Talk:Crocker Motorcycles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Motorcycling Crocker Motorcycles is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

For an April 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Crocker Motorcycles

Contents

[edit] Plant foreman

There seems some controversy over whether this was Bigsby or Rhyne. Rhyne's name was added to the article by an anon, who produced a rather stange piece of grammar in the process.

Bigsby is listed in several places, and had a major role in the design of many components. He was an engineer himself, but seems to have worked more by intuition he had aquired working in several motorcycle factories, while Crocker did the engineering proper.

The claim of Rhyne seems to come only from Rhyne himself and those who knew him many years after the demise of the Crocker plant. There's no doubt he worked there. Andrewa 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large Photos

I made the photos on this page unusually large, in compliance with Wikipedia:MOS#Images, "in order to enhance the readability" because it is hard to see the details on this motorcycle if they are produced at standard Wiki size. Jeff dean 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

I have protected this page on whatever version that I have found it. It was this, or block you both for edit warring. Please discuss the issues here and come to a consensus on what the article should look like. Better yet, come up with some Reliable sources to back up your viewpoints. Woody (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

The business affairs of the present day Crocker Motorcycle Company are before the courts of law, as well there is a libel/slander suit against Mr Schacht by Mr Karalash. In light of these issues we are asking that all of the copy be removed that refers to the new corporation which includes: 1. The second sentence of the listing which starts "In 1999..." and 2. The whole section titled The current Crocker Motorcycle Company. Until these issues have been successfully resolved it would be best to leave off all references to the new Crocker Motorcycle Company.Cv4 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This information is sourced and it would be best to email the Foundation at info@wikimedia.org to inform them of concerns here. Copy of this left on editor's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crocker Motorcycle Company

Firstly, Thanks to the administrators that have taken control of this page. The description of the Crocker Motorcycle Company is quite accurate in spite of current legal issues between the shareholders. The page had been unchanged for some time until the new information, introduced a few days ago by an unhappy shareholder, accuses another shareholder of theft. There is no truth to these allegations, the current company description is correct and wikipedia is not a forum for fighting.

It is true that both Schacht and Karalash are in court, and the new info in question is a one sided opinion of Karalash only. Schacht has chosen to leave things as they are, pending an outcome to their disagreement. Schacht will make both sworn Affidavit's of Karalash and Schacht available for publishing on line if that will clear up this problem. If Karalsah can air his opinion on the page, then Schacht should be able to as well. Schacht and Karalash will be in court in late March 2008. This page must be controled by a third party until then as there is only court resolution possible for these shareholders. 99.232.16.223 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)99.232.16.223 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.223 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not taken control of this page, I have fully protected to stop your persistent edit war. That protection will expire on 14 January. Let me make it clear that this is not the place for advocacy on either side. It is a place to provide neutral, verifiable sourced information. It is not a battleground in which two opposing sides in an outside battle use an article to advance their own position. Deal with your problems in the Courts, if the decision of the Courts affects the article, then it can be added in then, as it can be sourced to Court documents. I will watch this page, yet I am loathe to extend the protection beyond next week. Woody (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)