User talk:93JC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] More hockey stats

Hello Mark! You helped me out last time in my quest for stats from many years ago in the NHL and I was wondering if you can help me out again for the 1950-51 NHL season. Google has failed me again and so have a few other sites I use regularly. First, I need help finding the rest of the stats for a goaltender named Al Rollins (minutes played, goals against (not average), and shut outs). Secondly, (i Know I am asking a lot) the playoff matchups between the Bruins vs. Leafs and Canadiens vs. Red Wings. All the tables are built, it is just a matter of pluggin in information, which I can't find. I would keep looking on the net (I assume that if I keep on looking, I will find the right info eventually), but I have to go to work now and don't have time. Thanks! Masterhatch 26 August 2005

I found Al Rollins' regular season stats, but I don't have any information on the playoffs. --93JC 18:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Masterhatch 28 August 2005

[edit] Intresting Ayyavazhi Family

Hai Mark, there are intresting articles about Ayyavazhi, a new religion on both mythology and religiosity. Wikipedia is rich with this topic in English, but poor in other languages. Since french is a leading language in Wikipedia it is better to translate the contents on this AYYAVAZHI family to french. - Paul Raj

[edit] Dodge Spirit replacement

Alright, I did my research, and it turns out the Spirit was the designated replacement for the Aries, while the Shadow was made to replace the Omni. If you don't believe me, check out these links...

http://www.allpar.com/eek/k/kron.html
http://www.allpar.com/model/sundance.html

--ApolloBoy 23:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Check your discussion page for my reply. 93JC 02:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I was trying to tell you guys but somebody kept on putting Shadow replaces aries back in. --matador300 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me...

Why are you reverting my changes to the list of Chrysler platforms? The term "sport compact" is widely accepted by many auto enthusiasts, and a search for the term on Google turns up 5,510,000 hits! I'd like to know why you object to me using that term. --ApolloBoy 01:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's widely accepted by the pubescent ricers who use the term. No one, and I mean no one else uses the term. Except as a pejorative.
Beyond that it is, above all, ambiguous. There is no clear, concise definition. Even the "sport compact" article itself begins with a section entitled "Classification & debate". Coupé on the other hand begins with this:
"A coupé (from the French for "cut") or coupe is a car with a close-coupled interior offering either two seats or 2+2 seating."
Fits Talon/Laser and Daytona/Laser to a tee. That's why I keep changing it back. --93JC 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
And if you take a table like that, what as wrong with the AMC specifcations( otherthan it

looked awful) --matador300 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your Pontiac Phoenix pic...

Hi there, I saw the new Pontiac Phoenix image you uploaded. I am aware of the issues with my pic, but you may go ahead and replace my pic with yours. Besides, yours is of better quailty LOL --ApolloBoy 02:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. :) --93JC 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the strange vandalism to my userpage. =) --ApolloBoy 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching 216.20.113.244 and 24.63.10.62 like a hawk, reverting any vandalism they'd performed (mostly changing table heading colours in automotive articles, as you've undoubtedly noticed). I guess Mr. 216.20.113.244 noticed you had been changing them back too, and decided it would be funny to make stupid, vandalistic edits to your user page.--93JC 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Automobile changes

FYI, as noted in the discussion page, I have changed the syntax for Template:Infobox Automobile in a few areas: "engine" and "body_style" are no longer plural; "shares_with" has become "related"; and "similar_cars" is now just "similar". Thanks for your contributions! --SFoskett 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it chief.--93JC 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GM Minivans

Hi, I was wondering if you would support me in the discussion to keep the GM minivans separate, rather than merge them with the Chevrolet Lumina APV and Chevrolet Venture articles. I'd really appreciate your help ans support. -Bavaria 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion

Hello! As a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Articles of Similar Vehicles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Linking Dates

Hi! I noticed you re-wikified some non specific dates on Chevrolet Corsica. I just wanted to draw your attention to WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, both of which recommend only specific dates (or those with special context) be linked. Just thought you should know, to save your effort in future. I was linking dates myself until someone told me. Best wishes, Rockpocket 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. --93JC 04:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stampede city boy

hey, where do you live? I grew up in calgary, left in 68 just before it turned from mudhole cowtown to prairie metropolis. spent all my time in SW calgary. Gzuckier 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments on article naming

Talk:World Junior Ice Hockey Championships If you're interested. Thanks.
ColtsScore 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Eagle Premier automotive flops

Please don't just delete this. It's not POV, it is quite verifiable from the other WP Pages. Please edit as you see fit, but the Premier was the most important Eagle car, and also the most important for Chrysler. I'll be looking for your version of this edit.

"At enormous expense, a new design and state of the art plant for created for the Eagle Premier which was far more advanced than K-car or Taurus derivatives, which unfortunatlely Americans preferred to continue to buy droves. The plans and factory would however be Chrysler's starting point for the highly successful LH sedans."

--matador300 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please... "far more advanced than K-car or Taurus derivatives, which unfortunately Americans preferred to continue to buy in droves" is blatant POV. I have no idea why you're on this great crusade to make the Premier out to be the automotive messiah, but frankly I think everyone at the Automobiles Wikiproject is getting tired of it. Your wildly speculative assertions have no place here. You want to rant and rave about how great the Premier and AMC were, and how the Matador is a direct predecessor to the current Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger/Magnum, fine: start a blog. Or join an automotive forum. Until you start substantiating your heretofore dubious (dare I say bogus) claims take it somewhere else. --93JC 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The premier article pretty much verifies the claim that the Premier is the basis for the LH. If you can't state how removing this statement improves the article, then you are vandalizing by removing valid content. Your claim of POV is wrong, it's exactly why the premier failed, nobody cared, they kept buying more primitive cars. Now please leave the poor Premier alone. --matador300 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You edited the Premier article, jackass. God you're full of shit... --93JC 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is also correct, and I'm full of facts, and your full of something else.--matador300 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're so full of facts how about you show a shred of proof? Back up your facts by citing them. --93JC 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of facts, I didn't write this article:

Brampton Assembly From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Brampton Assembly is a DaimlerChrysler automobile factory in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. The factory was opened by American Motors in 1986 as Bramalea Assembly, a state-of-the-art facility specifically designed to produce the Eagle Premier. It was acquired (along with the rest of AMC) by Chrysler in August 1987. Production of the Chrysler LH platform cars began in June 1992 and continued with the updated LH cars in 1997. Production switched to the rear-wheel drive Chrysler LX platform cars in January 2004.

The nearby Brampton Satellite Stamping plant opened in 1991.

[edit] Products 1988-1992 Eagle Premier 1990-1992 Dodge Monaco 1993-2004 Chrysler Concorde 1993-2004 Dodge Intrepid 1993-1997 Eagle Vision 1994-2001 Chrysler LHS 1994-1996 Chrysler New Yorker 1999-2004 Chrysler 300M 2005-present Chrysler 300 2005-present Dodge Magnum 2006-present Dodge Charger [edit] AMC

Now repeat after me, the previous large AMC car before the Premier was....

I believe an apology is due.... I have officially added you to my list of "bad guys". --matador300 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMC collectibles

So what's the REAL problem with that page? Somehow I don't think your edits were truly made in good faith. You realize that edits not made in good faith are in ... bad faith, right?? But in my short experience with WPers, it seems there's an awful lot of that going around and it's pretty much tolerated. --matador300 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The "REAL" problem with that page is spelled out in the deletion notice at the top of the page: the subject does not merit having an article in Wikipedia. What is particularly notable about AMC collectibles? Over any other car collectibles? Jack squat, therefore it should be deleted. --93JC 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I suspect you harbor ill will towards my self and my contributions. Toy collecting is something that I do, and I take offence if you imply that the Hot Wheels Openfire is somehow less deserving of an article than the original AMC Gremlin. Do you also advocate deleting all articles about toys, and that Congress ban the publication of books and magazine on toy collecting? Do you have any expertise, knowledge, or credentials with regard to toy collecting? I suspect you do not own even one toy car, if you do please correct my impression. Please take your knocking down of other people's sandcastles elsewhere where you are better appreciated, and not causing hard feelings. --matador300 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Who cares if 93JC doesn't have any "credentials" in the way of toy collecting (do they even exist?), what matters is that you don't seem to understand the concept of notability. Read this policy, and you'll soon see what we're getting at. Also, nobody has "sandcastles" at Wikipedia, because nobody owns an article, even ones that you created. Now stop trying to portray us as antagonists and understand Wikipedia policies throughly. --ApolloBoy 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I used to have hundreds of toy cars. What that has to do with the matter at hand is completely beyond me. Read Wikipedia:Notability. Then read Wikipedia:Notability again. And again, if you still haven't gotten the point: AMC TOYS ARE NOT NOTABLE. You want to write an article about toy cars? Fine, make one about ALL CARS, not just AMC cars. No one gives a shit about AMC toys, specifically. --93JC 22:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"No one gives a shit about AMC toys, specifically". Actually, that is a verifiably false statement. You just made that up without thinking, didn't you? I am living proof of the existence of somebody who cares about AMC cars because that is a specialty field of mine, and for example, I can tell you that nobody ever made a toy of an ambassador. By the way, by using the word "shit" in a disrespectful manner, you are violating civility rules I believe, which leads me to believe your actions may not be in good faith, and deleting content not in good faith is vandalism.
Nothing in the passage you pointed me to bans the creation of a page that maps real cars to their replicas. The fact that classic auto magazines specifically mention certain models of replicas means that they are verifiable not only from their existence on web page listings, but also in printed magazines.
There is an article on Hot Wheels, and one on Matchbox. Why is the existence of a Hot Wheels Packin Pacer any less notable than a full size Pack Pacer? Where is the rule that a full size car merits a note, but a toy that fetches $5,000 on ebay is not worth noting?
I am sorry to say that unless I see a change in attitude, I must categorize both 93JC and Apolloboy as "bad guys" and I must treat you accordingly. --matador300 07:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm quaking in my boots. Let's set things straight:
1) I don't censor my comments for the protection of your virgin ears. Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits.
2) You're treading a few wikipedia rules yourself.
A peace offering: you write your car toy articles. If you can make them expansive, depthful articles I'll leave them alone. If they all turn out to be short lists they'll probably end up deleted anyway. By the same token, I expect you to learn to articulate your thoughts without being blatantly biased ("[The Eagle Premier was] far more advanced than K-car or Taurus derivatives, which unfortunately Americans preferred to continue to buy in droves" for example is POV. Remove 'unfortunately', as it is blatantly biased to the Premier, and 'far more advanced', as it is speculative and subjective, and you might have a NPOV phrase).
Fair? --93JC 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"I must categorize both 93JC and Apolloboy as "bad guys" and I must treat you accordingly."
That IS NOT the way to behave on Wikipedia. If you get to the point where you categorize people as "bad guys", maybe you should relax and take a break. It does a body good... --ApolloBoy 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah? Well heck geez darn it all tarnation to you all too. The bit about far more advanced was written by persons other than me (even though the Premier is one of the few cars even more obscure than the matador, it too eviddently as a fan base). I will try to reference articles to actual mentions in collecting books and magazines if it helps. A non-notable topic does not draw editors, so it says, so could you pleeez just give it a chance. There are certainly many mor popular cars that don't have collectible articles yet, so whether or not nobody gives a flying fart about AMC should not be a determining measure of "of note". Plus I hope the car article people don't start exercising their clout over the poor little worthless toy car pages. --matador300 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalier

What is your problem man? It says that Monza and Chevette covered Chevy sales until Cavalier. How does that say Cavalier does not replace Chevette? Can you even find one citation to directly support your unverifiable original research that the Chevette was not replaced by the Cavalier? What 4 door sedan or wagon did the Cavalier replace? They replaced the 5-door and 4 door chevette,that's what. I give you a citation and you invert the thesis. What car was the entry level US -built chevy?? Chevette. After Cavalir, what was US built entry level car? Cavalier. Why are you standing on this, it makes no sense, is somebody paying you to hold your unverifiable view? If people are this daft, it's no wonder I upset people. --matador300 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're the guy that figured out this bit of WP OR?? No wonder --matador300 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dodge Spirit replacement Alright, I did my research, and it turns out the Spirit was the designated replacement for the Aries, while the Shadow was made to replace the Omni. If you don't believe me, check out these links...

http://www.allpar.com/eek/k/kron.html http://www.allpar.com/model/sundance.html

--ApolloBoy 23:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That was an old comment I made a long time ago when I didn't know so much about Wikipedia and why Allpar is considered an unreliable source. --ApolloBoy 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh Artie...
The entry-level Chevrolet before Cavalier: Chevette.
The entry-level Chevrolet after Cavalier debuted: Chevette
The entry-level Chevrolets after 1984: Sprint & Chevette
The entry-level Chevrolet after 1987: Sprint, until the Geo nameplate came into existence
The Edmunds article states the Cavalier replaced Monza. Just Monza. Monza replaced Vega. Just Vega. The entire article is built around the Vega -> Monza -> Cavalier ->Cobalt lineage. They mention the Chevette a grand total of once, stating the Cavalier was "above the decrepit Chevette". Besides, since you're so keen on EPA size classes, look them up: Chevette was subcompact, while Cavalier was compact. --93JC 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Go look at the talk again. Six articles. Everybody but you agrees the lineage of small chevys is Corvair, Vega / Monza, Chevette, and then Cavalier, including the Edmunds article you claim proves that the hatchback/notchback/4 dr/ wagon Cavalier only replaced the coupe Monza. You do know the Monza was a Mustang II mini-pony car right? It was absolutely not a 4 door family sedan. That was the Chevette's job. Is here some other lineage I should know about? You were aware of this lineage, I hope. Or perhaps you dispute it. You can knock it off now and save yourself further humiliation, or I shall be forced to go to a real library and check out or buy a real book, and see who comes out on top. How could a car become a #1 seller in the US if it only replaced a sporty 2 door Mustang II competitor, instead of the entire Vega niche, which was mostly occupied by Chevette?? If I end up completely or mostly right, what would you do?? This is precisely how really silly information gets into WP and becomes impossible to fix because of stubborn folks like you, like the F-14 guy. --matador300 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Six "articles". Six anecdotes, one of which proves me right, one which calls them "import fighters", one which infers they were both cheap, one written by an amateur, one that infers they were outdated, and one that isn't an article at all. --93JC 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

93JC, would you mind please shooting me an e-mail using the "E-mail this user" tool on my talk page? Thanks. Scheinwerfermann 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:1991DodgeSpiritES.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1991DodgeSpiritES.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, whatever. Delete it, I don't really give a shit. --93JC 02:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../9/3/j/User_talk%7E93JC_b1bb.html"