User talk:CZmarlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thank you for editing Rambler Marlin, however, next time you edit, please cite your sources, and split up your material into sections. Mo-Al 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of putting in the sections and other upgrades on the page and previewed the page several times. However, as I tried to save the page, the system told me that someone else edited (deleted) the page at the same time.

Thank you for your evaluation about my text, but this article about the history of the Marlin and AMC's strategy is not plagiarized. It is a slimmed down version of my research on this company (perhaps you may have noted the name I use: "CZmarlin"? I also have material about these cars on my own web pages. You can google for “1967 AMC Marlin fastback” and get lucky. Therefore, I am the author of the material I was trying to enter including the references and footnotes that I did not yet get a chance to get in. I am new to this “free encyclopedia” and do not have the skills to pre-enter all the proper section breaks, links, etc. Just as I was trying to work on it, all the effort I put into it was deleted. I guess you have to have everything perfectly set up before posting. I am not a computer expert and this coding stuff is way above me. Perhaps I was mistaken in that others would jump in and help to improve the articles. I thought I was just starting the ball rolling on this subject. All I can say is: I am sorry that I tried. My life is very busy and I do not have that much free time to work on this. Thanks anyway!

If you reaserched from sources, just add them to the bottom of the page. Also, you can revert my deletion if you were going to add citations. Just add {{ inuse }}
links talk view to the top of the page and no one will revert your changes. The only problem is that if you dump a huge amount of uncited unformatted information into an article it essentially makes that article impossible to read. If you don't use the template, no one will know that you are still working on the page. Sorry if I caused you any trouble, Mo-Al 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I can revert my deletion in the article, and add sections. It's ust that, from a glance, it looked like someone had just dumped a bunch of text from a website onto the page, while removing the info that used to be there. I apoligize. Mo-Al 02:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Tarponback.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tarponback.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:67marlinFastback.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:67marlinFastback.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMC collectibles

Please put in a word for saving this page, all the wiki-killjoys want to quash any attempt to put collectible toys in any fashion on WP. You'll need to go into the deletion notice, and then the talk page. So far everybodys think no sane person would ever be interested in looking up information on an automobile collection. I started it because they removed collectibles from the Matador page, and now they won't permit it on any other page. I hate those guys. --matador300 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teague Premier

Watchout for ApolloBoy. He erases any mention of AMC lineage to Chrysler, especially the Premier. Some deep feelings out there. He refuses to allow naming the Premier as successor to the AMC Matador, maybe you can have better luck at that. I think the AMC page already lists Matador and Premier in the same midsize car list. Premier is probably the only important AMC car more obscure than the Matador. I bought a 87 legend and 96 minivan instead, but thought it was a slick car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2006 July 16 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before? Please STOP trying to paint me as a bad guy, and stop attempting to add your original research. And BTW, the Premier isn't a mid-size. --ApolloBoy 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Ambassador has always been the big luxury car at AMC, so it more properly should be the Ambassador heir, but they've always shared the passenger compartment behind the nose anyway. You may have noticed I have chosen not to fight that one to the death. The Premier was a little bigger than the k-based midsize cars, which is why the LX cars have all but killed sales of the k-sized cloud cars.--matador300 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] François Castaing‎

Just noticed your working on Teague, can you help do some research and fill out this article? They killed that AMC Collectibles page, the bastards. I'm on the auto project firing line again, I need some backup to fight off the bullies. --matador300 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* I hope the new article about Castaing will be up to "wiki" standards! There should be enough references to back up all the information. I think there is more than found in most other articles. CZmarlin 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles

Can you help out with the voting on this page? I think you can add the entry for the Ambassador which had a ridiculously long nameplate lifetime, but it's about to be deleted. --matador300 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Teague's son

Put this in, add it to Taurus, and make a page for him too. --matador300 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/killing_the_goose_21.htm Meanwhile, Jeff Teague, the son of AM’s Dick Teague, was designing a new kind of station wagon with less emphases on utility and more emphasis on style. The Taurus wagon became such a hit that many people who could afford a BMW bought Jeff’s wagon for its looks alone.


* OK. His son now has a separate article: Jeff Teague. I may try to add to it among all my other projects! CZmarlin 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDness of stamps

Hi, what is your evidence that Image:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg is in the public domain? It is extremely unusual for post-1960 stamps to be public domain, US is about the only one. You'd have to be able to point to Sharjah and/or UAE law that specifies the copyright term for government-produced works (my guess is that it borrows UK crown copyright law, which is 50 years). Stan 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Stan, please help me out on this issue. All I wanted to do is to show this concept car on a stamp. Most people would nave no clue what it would be if described in words. Even trying to explain where Sharjah is would not accomplish the purpose of informing a reader about the image of this AMC car. Moreover, the image of this stamp can be found on web pages if one knows how to search it out. When I added it to the AMC Cavalier article, I went through the list of "tags" and thought I had picked out the "right" one to attach to the upload. I probably did not see all the differences between them. It is possible to change them. In any case, please correct the designation for this image to what it should be. I have no clue what the laws are in Sharjah and/or UAE! Thank you, Chris CZmarlin 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use images

[edit] Image:Chevy Vega Wagon Kammback.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chevy Vega Wagon Kammback.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 free 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) 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:2005 Jeep 2500 Made in China-PR.jpg

[edit] Image:2005 Jeep 2500 Made in China-PR

Thanks for pointing out the "fair use" of the Jeep made in China. It is an edited version of the press release photo, but I put the "promotional" tag in it and gave the reasons for its use. I also included the following statement:

  • A photograph of an actual Jeep 2500 from China would be appreciated! If someone has been in China and took a "free" image of this Jeep, then they should upload it in the "Jeep XJ category in the Commons area" and replace this one! Thank you CZmarlin 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

However, before an actual "free" picture is available, I think it should be good to show the current image because it illustrates the similarities and differences with the Jeep models that were made in the USA. I think this is significant to show that the vehicle that was introduced in 1983 is still being manufactured (albeit with an updated grille and headlamps) in China. What would you suggest to do so that readers can have a visual of the current Jeep product made in China? Once again, thank you for your consideration on this matter, CZmarlin 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that request, and I agree that it would be great to have a free photo of this. Unfortunately, the first fair use criterion says that we can't use this non-free image, if a free one could be created. We can't even keep the non-free one around just until a free one turns up, I'm afraid. This is because having a non-free image in the article tends to discourage people from taking or uploading a free one. When the non-free one is removed, people often become more motivated to find and upload ones that we can use.
So what can we do? Well, one possibility is to e-mail the copyright holder (I guess the advertiser that photographed the Jeep?), and ask them if they would release the photo under a free license. If they won't, you could try other people, such as car lots in China or that do business in China. They might be willing to release a photo under a free license, if we linked to them in the image description page. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission might help with that. Another possibility would be to contact Wikipedians in China to see if they could photograph one. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tarponback.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tarponback.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 . 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. --Chowbok ☠ 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for adding your note regarding Image:Tarponback.jpg. I believe that I have fully described the reasons for the use of this image under the fair use. Could you please explain how a picture of a concept car from over 40 years ago fails the first fair use criterion. In other words, how is it possible to describe and illustrate a subject that does not exist and how do you create a freely licensed image of it today. Because show cars like this Tarpon were destroyed, it is not possible to take a picture of it today. Will taking yet another picture of the factory photo qualify? I like to learn about this subject, but I do not think another image generation can hide the original! The purpose of including this image is to help illustrate the characteristic design incorporated into the fastback. I believe it adds to the value of the article, in addition to the aims of Wikipedia. If you disagree, I welcome your questions and a detailed discussion of the concerns. Thank you CZmarlin 04:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the car no longer exists. I wouldn't have tagged it if I'd realized that. I'll withdraw this. —Chowbok ☠ 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, CZmarlin. I've just tagged Image:93EagleVisionPR.jpg as replaceable as well. Cab forward could be illustrated just as well with a free content image, couldn't it? Regards. ×Meegs 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Meegs. I agree that this image can be removed. The LH models from Chrysler were regular production cars. Many are on the road to this day. This is not the case for (a) seldom seen automobiles, (b) images that correctly show the original condition of the vehicle, or (c) a concept car, such as the Rambler Tarpon from 1963 that was last seen in 1964.
  • However, I should point out that all too often the pictures that appear on Wikipedia are of cars and trucks that have been modified or customized and thus no longer represent the subject material in a correct and historical manner. This is an area where there should be greater flexibility in the campaign to eliminate illustrations of subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. This is only my opinion, but a historically correct image (for example a press release photograph) should have priority over a "free" image. An example is the following -- Image:60's car with blue flames at Power Big Meet 2005.jpg. This is not a factual representation of the actual subject described in the Wikipedia. I think the use of such "free" images detracts from the goal of the Wikipedia endeavor. Just my $0.02 -- CZmarlin 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel injection

Hi, CZM. Yep, I intended going back and reëditing the Electrojector paragraph this morning, but last night I just had to fix that sentence broken in half. I've reworked the paragraph for proper chronology, but it really cries out for more detail and factual support from start to finish. Chrysler had problems with Electrojector in '58, too, and most of the cars originally so equipped were subsequently retrofitted with 4bbl carburetors. I am not familiar with AMC's 1957 Electrojector experiment. Are data available on how many cars were so equipped, of which how many were actually sold to the public, of which how many retained their Electrojector setups? Too, it would be nice to have comparative HP and torque numbers for both the AMC and Chrysler offerings. I'm working on obtaining production/retention and HP/torque numbers for the '58 Chrysler offering, maybe you can do likewise for the '57 Rambler? --Scheinwerfermann 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, that's a decent start. Allpar.com has a great deal of interesting comment, but unfortunately there is absolutely no fact-checking at all (write it and send it in, and if it's topical, the site owner will put it up intact), and a great deal of what appears on that site has no veracity. I have long been hesitant to recommend allpar unreservedly even as a resource for finding out how to fix one's Mopar. Too many factual errors!
I've amended the paragraph in question again. As additional information and specs become available, we can flesh it out further. It seems the '57 Rambler EFI option nearly made it to production, but was cancelled at the last minute (very last minute, after owner's and service literature had already been printed). The '58 Mopar Electrojector option actually was available, and cars so equipped were sold, but most of them were retrocarbureted after first sale. Interestingly enough, a similar situation arose in the early 1980s: Chrysler put a Bendix TBI system on the 318 in the Imperial, and it proved so problem-prone that a TSB and service package were released...the package consisting of all parts necessary to retrofit a 4bbl carburetor! I'm gathering info on this latter-day debacle and will add it to the FI article when I've got it available. --Scheinwerfermann 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Right you are, many/most of the early US-brand attempts at fuel injection were highly troublesome and unreliable. The concepts were mostly sound, but the implementations were very poor because the US automakers refused to pay much of anything more than they'd spent on carbureted fuel systems. You get what you pay for, whether you're a consumer or a corporation. The GM system found on early Sevilles was a crude knockoff of Bosch D-Jetronic—some of the components even interchange! The analogue brain box was crude by modern standards, but here again, the difficulties were at the implementation level, not the conceptual. A conceptually identical analogue ECM was used with fine reliability in the D-Jetronic system. Ford likewise had dreadful reliability problems with their TBI in '80-'83, though things got better for '84. --Scheinwerfermann 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/z/m/User_talk%7ECZmarlin_a964.html"