User talk:Jimpatnmatt

Dodge Charger Edit

Just a quick note to say nice job on the revisions on Dodge Charger (B-body). Hope to see lots more of those kind of good edits. Manway (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age Taskforce

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed taskforce Queens of the Stone Age|Queens of the Stone Age. There's alot of Queens of the Stone Age-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this taskforce can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this taskforce off the ground and a few Queens of the Stone Age pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Dart

The Dodge Demon would be a submodel of the Dodge Dart if it had been badged "Dodge Dart Demon", i.e., if both the "Dart" and "Demon" names had appeared on the car as was the case with the Dodge Dart Swinger and Dodge Dart Hang Ten and Dodge Dart Sport. Because the Demon was practically a Dart but was marketed and badged as a Dodge Demon, it belongs in the AKA field of the Dodge Dart infobox. It may be a subtle distinction, but it is a uniform one. By contrast, the Dart Swinger, Dart Sport, Dart Sport Hang Ten, and Dart Spirit of '76 are all Dart submodels; they were all badged both Dart and Swinger, Sport, Hang Ten, Spirit of '76, etc. Things might've been different with the Demon had it been released in 1970; that year the new Duster was badged and marketed as the Plymouth Valiant Duster. The following year — 1971, when the Demon was released — the Valiant badge was removed from the Duster, which was thenceforth marketed and badged as the Plymouth Duster.

The AKA infobox field, in general, is meant for identifying and linking to badge-engineered vehicles, whether they differ in model name (Dodge Dart/Dodge Demon), make name (Chevrolet Cavalier/Toyota Cavalier or Plymouth Valiant/Chrysler Valiant), or both (Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe). Submodels are discussed in the article text itself.

As for this question being discussed quite often, that does not appear to be so; this issue does not appear ever to have been discussed on the article's talk page, which would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion. Where on Wikipedia do you see this question having come up before?

Finally, please remember to keep your tone civil when adding comments to user and article talk pages and when writing edit summaries. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments and questions. I can see where you would go "Hey, wait a minute...!"; you're asking a valid question about the limits of what constitutes an AKA vehicle. It would be difficult to stir up much disagreement that identical vehicles differing only in nameplate and minor cosmetic trim details should be reciprocally incorporated into the AKA field of each vehicle's infobox. So Dodge Colt and Plymouth Colt, no question. Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volaré, or Dodge Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim, also no question. Okay, now how about Chevrolet Caprice and Pontiac Parisienne? Identical except for nameplates and minor cosmetic trim details...and engines, and because the 307 engine used in the Parisienne had a different bellhousing pattern than the 305 used in the Caprice, also different transmissions. Probably still considered AKA by most people.

Now consider Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant: Substantially similar from '63 through '73, but definitely different enough in those years (wheelbase, sheet metal) that they don't qualify as AKA. The difficult part comes when we get to the '74-'76 Darts and Valiants, which were as identical-except-minor-cosmetics as the Spirit/Acclaim, Aspen/Volaré, Matrix/Vibe, Subaru/Chevrolet Forester, etc. Okay, now back to our topical example of the Dodge Dart and the Dodge Demon. This is a less clearly-defined situation. In many respects, the Demon was indeed within the Dart line; practically speaking and according to Chrysler's own VIN and parts nomenclature, it's simply a 29-body Dart (29-body = 2-door sports hardtop) as opposed to a 23-body (23-body = 2-door hardtop, i.e., Swinger). The owner's manuals said both "Dart" and "Demon" on the front cover. But the cars themselves were badged and marketed not as "Dodge Dart Demon", but as "Dodge Demon". So we have here a situation wherein a member of the Dart family was badged and marketed as something other than a "Dart", and that is what qualifies the Demon to go in the AKA field.

You're right, of course, that there were no 23-body or 41-body (4-door sedan) Dodge Demons, but you would likely encounter a great deal of resistance to the idea that a vehicle belongs in the AKA field only if the alternate name was applied to each and every model variant of the primary name.

Now let's go a little further in exploring the parameters of this field. There is another vehicle that legitimately belongs in the AKA field of Dodge Dart: the Chrysler Valiant, as sold in South Africa. Take a look at this South African 1970 Chrysler Valiant VIP brochure, or this South African 1970 Chrysler Valiant Regal brochure. There is presently no entry for Chrysler Valiant in the AKA of Dodge Dart, though that could change at any time...

...which brings me to my next important point: The most common status of a Wikipedia article is unfinished. Wikipedia articles are in a constant state of flux. It is to be hoped — and sincere and coöperative editors work to see to it — that this flux moves in the direction of improvement (better-quality presentation of a greater quantity of more-accurate information supported by a larger number of more-reliable sources). But most articles on Wikipedia are, by Wikipedia's nature, incomplete. For that reason, saying "That article over there doesn't have what you say should be in this other article over here" may well be true, but by itself is not a sound basis for determining whether either or both articles should have or not-have whatever feature is in question.

Moving on, you write: My reference to discussing the difference between a Dart Sport and any other sport was not a reference to Wikipedia, but a reference to my decades-long interest in cars, specifically Chrysler products, and my many encounters with other people as a result of this interest, both in person and on-line. I am a big eBay fan, and frankly that is where I have found this situation many times. I didn't mean that I had seen this anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's terrific that you're a longtime Chrysler product fan — me too — but the standard for information on Wikipedia is not what we know, or think we know, or have observed. It's what we can prove with valid references to reliable sources. This is a major irritant to those of us who happen to know a great deal about Mopars, or oranges, or microwave ovens, or Pentax cameras, or John Lennon, or cigarettes, or whatever; it means contributions we make without referring to acceptable sources, even if our contributions are 100% factually correct, can and probably will be challenged and/or deleted. It's just the way Wikipedia works, and while it can be infuriatingly frustrating, it's for the best in the long run.

Back to our Dart/Demon/South African Valiant example: An editor places "Dodge Demon" in the AKA field. Another editor (such as you) comes along and says "Hey, wait a minute, are you sure that's right? It seems wrong to me and conflicts with what I've seen." Okay, now it's up to both of us to support our assertions. If I can't support the inclusion of Dodge Demon in AKA, then my doing so is likely not to last very long; someone'll come along and revert or remove it. I don't make many such edits these days! So, I might cite the relevant pages of the 1971 or '72 Chrysler Corporation master parts catalogue as evidence that the Demon was in fact a differently-named member of the Dart family. That would be a pretty solid citation, coming right from the manufacturer at the time the car in question was built. You'd likely then say "Okay" and let it drop. But maybe not, if you had a different document of equal solidity, say, some press release from Chrysler saying "The Dodge Demon is an all-new car not related to the Dart". In that case, we'd have a discussion on the Dart article's talk page. I'd present my reasons for putting the Demon in the Dart's AKA field, you'd present your reasons why you think it shouldn't be there, and we (including any other editors who wanted to participate) would try to achieve consensus. That consensus might take the form of the Demon appearing in AKA, the Demon not appearing in AKA, or something else.

I do agree with you that the Demon should probably be listed as AKA in the Duster's infobox. Won't you please be bold and make it so, if it isn't already? (And guess what...there's another A/K/A for the Demon, which was sold and badged in South Africa as the Chrysler Valiant Charger 190 Sports Coupé — no foolin'! — and another for the Duster, which was sold and badged in Switzerland as the Chrysler Valiant Sports Coupé.)

Your question about Wikipedia authority or credentials is another good one. Many people new to Wikipedia take awhile to understand that there is (almost) no hierarchical chain of command here. There are a relatively few people (Wikipedia's founders, for example) who are officially above everyone else. Most of the time you'll never encounter such a person. All editors (like you and me) are generally considered basically equal to each other in terms of authority and priority. No editor has more or less right than any other editor to contribute, in general or in specific. There's nothing I'm allowed to do that you're not allowed to do, nor vice versa. The differences amongst editors are down how closely they follow Wikipedia protocol and procedure in making their contributions. This, in turn, is largely down to two factors: attitude and experience. Some editors, for whatever reason, come in with a bad attitude and are determined to buck the rules and ignore the protocol at every turn. The amount of damage they can do is generally limited in short order via warnings and blocks. Aside from those relatively few disruptive editors with bad attitudes, mostly an editor's effective priority is a function of the degree to which his or her contributions adhere to Wikipedia protocol, which in turn largely depends on his or her experience level. There's a great deal of protocol, and as much as we all hate to burden ourselves and others with enormous volumes of rules and regulations, a project of this size and scope perforce needs a lot of guidelines and policies. Fortunately, for most day-to-day contributing, you need only familiarise yourself with a very small fraction of the total volume of rules. I respectfully point you at my quick-reading digest presentation of the most critical principles, to get you up to speed on most of the important how, what, where, when, and why.

It may interest you to know that the principle of basic equality amongst editors even applies to "administrators", who are officially not considered superior to non-administrator editors; administrators merely have access to a greater number of tools. The title "administrator" sounds like a superior or some sort of cop, but the administrator's job is usually more along the lines of a combination mediator and janitor than anything else. In fact, one of the basic requirements for those editors who seek to become administrators is that they have a valid, productive reason for seeking adminship other than just wanting to be an administrator, so those who just want to go on a power trip are excluded. And the process of becoming an administrator involves a great deal of close scrutiny...by other editors; a candidate for adminship must have the respect of his or her fellow editors, which is gained by editing and behaving coöperatively and in accord with Wikipedia protocol. It's not a perfect system, but it works surprisingly well.

Last point (sorry, this is a very long talk page comment): When commenting on a talk page, either an article talk page or a user talk page, we sign our comments by typing four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces) at the end of what we write. Wikipedia automagically turns those four tildes into a user-time-date stamp. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are cogent arguments for both ways of doing it (listing as AKA or listing as related. What's causing the problem is that there is no separate article for the Dodge Demon. If there were, this what we're discussing would be less contentious. But the Demon was a 2-year-only model, renamed Dart Sport for 1973, so either the Demon article would perforce be a short stub talking about the Duster-sourced fastback body with Dart front sheet metal, then essentially saying "See Dodge Dart", or it would have to be a cumbersome duplicate of existing articles (Dart, Duster). The problem there is that new or upgraded information is now twice as hard to integrate, because it needs to be added to two articles rather than just one. Perhaps you're right that listing the Demon as related is the better way to do it; then we can put the South African Chrysler Valiant in AKA, which will pave the way to a section in the article dealing with Darts badged as Valiants for various export markets. What do you think of that solution?

When you reply, please do not create another new heading on my talk page, as you have been doing with your previous comments. Instead, please indent your comments. How to do so is covered in easy-to-follow detail on my user page. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Grove Park Inn, there's a section called "Extras at the Inn" that sounds like a sales brochure that doesn't translate well to this format. It sounds too promotional and is full of incomplete sentences. Should that be removed?Jimpatnmatt (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jimpatnmatt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jimpatnmatt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jimpatnmatt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Broderick Crawford/Highway Patrol

In at least a couple of places, it is mentioned that Crawford's character in Highway Patrol, Dan Mathews, represents the CHP. Although the producers of Highway Patrol worked closely with the CHP, they were careful to not portray a specific state or agency in the show. The cars merely say "Highway Patrol" on them, Mathews always identifies himself as being with "the Highway Patrol", the tags on the cars that appeared in the series had no state designation, etc. etc. I would hope this would get corrected, as this is a fairly well known aspect of the show, at least among its fans, of which I am one. Jimpatnmatt (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)