User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2013

2.5 l amc motor pic
Can you please include in the description where the pic was taken. I would like to know if it is currently in Kenosha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.211.131 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The pictures of the 2.5 - as well as the 4.0 - engines were taken at the Kenosha History Center (address: 220 51st Place, Kenosha, WI 53140). They were on display in their "Rambler Legacy Gallery". Please contact them for further details (Website). I hope they still have them on exhibit! CZmarlin (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I used your photo for a RENT PARTY poster
Here Susanmbrand (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jo-Han update
I liked the picture and new references placed on the Jo-Han page, but disagree with your changing the format away from parenthetical references. This is a method that Wikipedia supports and formats should not be changed from their original forms, without concurrence of contributing authors (See: Citing sources). I noticed that you added a couple of new references. I would like to change it back to parenthetical referencing adding in the new references. I also have a copy of the Consumer Guide book on modeling. Thanks for your help. Could you please answer on the talk page for Jo-han? Thank you. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed response. I am seeing in-line citations differently now...especially for the longer articles. You say that doing them is relatively easy - they just have always looked like a nightmare on the editing pages.  Perhaps I can start by using one as a template and sort it all out.  I do like the idea that they appear when you roll over them.  I want to add a couple more citations/references to the Jo-Han article - but need to conquer the learning curve on the construction system for the in-line references. How about moving the picture of the Marlin down to the section on AMC? (FYI - I've got a promo Marlin this color that I keep at my office - so it was neat to see it appear here).--Cstevencampbell (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Cstevencampbell: There is a "cite" option on the top ribbon of the window when editing in WP ... at least on my version using Safari on a Mac. It is on the right side and gives you a pull-down menu with four of the most popular templates. A window opens and then it is simply either manual entry or cut and paste of the information needed. I used that for a while until I got the hang of the code and can now enter citations from memory. Another advantage is that you enter the information once. There is no need to scroll down to another area of the article to put in the cite. In summary, as articles expand and referenced information is added, the footnote style is easier to use and follow. Please move the pictures as appropriate. When I find more "spare" time, I would like to upload more images of promos. It is good to know you also have the Marlin promo! It is also interesting about the 1966 versions and how they were given away by AMC dealers at the end of the model year. I tried to add some more cites noting the growth and popularity of the model cars; however, additional referenced information is needed in this article! CZmarlin (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the VW CC a Fastback car?
Hi, I don't see differences between the Audi A5 SPB, the Audi A7 SPB and the VW CC. Could you explain me in what the first two cars differs from the last, please?

--188.218.27.109 (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out these additional badge engineered models! There seem to be no credible references that describe these cars as having true "fastback" designs. They are now removed from the list. There are more cars in this article that need references, but there is not enough time! CZmarlin (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

62 Ambassador photo
Hi Chris-

Used your 62 Ambassador photo on the AMC Rambler Club Facebook page.

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by76.28.62.173 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Corgi Toys - two Rambler Marlin diecasts on a logo.JPG
Just trying to stay on your radar. I hope that the move went good. 68.109.168.241 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Matt
 * Matt - I have not found the design. However, I was surfing some of the pictures posted online and this one on Flickr seems very close:link here - CZmarlin (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The other image is cool, but your particular version really struck a chord in me, so I think that I am going to try to rework the image in photoshop & see if I can't make it into something I can use. If you happen to come across the original, I would still love to have a high def pic of it. Thanks again. Matt132.79.9.15 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Caption
Should I thank you? I hope SamSlob did. Eddaido (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank you for your action on the W. O. Bentley article, and apologize for any trolling that may have occurred as a result of it. Sincerely, SamBlob(talk) 05:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I had one of these cars
In 1974 I purchased a black AMX very similar to the one pictured. I can see the seats I had in mine were cloth but the outside looked exactly like this one. I loved that car!! Every time I pulled in a station to get gas - no self service - if a teen was the attendant, I always received admiring comments on how neat my car was. There are times I wish I could have saved it for my son who is very in to cars. Jan — Precedingunsigned comment added by 72.49.11.102 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Mini limited editions
Nice work on Mini. Have you seen the abomination that is List of Mini limited editions? Any opinions? I favour bold deletion and redirect to a small section in the main article, but would be interested to hear what you think. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive comments! I did not see the "List of Mini limited editions" article! However, it leaves me almost breathless! It is amazing that you could could slap on some pin stripes, paint the engine rocker cover bright green, and then sell the car to its rabid enthusiasts as a special edition! I put some red reflective tape on the exposed steel beam on my Jeep's receiver hitch - does that mean I could market it as a special "CZmarlin edition" ?! It seems that the list of Mini limited editions does not meet WP notability guidelines ... and there are exactly zero references. It seems to be a dump of all the marketing efforts to sell the automobile, and that by its nature is not notable. My opinion is that the list should be deleted. I typically try to stay away from articles that have a "fanboy" following. However, the Mini article was so overwhelming with Boastful Superlatives (BS) that something had to be done to fix it. I did not realize that there was also a whole list of trivia associated with the various Mini models. Thus, to answer your question about this List ... as per the suggestions for WP contributors: be bold! Perhaps starting with a notice on the talk page to see if any credible references are added? CZmarlin (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ford Mustang
Please do not undo my Mustang edit. Nothing I have written is conjecture and is backed up by multiple sources. If you would like to help me with the citations, it would be appreciated and I can supply the sources but what I wrote is fact. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Kdryan (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hudson Motor Car Company
I am puzzled by your persistent deletion of links from reference citation 13. The authorlink to Frederic M. Scherer is appropriate use of the citation template; and while it is true Whiz Kids (Department of Defense) is not an author, author Merton J. Peck is listed as one of those "Whiz Kids". In both cases, the links help establish the authors' credentials on the subject. Linking the publisher Harvard Business School is similarly helpful to establish the credibility of the reference to business finance. I was unable to find Harvard Business School linked elsewhere in the article; so I don't understand why you consider it overlinking within the citation.Thewellman (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thewellman, please review WP style and help pages. It is not necessary to link everything just because it is possible, only in cases where the links add to the understanding the subject matter of a particular article.
 * In particular, use linking only where it is most appropriate. Wikipedia guidelines describe things that should generally be linked, as well as not to be linked. It is too easy to fall into the trap of overlinking because it is so easy. However, the guidelines recommend that links should be used "if they are likely to aid the reader's understanding of the subject significantly."
 * This guideline also applies to references. There is nothing significant about the publisher of this reference in relationship to the Hudson Motor Car Company article. They are generally known in the field of business, but this publisher does not specialize in books about this company, or even the automobile industry. Likewise, there is no evidence that the two authors of this reference are subject experts about the Hudson Motor Car Company, or this industry. They have written about and collected valuable statistical data to rank the business operations of a large number of companies during a particular era. They may have also written other books and worked on other subjects. Nevertheless, this work (and their other activities) are not specific enough to learn more about the Hudson Motor Car Company. As you have noted, the "Whiz Kids" link is completely tangental, and it seems to be more of self-promotion (see:Conflict of interest) than a useful reason to include it. In summary, there is little need to provide links to the publisher and authors of this reference.
 * It is also not necessary to "prove" multiple credibility of the citation that you have added to this article. Should a reader want to follow up on the validity of the publisher or authors, then they can research them very easily without these links. Because these links do not contribute any additional knowledge to the subject of the article, they are not needed in the citation.
 * Some additional suggestions are that you use the appropriate reference formats (see: Citation templates), as well as avoid linking the section heading (as you have done when posting your question here - but I have now removed it).
 * I hope this helps explain the reasons. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have reviewed the sections you suggested and disagree with your conclusions. The automobile industry was a major part of the armaments industry for World War II. General Motors was the number one United States corporation in terms of the share of wartime military contracts and Ford was number 3. The automobile industry made Michigan second only to New York (and by a single tenth of a percent) in terms of the percentage of World War II military contract spending received. Although you may not be interested in the armaments industry and the long-term financial consequences of short duration wartime opportunities to manufacturers, it is inappropriate to project your focus onto other Wikipedia users. You may have noticed all on-line reference citations automatically include a useful link for persons wishing to investigate sources. The links I included were an attempt to provide similar ease of investigation for printed sources. Why do you think the template includes authorlinks? Perhaps this disagreement should aired on the article talk page. By the way, you may wish to revise the two preceding sections of your talk page, which have the same section heading linking you chose to remove on this section.Thewellman (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the problems that WP users have made on this page. As you have noticed, there are many WP contributors who are enthusiastic about their work and they like to overlink! I have now corrected their edits and removed the unnecessary Wikilinks. I appreciate you help! CZmarlin (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification
Just thought I would drop you a note in case you didn't already know, but one of your images made the front page in a DYK for the article 1950s American automobile culture, some time back and article that is now at GA status. Your photo is used as the lede image for that article. I'm working a companion article as well. Dennis Brown- 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. Great work on the article! CZmarlin (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

image permission and attribution
I am currently designing a cover for a book I have written. Your image of an orange Jeepster Commando (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1971_Jeepster_Commando_SC-1_pickup_orange_f-Cecil%2710.jpg) fit my needs perfectly (in black and white and cropped. I would like your formal permission to use this image for my book cover, as well as how you would like the image attributed in the front matter of the book if you do not object to its use. This book, however, contains subject matter that may be offensive to some people (specifically, it is an erotic novel). If you would prefer that I did not use your image in an altered form for the cover of my book, or would prefer I did not associate your name with the image on the cover, I will not use the image. Either way, thank you for your time! Lnortheros88 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The posted image is in the public domain. You are welcome to use it! No problem on the attribution, if needed at all! CZmarlin (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Subaru BRZ
The BRZ is not a hot compact, it is a GT class car that is raced in the Super GT class. The term GT does not mean italian cars only anymore it applies to all cars with rwd and 200hp or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandTourer1 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of car dealership photo on Solar Choice (Aus) website
Hi CZmarlin,

Just dropping you a line to let you know I've used your photo in this article: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-power-for-car-dealerships-benefits-and-options/. You are credited (with a link to your Wikipedia profile) at the bottom. Let me know if there are any issues and I can remove/edit it..

Thanks for sharing.

Kind regards, James Jamartinii (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * James, I appreciate your note! You are welcome to use the image - it is in public domain! CZmarlin (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Spinner (wheel)‎
Thanks for catching the latest attempt to  spam  for Gragg's patent. I've previously protected this article several  times. it's interesting to  note that  the most  recent  contributor  made exactly 10 edits over 4 days to  be autoconfirmed before introducing  his patent  stuff again as soon  as the last  page protection  expired. There's no point  in  starting  an SPI  yet, but please keep  the article on  your  WL and if the patent  nonsense starts again, let  me know and I'll  open an SPI -  if i  don't  block  immediately  or full protect  the article. I've semied it for 1 year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey CZmarlin

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Automobile_classification
Hello, I see you reverted my edit to the mentioned template. I understand the list of examples should be kept low, but I've just tried to help maintain diversity, because the E-Segment examples are geographically biased towards the United States.

I still feel at least one or two European (or Japanese etc.) cars should be added there. Adding Audi, BMW and Mercedes also felt logical since they are used as examples in both categories above and under this one (D-Segment and F-Segment), so without them it feels like a gap exists.

Kind regards, Arny (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Arny, Thank you for your suggestions. I would recommend that you remove one for every example you add. This will prevent the inevitable bloat that has to be cut out. All the template needs is a limited and "decent mix" of examples. Please also provide an edit summary explaining the reason(s) for the changes or updates. Please also note that the examples do not need to be the latest versions of automobiles as these will change over time. All too often some enthusiast wants to include their favorite brand in this list. Typical, historic, and iconic models are better as examples. CZmarlin (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

freekidsbooks.org
Hi, I'd like to use your photo in my car book. I respect your request to be notified, and hope you will enjoy the book. It will be up shortly athttp://www.freekidsbooks.org, and your name is in the credits. You can let me know please if you wish any changes to the credits, or image, I understand it is public domain, but also, I respect your request to be notified, and am happy to action any small requests. Thanks very much for making this image available in public domain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskyventures (talk) (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome to use the photographs! I enjoyed the book as well! It is easy to read and has lots of cars in it!! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

oops!
Hey CZ, Thankyou for fixing the error I made on the article "Jeep", my finger slipped while trying to revert vandalism :D  James ' ööders 14:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Harold Tovish
The DYK project (nominate) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of rail tracks at Alderson image
Good afternoon, I have used your image to illustrate an article about plans to develop a solar farm at Alderson in West Virginia for www.pv-magazine.com Max Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by89.246.238.106 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Using your photo
Hi Christopher About to use your photo with, I hope, appropriate attribution to you on our website under construction:

http://www.meautor.co.uk/water_as_fuel.html

Advise if there is a problem!

Regards Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by92.23.41.139 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to use the image! Thank you for the attribution! I like your website! CZmarlin (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

AMC Timeline
CZmarlin,
 * I just wanted to let you know that I made some significant changes to the AMC Timeline and wanted to let you know since you have been one of the major contributors. 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I feel that the Template:AMC Timeline Imports can be deleted now. And since you created the page I don't feel right deleting itVX1NG (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that identifying the "Renault" branded vehicles in your "new and improved" American Motors' road vehicle timeline now makes the separate "AMC timeline Imports" redundant. The purpose of my making it originally was that these models were not mentioned and I thought this would help illustrate how AMC had one of the earliest examples of captive imports, and then much later as well. However, I think that there needs to be explanatory text and the models incorporated in the "List of notable captive imports in the United States" that is part of the Captive import article, rather than just having the template. I appreciate your work to expand and better communicate this history! CZmarlin (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CZmarlin. It's always good to hear positive feedback and I agree the Captive import article could really use some expansion.VX1NG (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

67 Charger Fastback
I'm using your image to show an after restoration view of a what a dilapidated neighbor's Charger probably looked like when new on my FB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.80.201 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many people find the Dodge Charger and the 1967 AMC Marlin similar from a distance. In any case, I hope your neighbor will fix and then enjoy showing his car! CZmarlin (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of statue
I'd like to use your picture of the statue of Jagiello for our magazine Medieval Warfare. I will mention your name in the creditline, as well as dd the license.

Kind regards, Dirk van Gorp Editor, Medieval Warfare magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by82.172.177.90 (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome to use the pictures of the statue that I have uploaded! CZmarlin (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dodge Dart
CZmarlin, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the Dodge Dart and Dodge Dart (2013) articles. Shouldn't the "new" Dodge Dart just be another section in the original Dodge Dart article? 16:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of Ford Taunus
You might have an opinion on this: Talk:Ford Taunus P1

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture
Christopher

i am the owneer of the car in the picture and did not give permission to post my car or my self. Please make the rite so the pictures go to Anthony caldara JR Long Island NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.124.203.179 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I have taken countless pictures of vehicles and posted many of them in the Commons area (see here). They are all my own work. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hudson Motor Co.
I am putting back in the inflation calculator illustrating what the price of the automobile in today's dollars? There's a reason that Wikipedia has an inflation calculator-- so people know what the true cost of an item was. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates to Camaro 1967 and 1969 Sections
Please explain your reasons for undoing my changes: /// 290 HP @ 5300 rpm was incorrect; it's 290 HP @ 5800 rpm. /// A 3 inch crankshaft is an impossibility; a 3 inch stroke is correct. However, the 4 inch bore and 3 inch stroke are meaningless unless you're a Chevy aficionado. Chevy put a 283 crankshaft into a 327 block to create the 302. /// The 1967 Camaro Z/28 had no engine emblems and no Z/28 identifier, except the stripes. I owned a very late 1967 Camaro Z/28. I ordered it on June 6, 1967 (the last day to order any 1967 Chevrolet) and took delivery on August 10, 1967. Also, I have never encountered any pictures of 1967 Z/28's with engine emblems and I recall auto magazines of the day mentioning the fact that the Z/28 and the base 230 cu in I6 were the only Camaros without engine emblems. If you have seen any, please tell me where. Incidentally, I'm not sure about the early 1968 Z/28 having 302 engine emblems and chose not to change it until I research it. /// I moved the 15 inch wheels sentence, because it was awkward where it was (an afterthought). I moved it to the Z/28 specs because it was a part of the factory description for the Special Performance Package RPO Z28. /// I added the single right rear traction bar because it was a part of the SPP package. I did NOT make a more major change of putting ALL the SPP equipment in the single place where it really belongs. /// I added the info about Chevy's 2011 centennial celebration and the selection of the 1969 Camaro as "The Best Chevy Ever" because I thought it appropriate for the Wikipedia entry. Incidentally, I owned a 1969 Camaro SS (350) convertible, which I ordered in May 1969 and took delivery of on July 3, 1969. I used that car to win the first SCCA National Solo II Championship (F Stock) in October 1973. I skipped the 1974 National, but returned to win the 1975 SCCA National Solo II Championship. /// I also owned a 1970 Camaro Z/28 (won 1979 SCCA National Solo II), 1979 Camaro Berlinetta, 1987 Camaro IROC-Z (I still have this car - 19,800 miles), and 1988 Camaro Sport Coupe.

Please respond at your convenience. Warren Wetzelberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenFW (talk • contribs) 04:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your questions. I am glad to know that you are an old car enthusiast and collector! One of the primary concerns of encyclopedia articles are references to validate the information and to help inform the reader for more detail. This is a never-ending process and is now even a greater concern in working to improve the existing text in many articles. Many were originally developed without proper documentations and citations. There is a good primer on the process here. I know this a particular peeve when it comes to personal knowledge about old cars. For example, every time I see an error in an article, I want to change it. However, this is not enough anymore. What is also needed are trustworthy third-party citations for introduce the corrected information. That is why I reverted your additions. You may be an expert and correct the information that was put into the text, but without providing appropriate references, it is difficult for an editor to distinguish such changes or new material from those added by an over-enhusiastic fan that indiscriminantly pumps up the performance features and power output of their favorite models! I hope this will help explain the numerous reverts of new contributions that occur in Wikipedia's open access articles. As far as the case of recent voting about the most popular Camaro among this model's enthusiasts - this may be of interest to a specific audience, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Specifically, Wikipedia's guideline for popular culture items within automobile articles is that they be strictly limited to those events that have an affect on "the sales, design, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." The recent popularity voting has not had any influence of the development, design, or the sales of these cars in the late-1960s. I hope my comments will assist you and further encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia. There is more information here to assist you. Welcome aboard! CZmarlin (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I will endeavor to update my items one by one with citations. I'll start with the most egregious error: "290 HP @ 5300 RPM" for which I have several correcting (5800) citations: 1967 Camaro Z/28 History http://www.67z28.com/history.htm, Anthony Young's book "Camaro" (p 27), "Great Cars From Chevrolet" by the Editors of Consumer Guide (p 93), and at least one of the two references from my first citation. I plan to use the first citation since it can be easily confirmed online. I just want to ensure I meet Wikipedia Guidelines. I'll await your reply. Oh, and HNY! WarrenFW (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I also hope you had a great New Years! Yes, backing up the information you add from reliable sources is the way to go. The original road tests (such as collected by 67z28.com here) and the books you mention are solid sources. Please enjoy fixing these problems, as well as improving many more articles in WP during 2014! CZmarlin (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)