User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2012

Bricklin SV-1 photos

I am intending to use some of your photos of the white Bricklin SV-1 in my book that I am writing about sports cars and super cars. I will give you full credit for your photos. Thank you for making your photos available. It certainly helps authors like myself. Cinnamonbear97 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cinnamonbear97: you are more than welcome to use the pictures that I have contributed! All the best in writing your book ... and please let me know when it is ready! Thanks,CZmarlin (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

removing my post

You have removed two of my post of wiki pages,i feel this is unfair as the info i provide was fine, infact being in the car scene for over 20 years and also being aiding companies which deal with cars i added info which is a fact but did not meet your own personal opinion,please could you give me more info on why you felt my small snippits of info did not suit you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtricky (talk •contribs) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Adtricky, please review Wikipedia guidelines for encyclopedia articles including verifiability. Your posts have been removed because they were unreferenced. It is not enough "being in the car scene for over 20 years". Rather, any contributions must have been published by reliable sources. Therefore, it is not my "own personal opinion" to revert your contributions. All contributions to Wikipedia articles must "must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." Moreover, the guidelines also state that editors should "remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." For example, your addition to the muscle car article with compact car andsports car models from Japan is not supported by reliable sources, and is original research that is not permitted. Thank youCZmarlin (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to the Muscle car page where added as the cars i added as info where seen as being the Japanese Muscle cars as with an American car for example an American car we say is a Muscle car and class it that way,the same with some Japanese cars again being classed as being there Muscle car by the masses and being different to an American car.So if i linked a book again this would be only someone writing about Muscle cars and again giving info on what other people have classed as Muscle cars and again often with peoples opinion,What info/ref do i need to add please as i do not want to add another persons opinion and not add facts.Myself adding about being in the car scene was added to the amount of people i have come across and info i have read from people on this topic and noted it was the same thoughts on how other cars had been classes as Muscle cars from around the World.

On the car tuning page there where a good few comments i could have added but did not want to get to involved,the write up mixes to scenes one being the modding scene and the other being the tuning scene,these two are not the same scenes after all adding a bonnet scope to a civic is not tuning a car and true tuners do not add scoops which do no job to the car although a modder would there are always going to be people whom class themselves as tuners but are modders but on facts on wiki we can not go by what a few people believe they are and facts about the true scene should be added.

And to remove the comment on detuned again this is public info which 1000's upon 1000's of people know and not my own thoughts.And myself owning these sort of cars know very well.IEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_domestic_market

On these cases and knowing this info your self now could you edit the pages to add these parts of info for me please.So it can be done right and in the right places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtricky (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Once more, it is not what "1000's upon 1000's of people know", but actual verifiable sources. For example, I did a Google search for "Japanese muscle car" in books, and there were a total of seven (7) results, of which four are about video game hints and cheats, one is a novel, and just two mention a specific "Japanese muscle car in the American tradition". That is not really sufficient to support inclusion of a Japan section in the WP article about muscle cars. On the other hand, compare this to a search in books for "American muscle car". Google returns about 1,510 results. These serve as reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. Therefore, I really do not think that are authoritative sources to back up the sports car examples that you had provided as fitting the traditional "muscle car" definition as described in the article. Moreover, owning a car is not a basis to introduce opinions into Wikipedia articles. Please also note that enthusiast sites, blogs, and forums are not reliable sources. CZmarlin (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My worry is that just because there are a mass of Muscle car books rewritten about the same cars and which offer a publics opinion again is classed as factual so what we are saying is as the American Muscle car scene is bigger and more people class them as Muscle cars then it is fine but when other people class other cars as Muscle cars then it is not,so where do we draw the line of how many people can class a car,so saying that if i grouped together a mass of people to class a Japanese car as a Muscle car then it would be fine to class it as one, or if i wrote a book and people copied this book and rewrote it over and over again using people's opinion again of what is a Muscle car then that would be fine. So we are back to people's opinion again just more in numbers.So me being with a mass of car fans for over 20 does not mean a car they class as a muscle car is a muscle car.But a group of people who class another car as a muscle car and wrote it down from other people's opinions becomes factual. Surley what people class as any car is just a general opinion after all a Ferrari is only an exotic car as people have classed it that way.

Also what about my other post which where not an opinion but facts and general knowledge facts,can you advise on those please.

My worry is no matter what i write if it does not fit then it would be removed after all i wrote a comment about detuned cars which was another wiki page in some detail and there is a mass of info around on the internet but that was removed.There are 1000's of tuners out there who are not in the modding scene but in the tuning scene but is that factual info able to be placed on wiki.Again being in the car scene for all these years and seeing those scenes are a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added byAdtricky (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

After all how many people write about anything and it becomes a fact as there are stories about events from hundreds of years ago and which started off from one persons opinion and how they saw events and these have been rewritten over and over again and then they become a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added byAdtricky (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please follow WP guidelines. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1974 Javelin AMX

Your car is beautiful. Was the pic taken in 2008? Does it still look this good. Is it for sale? I am interested. Melissa melissa.malecki420@gmail.com Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.242.107(talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Melissa, Thanks for your inquiry, but I do not own a 1974 Javelin AMX. However, I wish I had one to enjoy! I take many pictures and post them in the Commons. I do not know the specific car you saw. Nevertheless, there are several AMC car clubs that have local chapters and they have members with cars for sale. I would suggest American Motors Owners Association and AMC Rambler Club. I hope you find your new Javelin AMX! CZmarlin (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

George W. Romney formatting edits

Please do not make mass formatting edits to an article that's in the middle of FAC review (I'm assuming all the IP address edits are yours too). FAC is hard enough as it is without this instability. In this case your edits represent your opinion about how best to cite articles, not any established guideline. You are free to format your cites the way you like in articles you do all the work on and bring up for review, and I would not think to change them. The same courtesy should be extended to me. This article links to authors and publishers, for example, and there is nothing in WP:OVERLINK that forbids this. If you have an objection to this article's formatting, you can bring it up as a comment or an oppose atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2 and it can be discussed there. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that you have ownership of this article. The updates were to improve consistency and formatting. You did not bother to examine each, but claimed it was a mass edit. I went though each citation link to check its currency. You were eager to revert and removed proper reference formats, updated access dates, and even put back the wrong author for one of the references, as well as improper isbn. It is also very unusual to keep on repeating the Wiki link to popular newspapers and magazines in each and every citation. Lastly, you assumed that the IP contributor was also me. That assumption is simply wrong. There are others who are allowed to improve WP articles. Enjoy your "wasted time" R! CZmarlin (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YES Airways logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YES Airways logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeep Cherokee Chief

Thanks for sharing the pic of the Chief. My father had one of these in Virginia during 80's. — Preceding unsigned comment added bySgtpen (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mighty Mite citation

Dear CZmarlin, I noted you changed the format on some of the citations including the on I posted on the 1953 article on the swim kit. In changing it when you go to the link it shows the smaller page format with a picture of that issue cover to the right. If that was you intention, ignore this message. If it was not I can or you can go to the like and where it has=false change it to =true and it will go to full page format. Also and this is so I can do a better job later. If you intended it to be the smaller format with a picture of the cover, can you explain if that is standard Wiki policy. And thanks for helping clean up the article and making it more professional. I am good at military stuff but I am a terrible Wiki editor. You can reply to this message here, I will catch it. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack, thank you for pointing out the differences in url formats. The general idea that I can gather from the WP guidelines is to keep the urls as compact as possible. I do not know why so many of them need to be miles long. I have also found that the urls may change after a few years! In any case, I have modified them in the M422 Mighty Mite article to be short and only show the relevant page. Hope they work! However, there are two references that are still troublesome:

1. footnote #7 from "Steel Soldiers" is only a forum page with no specific information - A real citation should take the place of this

2. footnote #9 from "Lanemotormuseum.org" seems to be a previous version of this article taken from Wikipedia - This is a no-no in Wikipedia because of the circular self-referencing

I hope your military sources can be pulled into action to fix these! Thanks for your work to improve this article! CZmarlin (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marlin, The PM and PS links are so long for in part because of the search being made. For example "Popular Mechanics" and maybe "September 54" will make up a lot of the search. But they are still long. I would shorten them using tinyurl links, but those have been so grossly abused Wiki band them. And correctly so. But I will work with the links. I have cracked Googles code and method before (you will not believe that by adding a "-" dash behind the "PA" will change the page numbering) and will figure this out to where just that it is Popular Mechanics year and date and page number. But it will take some time. As to the troublesome footnotes. I did not post them. And I always leave it to those with a lot more knowledge on when an item should be removed to do that dirty job which always seems to upset someone or someones even. Although if an edit is spam (a lot of that in external links from companies making the subject); vandalism (bored teenagers and college students -- and they DO love the page GRENADE; or I know to be completely incorrect with no references, I will remove. If it has a reference I just leave a message on that page's TALK (must do something right as on one has reverted it back or got mad). Especially the first two. And again, thanks for taking the time to explain the rules and reasons. Makes my job a lot easier. And the Wiki editors also. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding. Google books URLs can be drastically shortened by throwing away most of the search terms. Eg http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nNwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA140&dq=1954+Popular+Mechanics+January&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true can be shorted down to http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nNwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA140 Only the id and PA (page) parameters are required.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Teague (automotive designer)

Hi CZ, I saw that you were the creator of the article on Jeff Teague. He is now the chief designer for the newly relaunched Duesenberg car company. I added a link to your article to edits I made in the Duesenberg article and I also mentioned this connection in an edit to to the Teague article. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Chris --Scalhotrod -Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have updated and added some citations to the article. However, it would be good to have even more details, with the appropriate references. CZmarlin (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, by all means. Whenever possible, I try to go to the source and ask for information. I have sent a message to the folks at the new Duesenberg company to see if they supply me with good citable sources of info. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I used a photo

CZmarlin, I used one of your photos-interior of AMC Spirit on my blog Stranded in Hazard: Wow look at the Snow. Thanks for making these photos public, they remind me of the Spirit I used to have. I bought it from my grandmother in 1992 and loved it till it died. Alita 69.57.101.0 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Alita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_history_report#References - Edits reverted

Hi CZmarlin, you have reverted the changes I made. Im not really familiar with putting and editing topics, I just wanted to clarify why it was reverted and what can I do to get it published? Thanks!

Please use reliable sources. I particular, please see:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. All the best! CZmarlin (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi CZmarlin, me again, I am just confused because my source is reliable (http://www.vinaudit.com/) not fan base or blog or anything, should I be more specific on what page I got the information Im trying to add to the article?

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, CZmarlin. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

fail vs dead link

Hi! On Nissan Skyline GT-R you inserted {{fail}}. This template is for discussions. {{dead link}} would have been more appropriate. Cheers.  Stepho  talk 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the template tags. I was not sure which to use because the external do links exist (so technically they are not "dead"), but they are so general that they do not contain any of the referenced information. Most have been changed and updated because they point to a home page of some journal, newspaper, etc. This makes the reference impossible to verify. However, I have found the this tag: Template:Failed verification, or {{Failed verification}}. This should be better to help identify these live links, but "problem" references. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, {{Failed verification}} implies that the target had at least something to do with the subject but failed to verify a particular fact (eg maybe the article gave a different top speed or failed to mention top speed at all). I still favour {{dead link}} for links that give nothing at all about the subject but I wouldn't object to you using {{Failed verification}}. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Christopher!

I used a cropped version of your Dodge Ram hood ornament shot to illustrate a blog post about a trip I took through Washington's backcountry in my own Ram. You'll find it here:

http://rustyring.blogspot.com/2012/03/lost-in-palouse.html

Robin

Rusty Ring: Reflections of an Old-Timey Hermit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laodah (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

World Bank

Sorry! Misunderstood what you'd done!! Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

vw bus

Just let me know the cost. thanks! Mira b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.223.49 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the photograph is of a vehicle that I do not own! CZmarlin (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Post Office pictures

I would like to use your photos of the Palm Beach Post office in a temporary exhibition at the Boynton Beach City Library (Summer 2012) on the history of the Post office in Palm Beach County. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by75.145.230.190 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome! Let me know the dates and location of the exhibit. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YES Airways logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YES Airways logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects

WikiProjects exist to monitor (possibly improve or deal with xFDs RMs ect) articles within their scope. It is common practise in country wikiprojects to monitor everything related to their area. If you thing an article in not worthy of being monitored because it is not notable enaugh then please do not remove the project banner - rather nominate it at AfD instead.Agathoclea (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to take the Packard Clipper article through the deletion process. It covers a particular car model and its talk page is tagged with with the Automobiles WikiProject. However, the main topic of the article is not significant even at the regional (State of Indiana) level. The article is not about the factory that produced the cars. According to WP guidelines, this "article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject" and "it is more friendly to omit outside WikiProjects that you think will rate the article as low importance relative to their specific field." This is a simple case of over categorization, and WP guidelines state "overtagging is disruptive." In summary, there is no real reason to have the WikiProject United States banner for this article. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Could this be the '56 Fury I once owned?

My family used to own a 1956 Flymouth Fury. My spinster aunt bought it new in '56. She wanted a "heavy car" to replace the 1950 Chrysler she'd been driving and the dealer, in New Britain, Connecticut, sold her the Fury. Being a hardtop, it had extra structural steel welded alongside the frame rails underneath.

Auntie used the car to commute between her home in New Britain and her job in West Haven, CT, until 1963 when she replaced it with a Dodge Dart GT. The Fury was then handed off to my parents as a second car so that my mother could make regular visits to care for their parents. Dad outfitted it with a trailer hitch and we used it for towing a small Sears tent trailer to Arcadia Nation Park in Bar Harbor, Maine, and, in 1964, to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. In those days, there were no speed limits on western highways and as a kid I saw the speedomter read 80 - 85 mph. hour after hour while towing the trailer. It never bothered the Fury a bit. We also took it to the North Carolina Outer Banks, through the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains, Washington, DC, and on regular weekend camping trips.

When I started college at the University of Hartford in 1967 the Fury became mine. I used it for commuting to school, jobs, and dates. It got noticed wherever it went and one day, while sitting in McDonald's in Newington, Connecticut, a man from Virginia came up to me and offered to buy the Fury right out from under me. I told him the car wasn't for sale then, but took down his name in case it ever was.

In 1969 my aunt sold me her Dart GT and I got in touch with the man from Virginia who I'd met several years previous in McDonald's. He was from somewhere just outside Washington. We spoke on the phone, cut a deal ($125), and he arranged to take the bus into New Britain where I'd pick him up. I sent him a bill of sale and title in advance and he came up with a set of Virginia license plates to put on his new pride and joy.

I watched him drive off down the street and realized that was the last I'd likely ever see of that car. I sensed then that some day it would be a collectable but since I had no place to store such a car and wait, I'd just have to forego the chance of it ever being worth 'collectable' money. Fully restored, today I'm sure it's worth thousands because there were only 5,000 originally produced (a NASCAR requirement of some kind, I was told).

Several years later I chanced a call to him. He said he'd enjoyed the car but had sold it to another collector. Looking at your pictures, I cannot help but wonder if it's the car I used to own.

Mine did not have two four barrel carburetors, only a single four barrel. Dad had also had some body work done on it prior to our trip to Yellowstone: he'd had the 'eyebrows' over the headlights replaced because they'd rusted out (always did on cars of that era here in the salty Northeast).

I think I may still have a file on this car around somewhere including the serial number, etc., and some old records and photographs. You can contact me at: Dean Anderson / 27 Water Street / Stonington, CT 06378-1424. e-mail: boatsandnotes@sbcglobal.net; phone 860 535-1846. Would love to hear from you. 69.37.123.169 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)--69.37.123.169 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dean Anderson

A word to the wise...

You've been here a long time (much longer than I have), but I wanted to bring your attention to this revert. Obviously, it was a necessary revert, but I just wanted to suggest caution in what you revert as vandalism; the user you reverted is a newcomer who may not know all of our rules yet, and even though his edit was clearly not NPOV and did need to be reverted, it wasn't vandalism. He wasn't inserting random body parts or expletives into the article or blanking sections or doing other obvious vandal stuff, so I don't think this is a clear-cut case of vandalism (particularly since he's a noob). You didn't template him, so it's no big deal, but I just thought I'd drop some friendly advice here to use caution with the vandalism label. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Image ping

http://sedition.com/a/3284 — used an image of yours; “stamped” your name. Thank you much!

Mighty Mite

Both versions are the A1 with the 71" wheelbase. Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncowilly (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File talk pages

I noticed that you posted a message on User talk:Morriswa that you tagged File talk:Testaross Festival of speed.jpg for CSD F2. That criterion doesn't apply. F2 is for corrupt images. CSD G8 could apply to the talk page, but "this excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user pages, user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." (emphasis mine). I have removed the CSD tag and applied {{G8-exempt}}. Imzadi 1979 → 15:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me where I can find the logo that was used in the Corgi_Toys_-_two_Rambler_Marlin_diecasts_on_a_logo.JPG picture or if you have another pic of just the logo. I would like to get a tattoo of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by70.198.7.119 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Corgi_Toys_-_two_Rambler_Marlin_diecasts_on_a_logo.JPG

Customized art logo

I was wondering if you could tell me where I can find the logo that was used in the Corgi_Toys_-_two_Rambler_Marlin_diecasts_on_a_logo.JPG picture or if you have another pic of just the logo. I would like to get a tattoo of it as a tribute to my brother who has just passed on.

Thank you.

70.198.7.119 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Matt70.198.7.119 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to find out about your brother. I do have the logo, but will have to find it in my stash of AMC and Marlin stuff. Once I locate it, I will post a close up picture of it.CZmarlin (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. My brother still had the 66 Marlin he drove his senior year of high school (1981) & was working on restoring it. I know that he would think that logo was cool & would dig it as a tattoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.5.15(talk) 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded one file (see the "Customized art logo"), but will need to look in my collection of automobile memorabilia for the one you requested. CZmarlin (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty cool also. Thank you for taking the time to look for that for me, I greatly appreciate it. 70.198.1.89 (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Matt

Any luck finding this? Thanks. 68.109.168.241 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Matt

Sorry to be a pest. Just wondering if you had any luck finding this. 68.109.168.241 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Matt

Matt - I have not been able to track down that other image in the background! Finding it is on my "to do" list as I am going through some of the boxes while moving my car collection to another state. Sorry it is taking so long! CZmarlin (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ford Excursion

You removed the clean Ford Excursion why? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a nice picture. However, the new infobox requirements call for only one image in it. The Wikipedia image guidelines state that it: should be a "three quarter" view of the front and side of the car. Moreover, there is a link to the Commons for even more pictures. CZmarlin (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if you could get a picture of a nice, clean, and factory original vehicle to put into the infobox that follows the Auto Project conventions. The new standards increased the default image size in the infobox, so it is now even more important to have a "beauty" shot at the head of the article! CZmarlin (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the use of your photo. I included it with an article that goes live on Auto Trends on Sept. 9. Attribution given. http://www.autotrends.org/2012/09/09/you-can-replace-your-power-steering-pump/ — Preceding unsigned comment added byMattKeegan (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanti photo

Christopher - I just wanted to thank you for releasing your photo "1963 Studebaker Avanti gold at Concord University.JPG" to the public domain and let you know that I have used, with attribution, it at "http://www.roadtrip62.com/VintageProducts.htm#Avanti". It's a great photo and illustrates my short piece well. If you would like, I can provide a link on that page to a site of yours. Just let me know through the Contact page on my site. - Don Milne--DonDMilne (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

correction needed

The car shown in the picture, and identified by the author, is not a Javelin SST, but is an AMX SST. This model car was produced for only three years: 1968, 1969 and 1970. Only 10000 were produced each year and each one had it's own production number plaque on the center column above the radio. The car shown in the Bittersweet Orange color with the black stripe is a 1970 AMX. I own a 1969 AMX that I ordered from American Motors in 1969 in the same color with a 390 cubic inch motor and Hurst 4-speed. I still own it and it still looks showroom fresh. The AMX moodel was a two seater, while the Javelins were all four seater models. Sincerely, vankoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vankoo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Spinner (wheel)

Hi. By rolling back and reverting as you did here, spam links have been reintroduced by a user who has COI. For more information, please see:

• User talk:JamesBWatson#Changes
• User talk:JamesBWatson#Wheel Spinners
• User talk:Heather Ussery

I'll be quite happy to discuss this with you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please carefully examine the edits that I have contributed to this article. It now contains referenced history and a more complete discussion of the subject matter. My concern is with the encyclopedic value of the history and use of the "spinner" term in automobile usage ... not to wage an edit war regarding the patents pertaining to the modern versions of "spinning" automobile wheels that are being added by editors with a conflict of interest. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that you edit/correct/improve the "Modern concept" section that I have noted with a "needs additional work" template ... rather than simply performing a wholesale revert to some old version of the article; thus, removing historical use of the term and referenced information. Moreover, reverting to an old version causes the material to be discussed in reverse chronological order and with a long lead section that has undue weight and information about the modern wheel spinners. Such backward presentation does not make sense and WP guidelines call for brief article introductions. Furthermore, your reversions do not seem to fix, but rather reinstate the problem links. In summary, please retain the improved organization of the article, as well as the recently introduced referenced material. In particular, please contribute to the presentation and spam removal that is in the modern spinner wheels section. Thank you - CZmarlin (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My interest is in addressing the issues I linked you to. Therefore I will not be getting involved personally by editing the text myself. I'm sorry that your CE and contribs were caught in the flak, but I hope you understand that this was an unavoidable collateral damage, and simply rolling back and reintroducing the unwanted content is not the best solution - a discussion would have been preferable. If the article is within your area of knowledge, interest, and concern for its propriety, you are welcome to remove the spam, disallowed inline links, promotional EL, and the use of the article to promote an individual and/or his works - and please go ahead and restore your own good faith edits, because the next step may be another revert/deletion of the offending section possibly followed by a full-protection of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks that JamesBWatson has cleaned up the problem section very nicely ... rather than reverting the entire article. I have removed WP's "improve template" from that section. Thanks for helping out. CZmarlin (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • Gentleman, J.D. Gragg here. I owe you an apology! Recently at the end of June 2012 had my identity stolen and several accounts hacked including very confidential information. You all seem you be very Internet savvy so I am sure you can understand just how upsetting and infuriating the event had been for me including my family, of which was the worst part of it. My investigator has just finished up with his duties and contacted me and I have found that the Wikipedia event was nothing more than pure coincidence. The main reason it did not appear this way to me was I had a lot of trouble believing that a true Wikipedia editor would edit and completely delete entire blocks and sections, including the picture that another Wiki editor then had to then reinsert, and that it was done "anonymously" at first, but then created an account just a few minutes later plus it appeared to be his very first edit, not to mention he was incapable of spelling the simplistic word "referring". Then the fact that it was edited for all "cites linking to personal or self-promotional websites" was incorrect. The only cite link back to any of my websites was the one linked to my personal name. All other cites were to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office along with cites to the U.S. Federal Court system East and West coasts, so I am sure, well I hope rather, that you can understand my position, confusion and knee-jerk reactions to all of this and accept my apologies for the entire event, as the apology is indeed sincere. I do understand that all of you do a tremendous amount of work and do it for the love of it and not monetary gain, that is for sure. So in closing, please accept my apology and should you ever require anything that I could do to make this horrid event up to you please feel free to ask. I am easily contacted via Google should you not already have my contact.

On a side note, please keep the mention of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner clean of misinformation as I still have licensing active around the globe into the 2020's and Wikipedia being international does reach them all. As for the confusion about phrasing, I have been throughout the U.S. Federal Courts and it is important that the Modern Day Wheel Spinner is not confused with the cheap spinning inferior hubcaps that trailed into the market place on the cheap end of the craze. Also, that the spinning hubcap that you have cited actually functions as a "stationary non-spinning hubcap" and has been reviewed throughout the original patent issue, again later validating the patent in the U.S. Federal Courts by U.S. Federal Judges and Magistrate Judges that specialize in IP's, plus the top 2% of Intellectual Property attorneys that were involved being the best in the field and was not, I repeat was not found to be "Prior Art". Just as an FYI that picture of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner you are using has been reviewed and is an illegal clone from China, just to let you know. So again please accept my sincerest apology. Nothing but the best of high regards to the all of you! James J.D. Gragg70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (I hope I finally learned to sign out correctly?)70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Gragg's latest IP has been blocked for block evasion - not to mention the constant promotion of his hubcap patent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo Used

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152163572040291&set=a.288793670290.321100.21554895290&type=1&theater

Photo used here. (Liberty University's Facebook page as part of ad for football game vs. Concord)

208.95.51.170 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tirelessly keeping Seat of local government from becoming a dumping ground for everyone's personal vacation snapshots of city halls.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

1974 AMC

Using on a Yahoo article, will credit your name — Preceding unsigned comment added by76.235.62.177 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talking to new users

Hello, I notice that you've been dealing with some edits by Luketate19 (talk · contribs). I've left a message on that user's talk page; it's a good idea to do that, especially for a registered user, because they may not see your edit summaries. Graham87 06:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1973 ford thunderbird image usage

Hi Christopher, I used your photo in three composite graphics in my PhD thesis (It is about statistical machine learning approaches for finding content in images) simply because it is a very nice photo of a seventies car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlovesdata (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Electric car picture

Hi CZmarlin. In the past you participated in the discussion to select the picture that is used in the lead of the electric car article. This is to let you know that I opened a new discussion with more options here, just in case you want to participate. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DUMMY

You're So dumb for reverting my edit and guess what? You made alot of people dislike your edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.217.106 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)