User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2009

AMC (and other automobile) photos
Dear Chris, As I already left you a brief message at Wikimedia Commons, I'd only like to say that it'd be great for me to have your photos and possibly some texts at a webpage I am currently developing - dyfer.pl Please, contact me at ps@dyfer.pl Regards, Pawel Swiader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.167.66 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

new to wiki, what was the violation?
Hello, I am new to wikipedia, I added few addition for Jeep pages containing links to extra information that was not listed, mainly a flash 360 models for interior and exterior for models Liberty, Commander, Wrangler, Compass. This 360 was not found in the article and i see it is a value addition.

I see you deleted it so can you guide me for the reason of deleting my addition? Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic

thanks AutoXross (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your inquiry, but your attempts to add a spam link have been removed. The link provided by you (jeepegypt) is not to the Jeep's official site. There are also issues with this external Web page carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. These kinds of links must be avoided. Linking to a page that does not have authorization from the owners of the images sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of SUVs
Hi, you rolled back my change [], with "how do you park further onto pavement? on kerb?"

You place more of your vehicle over the pavement, like this []. Now we in Bristol Traffic are the first to admit our dataset is self-selecting, but I shall seek out a photograph next week showing a VW toureg parked next to a mini cooper, showing how much further on the pavement the touareg has to go so ensure its bodywork is aligned with those of the super-mini. The point being, that in an EU city, you don't want to stick out into the road, so its pedestrians that end off worse.

To be fair, SmartCars are in the database too: [], just less often. SteveLoughran (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Esuvee
Thanks for your recent work on Esuvee. As you may have noticed, I very nearly made a complete fool of myself yesterday by deleting and AfD-ing the article based on a misapprehension (and a poor edit by an IP numbered editor) so I am delighted to see that someone is taking the article in hand and updating it. If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ermmmmmmmm
would you mind posting incorrect, private and confidential info about billie ray martin on this website? we are taking legal action against wiki for having this on there. it's not even correct. anton smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doesigewebsite (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tire Bead
In your contribution to the article, "Tire", in the paragraph, "Bead",

"The width of the rim in relationship to the tire are a factor in the handling characteristics of an automobile because the rim supports the tire's profile."

Can one personalize his/her rim-tire ratio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.113.108 (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Eagle Summit
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I changed the disambiguation link back to Eagle Summit (Alaska) on the Eagle Summit article. You're absolutely right about there being tons of mountains named Eagle Mountain, but there's only one that has the offical name of Eagle Summit, which is why I specifically picked that one. If you think it's necessary, I think a combo disambiguation might be better -- directing to both Eagle Summit and Eagle Mountain. Let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Durango platform
Are you sure the current Grand Cherokee and Commander aren't Durango-based? I'd thought they were. Do you have a ref?

Also, I'm pretty sure the current Dakota/Raider is just a facelift of the original 1997 Dakota, related to the 1st-gen Durango but not the 2nd. Do you have a ref countering that, too? IFCAR (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Grand Cherokee/Commander are a unibody (Monocoque) architecture, while the Dakota, Dakota/Durango are a body-on-frame construction. These are separate platforms. See slide #9 in the presentation by Tom LaSorda, President and CEO - Chrysler Group to the Automotive Analysts of New York, on January 12, 2006 click here. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The answers about the Jeeps, but it also seems to suggest that the Dakota/Raider and Durango/Aspen are on separate platforms -- the Dakota's likely being the original Durango's. Do you have something that says otherwise on that? IFCAR (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Below are some of the Chrysler codes for platforms:
 * AN- Dakota 1st gen (-1996), 2nd gen (1997-2004)
 * DN- Durango 1st gen (1998-2003)
 * HB- Durango 2nd gen (2004-up)
 * HC- Durango 3rd gen (code reassigned to WD)
 * HD- Durango future gen (reassigned to?)
 * HG- Aspen 1st gen (2007-up)
 * HH- Aspen 2nd gen (vehicle cancelled, see "WC")
 * ND- Dakota (3rd gen, 2005-up)
 * NE- Dakota (4th gen, 2014-up?)
 * NM- MMC Raider (2006; 2008)
 * WC- Aspen (2nd gen, vehicle cancelled)
 * WD- Durango (3rd gen, 2012-up)
 * Note that the Aspen, HG-platform, and the Durango, HB-platform are the same. This list is extracted from the "Platform/Body Codes List" on the Allpar.com pages. I hope this helps! CZmarlin (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't say "the second-generation Durango is on the same platform as the second-generation Dakota." It doesn't help that Chrysler has different platform codes for clones, unlike GM. IFCAR (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing! I found this article, but I will check the issues of Automotive News for specific information. This will take some time because there are many other things that are on my "to do" list! Updating Wikipedia is not a priority! CZmarlin (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

my images
Hello- Do all images in article have to be thumb with captions? also I've see most auto articles with 250 px images throught, default images are small. How does the default size work? Thanks. (Vegavairbob)Vegavairbob (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain
Please refrain from misrepresenting my contributions, as you did once again here. It’s getting tiresome. (I replied to your offending post here).

I have asked you to desist from this practice several times before. Please do so. And please note WP:Civil: Lies, including 'deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.'  (My emphasis.) Thx. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC

Sedans
Sorry. didn't know spaces not preferred. I will not postion subsection text to line up with images again. It was only done here. I would like my image inserted under or above Opel sedan however, as it matches description of article and a small US 2-door sedan is not featured and none from 70's era. (Opel-60's German made) Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk))

Hello
2000 pages. wow. What are some of the pages you created? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Hello
As I think you created the image file in question, you might like to take a peek at Reference_desk/Humanities Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. It is a picture of a post-war Nash "Slipstream" Ambassador 4-door sedan that I took at a car show. There is more information on these cars here, but it is NOT a Cadillac! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler timeline
Is there any reason why you undid my revision on the Chrysler timeline. Not trying to go into an edit war here. I am just wanting to know why. The reason why I changed it is because that title "DaimlerChrysler AG" seemed to better oriented with the Daimler side of the company and the Chrysler side had a more meaningful title of which I provided. Now if you explain why the title I provided wasn't appropriate then I could relent to what your saying. Heegoop, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. This is not the case of which side had a more meaningful name, but what was the official name of the German company's U.S. operations. Moreover, "DaimlerChrysler Corporation" (translated from DaimlerChrysler AG) appears on vehicle tags as the manufacturer, not "DaimlerChrysler Motors Company" - or even as they were generally referred to as the "Chrysler Group". I hope this helps explain why the encyclopedia article about Chrysler should have the name linked to its former parent. — CZmarlin (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler vandalism revert
Hey, on July 9th you reverted a change at the Chrysler article, identifying it as vandalism. It wasn't, as apparently Old Carco LLC is, in fact, the new name for the former Chrysler LLC in the court documents regarding the wind down of its operations since its major assets were transferred to the newly formed Chrysler Group LLC as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. I don't know if the new name of the company, which no longer has any bearing on the operations of Chrysler, is relevant to the article, but I just wanted to let you know that it isn't actually vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for straightening out this name changing! It was hard to follow. I get it now: the "dead assets" of the old company are Old Carco LLC while the new arm of Fiat is called Chrysler Group LLC. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Deco illustration
re: Art Deco:

I restored the image you reverted - note that there are no similar images in the article, and such details are intrinsic to the style. I would hope that this kind of detail image will help people to open their eyes and look around when they are inside such buildings.

Best wishes,

Leonard G. (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an image of a nude girl in "Art Deco style" without even mentioning the author/photographer. There are plenty of items that have much greater significance and are "real" Art Deco by historically authentic artists that are discussed in the article. This is mere eye candy that does not fit the objectives of an encyclopedia. I hope this explains why the image should not be included in this article. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FABULOUS CAR WONDERFULL ,, THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE STOPPED MAKING THIS VEHICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.244.209 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Concord
Are you by any chance still at Concord Univ? If so, please respond on my talk page.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We were there yesterday and dropped off my son. He's a freshman doing orientation right now. Were you a professor there or what?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Braking
Toyota Prius has much shorter braking distance than Lincoln Town Car, Ford Crown Victoria, and Mercury Grand Marquis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop your changes to the Lincoln article. Please also read the cite for the sentence you are editing the meaning. The reference states: Braking short and stable for a heavyweight... In short, the big Lincoln has been rated well in its category. Moreover, it is rather pointless to compare the Lincoln and the other full-sized sedans with the much smaller Prius because they are in dramatically different target markets and vehicle classifications. Similarly, there are many vehicles that can stop in less distance than a Prius. Thus, you would not describe the Prius' braking as poor, simply because any Ferrari or Porsche has vastly better braking performance much that of the Toyota. — Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Prius can stop in less distance than the any other vehicles, because Prius has front wheel drive, full hybrid and Atkinson cycle engine. 220.210.152.57 (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Smaller cars have much better braking performance (much shorter braking distance) than larger cars and hybrids have much better braking performance (much shorter braking distance) than non-hybrids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Top speed
Prius gets slower top speed due to full hybrid and front wheel drive system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari Enzo vs. Maserati MC12
Maserati MC12 has less drag coefficient but lower top speed than Ferrari Enzo due to engine rating. Maserati MC12 has sharper nose and smoother curves than Ferrari Enzo. Maserati MC12 is longer and wider than Ferrari Enzo. Maserati MC12 is larger with less drag coefficient than Ferrari Enzo, but Ferrari Enzo has faster acceleration, better braking performance and higher top speed. Maserati MC12 has more fuel capacity, but Ferrari Enzo has more fuel consumption. 220.210.152.57 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Prius is the safest
Toyota Prius gets lower top speed (only 110mph) and better braking performance (shorter braking distance) due to small full hybrid front wheel drive. Prius didn't get fatal accident due to Prius' crash speed is slow. If you want to save fuel and reduce car crash, please drive Prius and whose speed get slow down. Prius, just slow. 220.210.152.57 (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Luxury goods: challenging your one sided decision to delete the luxury watch brand names!
I do not understand your attitude: there are numerous luury goods brand names cited. Why on earth citing the few luxuy watch brands should be unnecessary. Under this optic, you can suppress all brand names!

IMHO, those reputed watch brands do not need more reference than their own wiki articles. But if you should really insist, additional references are available.

I challenge your one sided decision and would kindly ask you to revise it and cancel your deletion.

Best regards

claude (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Claude: Thanks for adding the list of "luxury" watch brands in the article about luxury good]s]. However, I removed it because it was more spam, than useful information. This is following the guidelines explained here: [[Wikipedia:Spam. Although some "luxury" brands are mentioned in the article, there is a reasonable limit to the number of examples that are needed to illustrate the topic. Using your reasoning, "why on earth" should you stop at listing of all the names of "luxury" watches? You should also include lists of brands in all the other luxury product segments! This would include automobiles, wines, bottled waters, teas, chocolates, (some of the categories given in the article), as well as "luxury" services such as hotels, restaurants, private banking firms, etc. I hope you understand the problem in accommodating every brand name of so-called luxury goods into this article. The objective is to define the general category that will educate a reader, and not to make a shopping list of brand names in a select category such as watches. In short, what makes a list of expensive watches special, in contrast to other expensive products? There is nothing to define this product as superior to other types of goods and their associated brand names. Perhaps the only "luxury" of all of these brands is the perception among consumers that is carefully marketed through continual targeted advertising. However, Wikipedia specifically prohibits this type of promotion. Thanks for your consideration — CZmarlin (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I now understand your considerations and accept your decision. BTW the luxury brands mentioned and accepted in the article do not function in any other way as the few real luxury watch brands (perception based on heavy advertising). One could also similarly query their justification. Perhaps one should delete altogether any brand mention and create a listing of the wordwide luxury brands, vs the *standard* and the "basic" ones :-). I could help in establishing the "watch" side of such articles.

Appreciating your consideration and assistance.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude girardin (talk), as of 19:47, September 22, 2009.


 * Claude: Thanks for your reply and thoughts. There are many articles that need improvement! Many need clean up work and editing that follows the general guidelines established for Wikipedia. Please review the standards and contribute your ideas to help the quality of the articles. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

use of photo
Dear Mr. Marlin:

I see that you have released the below linked photo into the public domain. Per your request, I am leaving this note to notify you that I will be using it in an upcoming article on researching and purchasing cars online. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any objection to this use.

Sincerely,

Jason Parent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.225.243 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to use the images! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles
Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ford Probe external links
Why do you keep editing the Ford Probe page and deleting my contribution ?

We are simply adding our two websites to help anyone in Europe who has a Ford Probe?

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobpool (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the power delete link's that are entered on this site ?

Im trying to help fellow Ford Probe owners but you are denying them the opurtunity to enhance their knowledge of the car.

Did you get bullied at school ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobpool (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments Bobpool. However, please review the guidelines for external links in Wikipedia (see WP:EL. They do not allow links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, as well as any links to pages other than an official page of the article's subject. The links that you have entered in the Ford Probe article also fall under the category of spam. I hope this helps in understanding why they do not belong in the article. CZmarlin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:1951 Nash-Healey PR-photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1951 Nash-Healey PR-photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could indeed be in the public domain. Given the vagaries of US copyright law over the years nearly anything is possible other than Mickey Mouse being free. Someone would need to check the renewal notices to be sure though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very many thanks for confirming that it was indeed in the public domain. Freeing what was thought to be non-free content is by far the best way to resolve things. Again, many thanks. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Corvette
Long engine list in infobox deleted as per your suggestion. will add back a line or two (small block/big block) V8 (Vegavairbob (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC))