kind of stuff is outlined in policies such as WP:COI and WP:RS.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another agency I just thought of that defines vehicle classes, insurance agencies, a group that must define well beyond a couple of cars. Both my 1993 and 2002 Camaros are defined as "sports cars" (so is my S2000, but whatever).  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a marketing term, but it was applied in describing this market segment by numerous reputable sources from its onset. Of course, the EPA and DOT were not established at that time, thus it is impossible to have them "define" this class of vehicle retroactively. Today's pony car ancestors are all lumped in with more generic automobile classifications. In summary, I do not think that pony cars belong in the "sports car" classification. Moreover, the "sports" term has been depreciated and is currently used to classify almost anything: sedans, station wagons, ragtops, the now infamous SUVs, etc. — CZmarlin (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't chimed in here in a while. It's not due to a lack of interest. Just a lack of time. I also saw your revert today. Just going through different resources, I could find numerous sources that state the vehicle is a muscle car, a sports car, a pony car, and whatever else car you could think of. Most newer publications refer to the Camaro (especially in a comparison with Mustang and Challenger) as a muscle car. Basically, the whole subject is pretty subjective. Would you agree? roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the terms are subjective since there are no "real" or official definitions. Nevertheless, it is difficult to justify using "muscle" to describe cars that came with economical engines. Over the years, the bulk of pony car sales were with the standard six or V8 engines, and not the high performance "big block" versions that are sought after today. The second generation Mustang was based on the Ford Pinto with no "muscle" while the third-generation Camaro came with a 2.5 L I4 engine that generated a "heart-pounding" 88 hp. The reason is simple, buyers wanted to buy the sporty image, not necessarily the real muscle. Of course, the contemporary "revival" pony car models are all about BS (Boastful Superlatives) as marketers try to out-muscle the competition. The automotive press is perhaps the worst offender in this practice. They write articles adding even more BS to describe the new cars and thus earn credits from the hands that feed them. These "hands" includes the automakers, as well as customers and fans who have an insatiable apetite for BS to describe their favorite cars. In summary, "pony car" is the most appropriate description for the Camaro. This term covers the historic original, as well as the new models. CZmarlin (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey CZ. Looks like we're on this discussion again. Would appreciate it if you could check out my recent comments on Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation) and give some feedback. Sorry if I'm having a hard time dealing with Bite's comments, but his thoughts are so unorganized and emotion filled that I'm having a hard time staying organized myself. Whatever the case and even though we might not see eye to eye on this one, I enjoy discussing with you. Thanks. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Roguegeek: Thanks for your input! I am still not sure what the problem with defining the Camaro as a "pony car"! This is because fully 100% of Camaros that have ben built are pony cars. However, only a small percentage of Camaros produced could be classified as "muscle". Therefore, if "muscle car" and "sports car" are listed for the Camaro (not just "pony car"), then the "compact car" (as well as "economy car") should also be included!  — CZmarlin (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually have zero problem defining it as a pony car. You've clearly done enough research and cited enough sources for it to be a pony car. Honestly, anyone who knows cars doesn't even need to question this one. Help me out here. Can you very briefly give me bullet points for each?
 * (ie. A pony car is a pony car because of this, this, and this. A muscle car is a muscle car because of this, this, and this.)
 * Thanks. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Differentiate please
Please differentiate myjeepxj.com from the other websites that are listed in the jeep cherokee listing. Some of those links go directly to a sales site. Myjeepxj.com is directly related to Jeep Cherokees and is not selling anything. It has lots of helpful information. If you are going to remove my site every time I add it then I would appreciate an equal discrimination of the other sites. Myjeepxj Dec 20 2:40am