User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2010

Renault Alliance

Please stop reverting it just because you have your knickers in a bunch over it. It's valid info, and you have not once provided a valid counter-argument.67.164.224.243 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

C1 Corvette

The engine links were not repeated. The 283 and 327 engines were offered in FI versions. the links are different. (Vegavairbob (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, you are correct. That is why they remain linked to their respective engine size subsections, but the "FI" term linked to the same article; therefore, there no need to keep repeating it! There are still redundant links within the article to common things such as "V8 engine". CZmarlin (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:1968 AMX Breedlove Records Champion Plug AD.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been fixed. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:1969 AMC SCRambler ADV-quarter mile.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been fixed. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Are page numbers required on references? If so there are an number references too great to count that have to be edited!(Vegavairbob(talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes! Per WP guidelines (Wikipedia:Citing sources): "Since per Wikipedia:Verifiability each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable, at the editor's discretion, it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made. However citation is only required as specified in the following list of circumstances. Whether a citation is added in a required context or at an editor's discretion it must be accurate and should comply with the rules set forth in this guideline."

You can see an example here: footnotes #49, 50, and 51 in AMC Collectibility section. There are four footnotes that cite specific items from different pages out of one book.

Yes, it is much easier to put the full information for each item at the time of editing the article, rather than trying to do back to do it later!CZmarlin (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pontiac GTO

I don´t understand why are you keep removing my edits regarding Pontiac GTO "Jim Wangers Signature Edition" under Pontiac GTO 1969 part? I wasn´t commercializing it on purpose, it was meant to be merely informative to all car enthusiasts and other people who are interested of muscle cars. Should I make an own article of it or what? Or are you going to remove it too? Maybe you could help to develope it also? If you are still thinking that the "Jim Wangers GTO" doesn´t deserve information part in Wikipedia, shouldn´t you remove also an article of "Eleanor (1973 Mustang)" due to your/Wikipedia terms that you have informed me? By the way, Eleanor article contains also commercial material, if you want to see it so. I think that they are very similar special edition cars, why only Eleanor gets its article? "Jim Wangers GTO" is also tribute to Pontiac and muscle era itself and I think it deserves mention here in Wikipedia also. I guess the model is going to be interesting to many people and of course it´s a collectible car. 84.249.62.189 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi User: 84.249.62.189! There are numerous "tribute" editions of collectors cars and thousands of fake, as well as "updated" muscles cars. They are not worthy for having individual encyclopedia articles, or even mention in the articles about the original models. Regarding your comparison with the Eleanor (1973 Ford Mustang) article, please note that this vehicle was not a commercial product and not for sale to the general public. Moreover, it has encyclopedic significance in that it was "the only Ford Mustang in history to receive Star title credit in a movie." That special role differentiates this particular vehicle. As a matter of convention, Wikipedia articles about automobiles should describe the models as produced by their original manufacturer and avoid even images of "heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance." There are numerous "reproduction" automobiles (such as in the case of this "signature" GTO) that offered for profit by their customizers. In fact, Jim Wangers was behind the creative marketing of the original Pontiac GTO, but this contemporary version is a aftermarket car and not built by the original automaker. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the Pontiac GTO article is not to serve as a means of promotion of any kind. Therefore, aftermarket modifications to GTOs that have not been authorized by General Motors will be removed. Of course, once an automaker makes a modified model part of its line up (see examples of numerous muscle cars built in collaboration with Hurst Performance) then mention should be included Wikipedia (such as the Hurst SC/Rambler). Likewise, descriptions should be included when a particular vehicle becomes part of history or culture because of special events (suchStephen King's Christine). On the other hand, vehicles such as the 2007 "Burt Reynolds Edition Trans Am" or the 2010 "Jim Wangers Signature Edition GTO" fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. I hope this helps! CZmarlin (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this sorted things out. Thanks! You´re probably right. Well, maybe "Wangers GTO" information could be put under the Custom car article for example? Don´t you think? On the other hand it may be too commercial in contrast to the other custom cars mentioned there also. Or maybe there could be make portion under the custom car article which is concerning about workshops, like Foose, Coddington etc. And then put some information of "Wangers GTO" and its manufacturer there also. 84.249.62.189 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sale of AMC axle equipment to Dana.

That info does not need to be deleted. That information isn't on any website, but it is wrote in various books. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The information was not deleted, but moved under the "Legacy of products" section. It is better there than in a separate section within the whole history of AMC, because this item does not rank that high among all the things the company has encountered. Please note that I have also added a reference from a book about this. I hope this explains why I moved this section! CZmarlin (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Yes I agree 100%. I just thought it was deleted. It's perfect where you put it. Thanks. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism

As part of dealing with an WP:AN3 report, I came across this edit by you which marked a revert of disputed content as a revert of "vandalism". Please don't do that: see WP:Vandalism on what the term may be used for. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. However, apparently you have ignored the reverts by several others of the edits -- and tangential detail inappropriate for BLP lead that is not supported by the references provided -- that have been introduced by one contributor: Zodiacww. On addition to mine, these include the following: (1) Revision as of 14:36, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (2) Revision as of 15:58, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (3) Revision as of 19:05, January 15, 2010 by Abrazame, (4) Revision as of 05:50, January 17, 2010 by Brothejr. Please also examine Zodiacww's contentious edits on the talk page. Moreover, Zodiacww has violated the 3RR. I think you need to reconsider to whom you should direct your warning. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response concerns me: whether something qualifies as "vandalism" is not a function of how many people disagree with it: quoting WP:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emphasis in original). There is zero evidence of bad faith here - just a run-of-the-mill excited newbie. In view of which, I also draw your attention to the WP:BITE guideline. PS Zodiacww is a new contributor and I left an appropriate message, which you can see on his talk page. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I missed your note on the newbie's page and just responded your concern about vandalism. I did not know that reverting a new user's insistence on putting up their opinions is considered "vandalism". Now, I know better ... Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I presume there's a typo there: "reverting a new user's insistence on putting up their opinions" is obviously not "considered "vandalism"." any more than the new user's edits are, however misguided either side is. Vandalism requires bad faith. So, similarly, the reversion of things which are not vandalism as "vandalism" is not itself vandalism unless the reverter does so in bad faith. Rd232 ^talk 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be "crystal clear" in hindsight! However, at the time I did not know that Zodiacww was a new user. Their edits were removed by other contributors (with proper explanation) two times. When the same edits were added back to the article by Zodiacww a third time, that is when it appeared to me that they were doing this in "bad faith" and it seemed to me like a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" on the part of Zodiacww. This is the reason why I hit the "vandalism" button to revert their edits. I now know that I should have simply "undue" the edits and provided yet another and better explanation for doing so. Once again, I appreciate your advice in this matter -- and please note that I did not see your addition on Zodiacww's talk page because it was posted after you had given me the warning in this matter (08:43 on my talk page and at 08:52 on Zodiacww's). That is why I was confused about the warning you gave me (and no comment for Zodiacww). I then put up the record of the reversals of Zodiacww's contributions by several other editors to show that I was not out on the fringe, but simply fed up with the same material being added to the article. I hope this helps explain what seemed to me that you were telling me "Please don't do that" when I removed opinions and biased material from a Wikipedia article about a living person. I understand it now to be directed about how I did the revert, and will try to be more careful in these situations in the future. CZmarlin (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that's all cleared up so well, and thanks for explaining. Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tire (disambiguation)

Hi CzMarlin. You reverted an edit of mine by leaving as edit summary "Redundant to have two (Tyre) diambiguation)" except that one disambiguation concernsTire (disambiguation), for the physical feeling of fatigue and a city in Turkey, and the other concerns Tyre (disambiguation). It's useful to have the two in the intro since the debate about the title is strictly about a difference between English and American spellings and their supporters, opting for one in the title and another in the first sentence, and this should not affect the accessibility of any other third subject. Until the debate on how the English-language word is settled, I intend to put it back while developping at the same time the article on Tire, Turkey. Many trains split and other trains go to Split. The accessibility of the city of Split should not be rendered more difficult simply because there is a debate on how a routine operation on railway tires should be called. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but I am not looking at the "tyre" disambiguation, or any other controversies. Rather, please read the next line to the end. The last item there has the link to "other uses, see Tire (disambiguation). My point in removing your duplicate entry was why is there a need to have two identical mentions of this link. Please see these two lines from the head of the article that are copied below - as of right now - with the sentence in question highlighted:

"Tyre" redirects here. For other uses, see Tyre (disambiguation).

This article is about tires used on road vehicles. For railroad tires, see railway tires. For other uses, see Tire (disambiguation).

Does this sentence need to be repeated at the top as you had done? If not, then perhaps it would be better to change the order of the sentences - instead of duplicating it! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry CzMarlin! I read it too quickly, I haven't seen Tire (disambiguation) in the second line. The way it is should offer easy access for readers in search of alternative "Tire"s. My bad! No hard feelings. :) Cretanforever (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

56 Plymouth

Christopher... I would like to contact the owner of this 56 Plymouth for info on how to put a Hemi into a Plymouth with A/C and more....radiator..steering and more..Jim (805 431-6737 ANY HELP??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by70.135.164.227 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you on this request. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tired

I'm getting tired of you deleting my contributions. I put a lot of time in here.... Throw a little slack to your fellow USEFUL contributors instead of always trying to have your way. (Vegavairbob (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

If that was in reference to the to and fro regarding the two door sedan image, please calm down and talk a little about what you're doing on that article.Alastairward (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New type of decade article proposed

I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions.Kransky (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

HUMMER / Motors Liquidation Company

Czmarlin, you deleted a prior post of mine where I corrected the statement that HUMMER is currently part of Motors Liquidation Co. (aka Old GM). I work for the company and in fact HUMMER remains with General Motors (New GM). I've corrected this again, please do not delete. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernigan333 (talk •contribs) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mustang pic

1968 Mustang

Hey CZ. I saw your revert. Can you point out what in the picture in question is an aftermarket option? I don't know these car that well and would just like to see what you see. Thanks. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This vehicle has been customized with aftermarket wheels (these are "Cragar Super Sport" wheels). These are a nice addition, but not the factory original "styled" steel wheels that came with the GT package (see complete specifications here). Moreover, Mustangs with the optional GT package featured a tapered "C" stripe, or a conventional rocker panel accent stripes. Either this car is not a "real" GT (although it has the "rally" lights in the grille), or the stripes were not replaced. This vehicle also has non-standard oversized tires, and the suspension appears to have been altered from stock to make the bigger wheel and tire sizes fit. TheWikipedia automobile conventions regarding images ask for original condition whenever possible. There are many Mustangs today of every vintage to photograph and use in WP articles. I hope this explains that I see. CZmarlin (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Curb

Have you ever been to King's Road? Have you seen the curb in question? I didn't think so. Kindly stop reverting my edits to this entry. I don't know your religious affiliations, and I really don't mean to offend you if you do have some kind of objection to homosexuality, whether in nature or in man, but the fact is: sexuality is a spectrum. Certainly, more people seem to lie at the heterosexual end of this spectrum, but this could easily be down to societal pressure. Curbs are, and I don't think this is something most people would dispute, largely homosexual. Surely this is something worth mentioning on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by86.179.205.130 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Thomas B Jeffery Company Logo.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk), as of 05:22, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out the conflict! The Thomas B. Jeffery Company was in business only from 1902 until 1916. Is now defunct as an automaker and its highly unlikely for it to return after almost 100 years and operate again with this logo. However, it may be possible that someone still holds the copyright to this logo! I have removed the "free" template. CZmarlin (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Viper not a classic muscle car?

Are you trying to say classic muscle cars never had Independent Rear Suspension, V10's, or 6 speed transmissions OEM?--Dana60Cummins(talk) 06:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The most widely accepted use of the "muscle car" term term refers to American two-door versions of popular intermediate-sized models of the late 1960s and early 1970s that were equipped with large, powerful V8 engines for street use and drag racing (formally and informally). Not only did the muscle cars have high performance-equipment for stoplight racing, but they also had room for passengers and cargo for everyday use. These models carried affordable prices and promoted an "image" and additional sales for similar-looking, mass-produced, family-type versions of the same cars. In many cases, the external differences to identify the special muscle versions consisted of different trim and badging. Straight-line acceleration was the primary objective, but their basic mechanical components were rather primitive origins (such as solid rear axles and drum brakes) and thus contributing to their questionable handling or braking characteristics. On the other hand, the Viper is a modern, capable, GT-type, two-seater that is both limited in production and not very affordable. It does not fit under the "classic muscle" term. CZmarlin (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. My post was just satire. I have no problem with the edits you've made. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! One of the requirements for muscle cars to also have a solid front axle. Of course, a simple two-speed Powerglide was great for the drag strip! Who needs 6-speeds! CZmarlin (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fix, don't delete

If the see also was wrong because it should have been a disambig, edit it to be a disamib instead of just deleting it. Now we have to do it three times.Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just one edit was needed, not three! CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AMC gate and buck system?

I notice that here you added an edit that introduced the term "gate and buck" system. What is that? Doing a search online doesn't clarify the term, either. You added edit, so I'm thinking you have some insight into what you wrote there? 842U (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the cited reference for that sentence (here) since that is where that term came from. It is Wards Automotive, the industry news source. CZmarlin (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Truckman hardtops removed

Hi,

I'm wondering why you keep deleting my edits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtop. I'm posting informational text to do with hardtops for 4x4s... Referencing Truckman (the company I work for)is fully relevant because they are the longest running most recognizable brand of 4x4 hardtop in the UK. Even if I do not mention the brand, may I still have information about 4x4 pick up hardtops without it being deleted please? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.124.37 (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not for advertising. The article about hardtops describes a particular automobile body design. It is not about covers for pickup stuck beds. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Independent verificatation

Good morning. I received your comment and want to assure you that my statement is not self-promotion, but verifiable fact. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/west-palm-beach-resident-johnny-bohmer-made-history-518162.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/05/prweb3962594.htm Please revert your edits after reviewing my claim. JohnnyGT (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)JohnnyGT

Thanks for providing the link to the newspaper notice regarding your edits to the Ford GT article. However, please review the standards and criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This statement is part of the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. Moreover, the news item in question does not meet Wikipedia:Notabilityrequirements. "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability –particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)." Your contribution still falls under "self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" (seeWP:SPIP). Thus, your edits are temporary, and not encyclopedic. I hope this further explains the reasons for the removal of your contribution. Thanks!CZmarlin (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How would like to know the price on this car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.159.87 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to individuals to sell their cars. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cipolla IKA la aventura ISBN-9875560065.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cipolla IKA la aventura ISBN-9875560065.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been fixed. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cipolla La Epopeya ISBN-9875560405.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cipolla La Epopeya ISBN-9875560405.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been fixed. CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rationale Standardisation

The {{Standard-Rationale}} message is NOT an indication that the rationale was missing something, but thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I know how to do it correctly. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Passat

Thank you for unhyping Volkswagen Passat. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your support! Some of the automobile articles are full of Boastful Superlatives (BS). Peacock and weasel terms do not belong in an encyclopedia. It is hard to correct them all. CZmarlin (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

V12 engine

All of this information is from a book called 'The V12 Engine', by Karl Ludvigsen - as you can see from the title, the focus is entirely on the engine not companies or anything else. I take your point about some of the more 'poetic' descriptions, which I will edit out. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Korzenioffski (talk •contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 9e89d4bcad7b67b279e5f3f2c77e903b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Packard

Oh, I see, your chief job here seems to delete other people's content with no warning or explanation or REASON. How rude. I had not even added my content one hour ago and it is VALID, despite what you seem to think.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nconwaymicelli (talk•contribs) as of 00:58, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

My contributions to Wikipedia attempt to follow the established guidelines for encyclopedia articles as best as possible. Moreover, there is no "ownership" of the content or individual edits.

You need to explain the images of the Packard advertisements that you have included in a gallery. Per Wikipedia guidelines, these images and gallery must provide "valid" information to the article about the history of the Packard company. Images typically relate directly to subject material in the text, and this article is a general overview of Packard vehicles. I do not see any discussion explaining the significance of these advertisements or the role these ads played in the history of the company. Simply adding in the edit summary box "that DO have historical significance to this car" is not enough. Perhaps they played an important role in the marketing of the car in the ad? In that case, they should be in the article about the particular model that is being advertised. However, putting them in a gallery at the end of an article about the whole company does not provide sufficient explanation why they are even there.

The following statements are taken from the Wikipedia manual of style:

• "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text"
• "Images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject"

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Turbocharger page - reflinks

Hi,

Thanks for cleaning up the references for me - I'm new to this and will take your adjustments on board.

Samurai HP (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "luxury"

The term luxury and luxury car is not a peacock marketing term, look at these following articles: Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, BMW, Jaguar Cars,Mercedes-Benz, Lincoln (automobile), and Cadillac. These articles all use the term luxury and also check out the article luxury car. If you look at these articles, you will see that they all use the term luxury. So think twice before removing my edits on the Land Rover and Audi articles.74.101.108.117 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the description of the luxury car term: "Luxury vehicle is a marketing term" and it further describes that:

"Though widely used, the term luxury is broad and highly variable. It is a perceptual, conditional and subjective attribute and may be understood differently by different people: "What is a luxury car to some... may be 'ordinary' to others."

Just because weasel words are sometimes used in other articles, does not mean the term "luxury" should be added to every article that you see fit. For example the Audi was not marketed as a "luxury" vehicle during its history. It started out (just like the Land Rover) as a rudimentary vehicle. To classify these brands as "luxury" is not correct for historical reasons. Moreover, terms such as "luxury-performance" are undefined and pure hype. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Luxury car" has a place in market segmentation. Luxury car makes a valiant attempt at describing it, but then botches it by spreading the luxury segment across the whole spectrum of cars. As for Audi, I'd put the A8 in the luxury segment, everything below, not. Segmentation applies to the car, not necessarily to the brand. Mercedes S-Class can be luxury, A-Class definitely not. In general, there is way too much adspeak in most cart articles, and that comes from someone who did car advertising all his professional life -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are numerous market segments that use the term "luxury" ... but, at best it is marketing puffery. The best example were the numerouspersonal luxury models that were popular in the United States for many years. Everything could be sold with this label: from the sub-compact sized 4-cylinder "Ghia" luxury Ford Mustangs, to 500 cu in (8.2 L) Cadillac Eldorados. We have the same problem now with undefined terms such as "luxury-performance" .... obviously some editors want to slap on the "luxury" tag on everything ... they like to promote the adspeak from the automakers' marketing departments. Yes ... I also agree that many WP articles have Boastful Superlatives (BS) .... and it difficult to remove them! CZmarlin (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point about Audi, How about I add a sentence that says "Audi is currently marketed as a luxury brand. As for Range Rover and Range Rover Sport, the term luxury should be used because these articles are about the current Range Rover and the Range Rover is well known to be a very high-end luxury car. If you want to know about the historic Range River, check out the article Range Rover Classic. Same goes for the LR Discovery and Freelander. These are current Land Rovers and are in the luxury market segment. There are articles about the historic, non-luxury Land Rovers. The reason I use the term luxury is so people know these cars fall in the luxury car price range and have the amenities that are found in luxury cars.74.101.108.117 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I revised the Audi automaker's description to encompass all its product lines. It is not necessary to use the term "luxury" to indicate high-priced product. Some luxury cars are "ordinary" ... depending on a particular market and consumer. Thus, please refrain from using this weasel term. There are too many meaningless Boastful Superlatives (BS) in WP articles already. Moreover, an encyclopedia is not a price guide for consumers. Once more, "luxury" depends on the market and the consumer. CZmarlin (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, segmentation applies to cars, not to brands. (Except for narrowly segmented brands, Rolls, Maybach, Smart ..) Audi is definitely NOT marketed as a luxury brand. Too narrow(minded). An Audi A1 appeals to a different target than the TT, none are luxury cars. The only possible luxury car in the Audi range is the A8. Officially, it's a D-segment car. Officially, luxury starts at E. But you would probable get away with calling an A8 a luxury car. Below, you will get flak. -- BsBsBs (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks that the addition of the sentence "Audi is currently marketed as a luxury brand and is well know today as a luxury car maker" that was added by74.101.108.117 was removed by another editor who explained their edit summary as "uncited POV". I agree with youBsBsBs, there is too much fancy labeling of entire brands. It is probably done to help their lower car lines achieve a "halo" effect from their "flagship" models. It seems that many contributors can't see through the "luxury" marketing hype. Just as it would be laughable to classify the Chevrolet brand as a "sports car" or "performance luxury" ... because of the Chevy Corvette models! Nevertheless, the term "luxury" seems to have a "magnetic" quality as a undefined peacock term. Perhaps this makes an Audi owner more superior to someone else that purchased a lower-ranking VW that happens to be built on the same platform and uses almost interchangeable mechanicals. Ahh, but the Audi's higher price tag, the fancier dealer showroom, the additional "high-end" trim and extra gadgets ... it all adds up to an almost "priceless" incremental profit margin contribution to Volkswagen AG with each additional sale of an Audi car! CZmarlin (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's my car!!!

This is the first car show I ever attended when I finished restoring it. I spent 5 years on it and I sandblasted the inside, outside, top and bottom. It's got a 343, bored .30 over, heads were decked, Edelbrock Performer package, headers, 2 1/2 inch exhaust with Flowmaster 40's. It is NOT AMC Matador Red, however. It is a candy apple red over a gold base with lots of very fine flake. The stripe, however, IS correct for '68 and the hood scoops were added as a late 1968 option.

John Lynch Rhode Island rambla@cox.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.195.152.241 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I have uploaded over 1,000 pictures to Commons. I think your car must be the 1968 Javelin. That picture was taken in New Jersey! It would be great if you posted additional shots of your great AMC! CZmarlin (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Statements

The Mustang II article (and so many like it) is bloated with information that doesn't come close to conforming with Wikipedia guidelines. From wp:five pillars:

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources".

The article is rife with unsourced material (that may be removed):

• "The first fully metric engine built in the U.S. for installation in an American car"
• "Ford received mail from fans of the original car, requesting the Mustang be returned to its original size and concept."
• Called the "Little Jewel" by Iacocca, The Mustang II sold more than 400,000 units the first year."

This article has major instances of synth:

• "The message: Build smaller cars "as customers stopped buying and the inventory of unsold new cars climbed during the summer of 1973, and there were already positive market expectations for the new downsized Mustang."

The article has whole sections of unsourced expository, essentially original research:

• "The marketplace adjusted to the oil embargo, increasing insurance rates, United States emissions and safety standards, and downturns in the economy, and waning consumer demand in the pony car segment."

Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines don't give a 'get out jail free card' if information is "well-known." I appreciate your hard work on the article. It is a good thing to clarify the depth of problems with the article while we collaborate. 842U (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, I am very well aware of the massive amounts of unreferenced Boastful Superlatives (BS) that are in WP automobile articles.

I think the second generation Mustang article is not perfect, but now has some reliable sources for the statements. I have already added reliable citations to the article for most of the items you have questioned.

However, how much "depth is needed? Referencing everything would defeat the purpose of focusing on the subject automobile.

• I do not think that every item in your "marketplace" sentence example needs to be referenced, and the material is not original research. What would be the objective for replicating the Economic history of the United States#Inflation woes: 1970s section within the Mustang article to describe the "downturns of the economy". All of these events happened. The "waning consumer demand in the pony car segment" is evidenced by several models being discontinued by other manufactures, as well as in sales of the Mustang itself. They were deteriorating as the car was increasing in size, but it seems that information should be in the first generation article. The impact of insurance rates increasing and emissions controls are better described in the muscle car article, but even there this information is without any citations. Is there any reason why an even higher standard should be expected within this single model article? Removing all of this common knowledge "because it lacks verifiable, authoritative sources" would serve no objective. If such a standard were applied, only the titles would remain for most WP automobile articles.
• I am not sure what you specifically question in the example of synth. This is because it the citation is not a combination from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion. It is only one referenced article that reports about energy (fuel) prices, sales and inventory levers of new cars, and how automakers are dealing with this. As reported, the case of Ford's attempt to clear out bloated inventory of 1973 Mustangs in preparation and anticipation of the new model, is notable for this article. It is almost common sense, but perhaps that's too complicated? Perhaps you don't like the conclusions reached in the article, but that is why the article reported on this, as well as other automaker's sales/inventory situation. I hope you can provide me with some insight on your concerns about this.

Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Rail tracks

What happened to the nice photo of the rail tracks? Who are you? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 65.191.193.89 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about the specific photo you are asking about. I have now uploaded over 1,000 pictures to Wikipedia Commons. Please provide the article where you saw it in Wikipedia. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mustang distinctiveness

You apparently don't share my respect for the distinction that Ford has kept the Mustang in continuous production for over four decades while its competitors failed to do so. Please rethink! 74.198.12.14 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion 74.198.12.14! The Ford Mustang overview article's lead was missing a closing about the car's current production. It now has information describing the nameplate's continuous use and the number of generations. The new statement follows WP guidelines. It does not contain opinions, puffery, nor mention competing vehicles. Once again thanks for helping improve the article!CZmarlin (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Image cropping

Too much crop of an existing photo enlarges the car, in this case the car appears too big in and article with two other vehicles- the other two cars appear smaller when they're the same size-not good. Subcompact car. Cropping now reduced so all three vehicles look the same size as they should. Also no need to crop the top and sides of the photo entirely to reduce the backround because that ruins the photograph making it appear as a slot. My vehicle was photograhed by Motor Trend in June. (the center image of the above article). Any professional photo taken of a vehicle has some area top, bottom and on each side regardless of backround or no backround. Many of the 600 car images I have downloaded are professional factory images. See Chevrolet Nova. No factory images or professionally taken photos of automobiles have the car cropped to the very edges, which obviously means that doesn't make a high quality image, so... cropping an exisiting image too much reduces the quality of the image. Vegavairbob (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Luxury Vehicle

I do not want to edit war with you, and if you can help to proofread or tone down what you call "superlatives" or "boostful" language, you are most welcome. However, do not wholesale revert, as this is extremely unproductive and prevents this article from moving forward. I've found a multitude of sources that do describe the B-Class and A3 as premium/luxury cars that do not fit in any other established segment, yet I've also acknowledged why and why they may not be considered luxury vehicles by some auto journalists. GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

GoldDragon, Your addition of marketing hype to the luxury vehicle article is what I think prevents it from "moving forward".

This includes numerous needless statements and opinions. The description "the means to pay for them" simply means "these cars have a higher price tag than would be normally expected because some people are willing to spend more for a brand name and its image", see: The affluent consumer: marketing and selling the luxury lifestyle by Ronald D. Michman and Edward M. Mazze, Greenwood Publishing, 2006, ISBN 9780275992828. You have provided no references for "young customers who have a more refined taste" because that is just ordinary marketing puffery.

Your contributions include marketing material that is only supported by obviously promotional sources. As I have tried to explain, the term "luxury" is overused to the point that it has become meaningless. Now you are adding new market segments that are not even titled "luxury", but "premium".

The obvious trend in this article is to include everything. Therefore, I think there should be a special section about "premium microcars" and include the Tata Nano Luxury model ([1]). There are already many, many citations that describe the Tata's Nano as a "luxury vehicle", even without attaching an "exclusive" brand name on it like Tata's Jaguar. Clearly, the "Tata Nano is becoming the rich-man's luxury" in its domestic market segment, as described in the article by Devang Murthy in TopNews Network on 09/07/2010). Moreover,Tata Motors plans to launch a luxury version of the Nano in 2012 that will be sold in many nations, as reported by Ashok Virath on September 6, 2010. Since Tata owns both Jaguar and Land Rover, I would not be surprised if they attach a Jaguar logo to a "limited edition" with all kinds of features including "high-quality interior materials" that are the hallmarks of premium, luxury, ultra cars, and of course, people will pay extra!

And speaking of luxury vehicles, I think you should also devote a whole section for custom luxury golf carts.

Go for it! CZmarlin (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources that I attach are not marketing material, these come from automotive journalists and review sites. It is also nice to note the new marketing trends, and what makes a premium compact distinct from a compact executive car.

Premium is a common alternative term for luxury, one source described the Audi A3 as a premium compact while another uses luxury compact.

I have no intention of falling on this slippery slope including a Tata nano or having a luxury gold cart, I think that you are fearmongering.

If you think that there are needless statements, you may tone them down a bit but don't wholesale revert.

GoldDragon (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GoldDragon, You are missing the point! Automotive journalists and the associated review sites serve the industry to promote their products. Automakers feed the automotive press a lot of boastful superlatives whose primary objective is to write glowing articles about each automaker's new car. They contribute even more BS to describe the the terrific new cars in their stories and reviews so the public goes car shopping and buys. Their articles and reviews thus earn credits from the hands that feed them. The better a car is described in the article, the more advertising space the automaker buys in their magazines and web pages. The journalists also gain access to more test vehicles, as well as receive invitations to preview events that are held in exclusive resorts and motorsport locations. Who do you think pays for a journalist to road test a fancy car in the Alps? On the other hand, journalists rarely report on test drives in the inner city, rush hour traffic, and shopping centers! Moreover, current owners, prospective owners, and enthusiasts of particular brands have an insatiable appetite to read how their favorite models are extraordinary, prestigious, world-class, outstanding, etc. Furthermore, they need to be reassured that they have a more refined taste when spending more money for a premium vehicle; yet in many cases, the only difference between "luxury" and "common" is badge engineering. Marketing puffery and publicity has been perfected over the years to sell products and help automakers reinforce "bragging" rights for each new model.

Why do you not consider the Tata Nano a "luxury vehicle"? For the typical citizen in India, this car is a luxury product. Moreover, those who can afford to have a Tata Nano are seen as super-rich and privileged to have such a luxury by many millions of people in other parts of the world, such as in Africa. The luxury vehicle article should consider a global view and explain all market segments for luxury vehicles, not just a limited perspective that is found in a few developed industrialized nations.

I have yet to see a definition what makes a premium compact distinct from a compact executive car. Just because some sources use premium as an alternative term for luxury does not matter. When there is a conflict exists between what is actual and what is advertised or promoted, Wikipedia articles are to use the actual.

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1969 Ambassador SST

Thanks for posting the photo. It brought back memories since my parents bought one and kept it until 1982. It was their first new car and it was luxurious with air-conditioning. Regards, Michael Waldmeier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.167.31 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I am glad to know that the picture brought back good memories! CZmarlin (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Using your muscle car AMC photo

I am using your muscle car AMC photo in my AC article, which can be seen by googling Zona Zirconia, ac content file. Should be done by tomorrow. Thanks - great pic. 75.14.205.84 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome! CZmarlin (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1979 AMC Pacer Photos - Exterior & Interior

Christopher, I was delighted to see your photos posted on Wikipedia, the photos of a new 1979 AMC Pacer. They are of the 2-tone brown version. I just purchased an old 1979 Pacer, and it is the 2-tone brown :)

My son and I are going to start restoration, to see the original condition is invaluable to see what pieces we may be missing.

Do you have any more photos of this car? My information is below; any other owners out there, who may own a 1979 AMC Pacer, are welcome to e-mail too. :)

Thanks for this "Blast From the Past" !!

Lisa criminologygrl@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by8.18.123.6 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why undo Joel Bush?

Being a professional publisher does not consist of being Notable to you? You took Joel Bush off of Alumni of New Mexico State were he did graduate at and went on to have a successful career as a professional publisher (Leverage Factory)- Which is on Wikipedia also. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Uncsticks (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. There are many professional publishers. The Leverage Factory article contains no references from reliable third-party publications and it is written like an advertisement.

Quoting WP guidelines relating to this standard: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you."

Please also review the WP discussion regarding conflict of interest. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gozow 5VII1607 book-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gozow 5VII1607 book-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rationale is now included on this image description page. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion on AMC

Heelo. You reverted me, saying, "RM - no abbreviations of names simply for disambiguation purposes." Can you cite a Wikipedia policy for me that backs this up? Ana Marie Cox is referred to as AMC by numerous people on numerous websites. Henrymrx(t·c) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking about an aspect of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). AMC is not a nickname, pen name, or stage name for Ana Marie Cox. The existence of "numerous people on numerous websites" that use "AMC" as the name of this person is not cited. The use of her initials as personal identification is not even mentioned, described, or referenced on her Wikipedia page. Moreover, AMC is not a unique name for a commentator, author, or blogger. Her Twitter feed name is anamariecox with no initials. There is also no registered "AMC" service or trademark reference to Ana Marie Cox. Simply using one's own initials does not rank a disambiguation page listing. Moreover, there are other historical and living people with the same initials. I hope this answers your concerns. CZmarlin (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does seem to be a nickname of hers. So, if I can provide multiple citations of her being referred to by this nickname, I would need to add it to her article first? Once done, then it can be added to the disambig. page? This is my understanding of what you've said. Henrymrx(t·c) 09:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There seemed to be nothing more than "shorthand" or "casual" use (such as in a Q&A transcript and as in "AMC Answers Your Questions") on her own sites. There was no use of just her initials in the references that discuss her. Therefore, it is not enough to mention "it does seem to be a nickname of hers" to be encyclopedic. On the other hand, citing actual works under her authorship where she used "AMC" as a pen name would be notable, just as when she used Ann O’Tate. I hope this explains the differences. CZmarlin (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think you answered my question. If I can find references of others using that abbreviation repeatedly and consistently, I assume that it would then qualify as a bona fide "nickname." The problem, of course, is finding reliable sources that do so, since most of what I've seen has been by bloggers. It may not be doable, but I'm trying to see what the potential path to a verifiable change might be.Henrymrx (t·c) 20:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Henrymrx, you have described the major problem! Finding reliable sources is the issue. It was easy to provide a reference the use of "Ann O'Tate" pen name at suck.com -- the publisher of her work under this persona, This fact is now referenced in the article. As I mentioned, even dozens of examples of "casual" use of shorthand initials are not "annO'Tate-able" as reliable, factual, or notable! Of course, if the actual person uses a particular pseudonym consistently, or it is cited by reliable references, then that would be notable. Otherwise, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Newark Assembly Plant

I have used your Newark photo here:

http://preservedtanks.com/Locations.aspx?LocationCategoryId=57800

Many thanks,

Trevor Larkum PreservedTanks.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by90.215.243.179 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

I'm not sure what you were implying, re 'good luck'. 842U (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

842U, You will need all your energies! My experience has been that contributions that are not to Vegavairbob's liking are met with an attitude, one that you have already experienced in your attempt to call notice of the needs to improve that article. When I tried to improve another article that was getting too much Chevy Vega centric, you can see the result in the section above entitled Tired... CZmarlin (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ref=harv

I noticed this recent edit removed|ref=harv from some citation templates. This breaks the wikilink from {{harv}} to {{cite book}}. Is this something that "Reflinks" does? In that case, we need to fix it right away. Or was it just an oversight? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks that you have fixed the problem I caused. There are many more manual edits that have to be done to the reference formating than what Reflinks can do automatically. Moreover, that article needs more work to put all citations into proper formats. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hudson Greater Eight

Hello! Your submission of Hudson Greater Eight at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ziemnowicz — Vance McPherson, math coordinator at Virtual High School here. As you've released your very nice photograph of these headlights to the public domain, I have used them in one of our mathematics courses in the context of discussing parabolic reflectors. I have credited you with the photograph. Please let me know if you have any objections with this use, as if you do, I will comply with your wishes. I can be reached at Vance.McPherson@VirtualHighSchool.com.

Kind Regards, Vance McPherson —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.235.41.126 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hudson Greater Eight

Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

West Palm Beach

Your recent edit to this page was rather more than "adding Reflinks and updates". You've restored content I removed for containing weasel words and publicity/brochure-style copy. Restoring content attributed to a non-WP:RS deadlink and to no source at all for, respectively, the Norton and the Meyer, are just two examples. I don't wish to start any kind of a revert battle so please revisit and edit according to policy.Plutonium27 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I did not notice which version Reflinks used to update the formating. I think I have corrected and removed the puffery. Please review, and thanks again for pointing out the error. CZmarlin (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out - the page now looks fine by me and I hope you agree its better without the gush. (I lived in WPB for 2 years and even without policy guidelines I can tell when the city poohbahs have been having their thing added!) Best, Plutonium27 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

I need an opinion on how to use these categories - there is "1960s automobiles" and inside there's "Vehicles introduced in 1964" so if I add article to "Vehicles introduced in 1964" should I add it to "1960s vehicles" as well?

SHAMAN 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Categorization, "each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." The answer to your question could also be in Wikipedia's editing guidelines pertaining to overcategorization. However, I think the category "Vehicles introduced in 1964" in an article is different than the category "1960s vehicles" and both should be included because the "narrow intersection" rule would not apply. Please keep in mind that this is only my interpretation and NOT an accepted standard! Thanks! CZmarlin(talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AMC Rambler Club

It appears that you put a link to a malware website spreading the Conficker Virus in the AMC Gremlin article. This does not appear to be constructive and I have deleted said link.-Zyrath (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the AMCRC is an ordinary old car club website with valuable information to owners and enthusiasts of Rambler and AMC cars. This is a worthwhile resource. I use a computer that does not have any problems with this website. I have no clue what is a Conficker Virus. It does not seem to appear to have a problem with my computer. It this a problem within your computer? I see no evidence that the car club is a cause of a computer virus. There do not seem to be any other alerts about this problem. Perhaps you need to recheck your machine. Your removal will be reverted without concrete evidence of a problem. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found the info declaring it a malware site here, might not reflect anything. Confickeris a notorious computer worm. If it is in fact a genuine, harmless website, I apologize.-Zyrath (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

With the millions of computers that have thousands of computer worms targeting the countless security holes in Microsoft Windows operating systems .... you would have to shut down the Internet to be "safe"! CZmarlin (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, all you have to do is not download any viruses (or not have OS that is compatible with them, in your case) to be safe (mind you, there is no point in tossing the apple vs microsoft thing in there, and macs have just as many security holes...). However, I see no reason to keep at this, so I will not press the point.-Zyrath (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Image usage

I will be using your condominium (up front view) on an article called "Condominium Declarations and Fannie Mae Requirements" which will be available athttp://www.brighthub.com/members/doreenmartel.aspx once approved. Doreen —Precedingunsigned comment added by 173.48.154.207 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level

Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here(Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards,OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo used on ConsumerTravelAlliance.org

Used your photo to illustrate a letter we sent to the President. Consumer Travel Alliance is a tax-exempt non-profit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by96.231.190.118 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)