Myredroom
|
Royal Enfield Photo edit
1938 single port J model ohv 500cc is my best guess. There was also a "twin port" J2 model, with two exhaust ports splitting from the single exhaust valve, giving a twin pipe exhaust. Mainly sidecar machine. The J model was also sold after ww2, but with telescopic forks. (Still with rigid frame) Your picture has the pre-war girder forks. They were good for 75mph with stock low gearing. I am going on the straight back rear stand, used on that model, as i cannot be entirely certain from engine appearance alone that it is not a 350 variant. It would be fine for the article. There is a deleted image (red tags) of an old enfield just waiting to be refilled with a smaller version of yr pic linked to the full sized picture. - Seasalt 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply edit
Done, I think. I couldn't do a straight undo since there were intervening edits, but I put the missing content back in. Let me know if it needs more work. PS, in the future, please sign your posts by typing '~~~~', so I can respond easier. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Opel Kadett edit
Myredroom: please define how something is deemed to be relevant or not. Surely if a car gains notoriety, that is relevant and as such it is reasonable to include a note to that effect on the page. I would direct you to the Lancia Beta page, which also features a note of the car's appearance on the same Top Gear episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtholr (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Myredroom, you have made a further deletion without replying to the discussion above. I have therefore referred the matter to Arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtholr (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you for your comment on my talk Myredroom, and good luck with your crusade against Top Gear references. Just try to remember that not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia knows exactly how best to do it and it would be helpful if rather than just deleting what you consider to be irrelevent posts, you could give a decent explanation for doing so. It may actually encourage people to continue making contributions$. Good luck again ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtholr (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Lancia Beta - Legacy section edit
You know perfectly well that I am not vandalising this article. The request for further citations has been alive since 2008 and still nothing has happened to this section. Wikipedia is not a place for point of view or original research. Just because there was a problem relating to rust in lancia betas in the uk in the 1970s is not sufficient reason to leave this section in the article. Clearly you do not understand what the problems is, so I have reproduced the article below with my annotations in bold, in the hope that you will finally see just what a piece of rubbish it is.
I really think that you should have started by communicating with me, rather than reporting vandalism. If anything leaving this kind of nonsense in wikipedia is much more like vandalism. I certainly don't come to wikipedia to read a rehash of some old points of view and anecdotes dredged up from nowhere in particular. Give me the verifiable facts and not a penny more.
- You were the one that NEVER contacted ANY of the article's authors but started deleting left right and center. Second, if you don't know what the automotive Press says, don't pull any bravado. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh and in case you are wondering - I did follow this story in great detail as it was happening - in the Popular press, on the television, in the quality press, in the motoring press and from within the motor trade. But my Opinion on what happened is not relevant - it merely aids me in spotting what is just another's point of view.
The Beta was very well received by the motoring press and public when launched[6] -This citation is not of sufficient quality. A decent citation is required here.
- If you can't accept a book full of Press articles, what can I say? Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The various models - which?
were praised - by whom?
- The Press - the articles have been republished in books dedicated to the model and there are now reviews in classic car magazines. If you wanted to research the issue AND had ANY sign of good faith, you'd have found them. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
for their performance and their good handling and roadholding. They were widely regarded - by whom?
as a "driver's car" with plenty of character. - Point of view
The Beta was competitively - relative term implies a point of view
priced in export markets - which ones
due to a weak Italian currency at that time, - citation need
and managed to become the highest ever selling Lancia model up to that point. - Citation needed, and what point exactly?
- The document written by John Bower provides the production figures. Compared to previous Lancias which rarely were produced in numbers greater than 15,000 units, the Beta sold exceedingly well. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately – inapproptiate style wikipedia should maintain neutrality
- Then correct it instead of deleting it - IF you are acting in good faith. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
a combination of poor quality steel - citation needed
- Bibliographical resources were provided. IF you had good faith, you'd have researched more... Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
allegedly Russian steel supplied to Fiat in return for building the Lada factory[7], - again poor quaility citation a claim that has never been proven, - we just can't know either way
- Still, it is useful to mention that a rumor is unproven, ESPECIALLY when it keeps popping up as a FACT in everyday conversations. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
but is still widely circulated; - by whom? Wikipedia?
- See the citation to the article by the Independent. As a matter of fact, I emailed its author and challenged him to substantiate his claim back in the day. I'm still waiting to see a response with evidence and proof. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
it is far more likely – says who?
that the problems with the metal - if indeed there were any problems (also POV)
itself had more to do with the prolonged strikes – citation needed and an assumption of cause and effect
that plagued Italy at that time – which we do not know to be true or false
- As a matter of fact, Italy WAS in a turmoil of strikes throughout the '70s, as was Britain. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
than with the metal's origin), - which we do not know and is probably unknowable
poor rust prevention techniques – citation needed
(typical of almost all automobile manufacturers in the 1970s), - says who!
- The classic car magazines: In ALL their articles and buyer's guides they keep saying that cars from the era before production cars were given a galvanized chassis suffer from rust. I happen to have about 300 issues of "Classic & Sports Cars" and "Classic Cars". They all keep saying the same thing. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
and inadequate water drainage channels '– again says who? Maybe true maybe not.
- The specialists who work on restoring Betas, as mentioned by John Bower. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
led to the Beta gaining a reputation for being rust-prone, - we need a citation for this reputation as a reputation is something that may exist in the collective mind. It may just exist in the odd individual. Impossible to know precisely which factor gave rise to this reputation
- Look up "Italian for rust" and you'll see if it's in the collective mind or in the "odd individual". Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
particularly the 1st Series vehicles (built from 1972–75). - says who?
- The specialists of the Lancia Beta Forum who work specifically on Betas, as well as any technician who has worked on Betas. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The corrosion problems could be structural; - says who?
- It has been mentioned in relevant articles in the Press (Classic & Sports Cars, June 2007). In fact, the scare tales kept going on about how the engine could fall off the car... Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
for instance where the subframe carrying the engine and gearbox was bolted to the underside of the car. - SAYS WHO?
- Do your research, for once. The relevant articles with ALL the necessary information are there, it's ALL given there. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The box section to which the rear of the subframe was mounted could corrode badly causing the subframe to become loose. - you get the idea – this is all someone's opinion, a report of an opinion or original research. The truth is irrelevant – what is verifiable is relevant.
- It's not an opinion, it's what was happening and caused the MoT failures. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Although tales – what tales? Published where? The word tales is also problematic as it implies value
- Tales on the internet, in magazines, even in the "Independent". If you bothered to read the sources, you'd find the information. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
of subframes dropping out – citation needed
of vehicles were simply not true, - according to whom?
a vehicle with a loose subframe would fail a technical inspection. - it might, it might not
In actuality, - whose actuality? Wikipedia is not about “actuality”!
- Actually, if something can be verified, it's ACTUAL. Stop the ridiculous word games. Elp gr (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
the problem affected almost exclusively 1st Series saloon models – says who? (certainly does not concur with my memory – even though it is not relevant)
and not the Coupé, HPE, - (aren't we forgetting the Lancia Beta Coupe & HPE HiFi models from the UK)?
Spider or Montecarlo versions. - and whose opinion is this one?
In the UK (Lancia's largest export market at the time[citation needed]) the company listened to the complaints from its dealers and customers – did it? How do we know what the company did or didn't listen to? And which company? The manufacturer or the importer?
and commenced a campaign to buy back vehicles affected by the subframe problem. - this needs a citation
Some of these vehicles were 6 years old or older and belonged to 2nd or 3rd owners. -citation needed
Customers were invited to present their cars to a Lancia dealer for an inspection. -citation needed
If their vehicle was affected by the subframe problem, the customer was offered a part exchange deal to buy another Lancia or Fiat car. - citation needed
The cars that failed the inspection were scrapped. - citation needed
Sadly - inappropriate style for wikipedia – needs to be neutral.
for Lancia, on 9 April 1980 the Daily Mirror and certain TV programmes such as That's Life! got wind of what Lancia was already doing to help its customers and embarked on a campaign to exaggerate the issue and humiliate the manufacturer - how can we possibly know what the intentions of these two entities were?
There were false claims – false according to whom?
that the problem persisted in later cars by showing photographs of scrapped 1st Series saloons, referring to them as being newer than five and six years old. - citation needed
Other contemporary manufacturers (British, French, Japanese and German) whose cars also suffered from corrosion were not treated as harshly. - citation needed
This was possibly – and also possibly not
because Lancia was seen as a luxury car brand at that time and consequently expectations were high[8][9][10]. - again dubious citations and distinctly POV
Ironically, - inappropriate style
Lancia had already introduced one year previously a 6-year anti-corrosion warranty – citation needed
an automotive first in the UK. - according to whom?
Whilst later Betas (2nd Series cars) had reinforced subframe mounting points – citation needed
and post-1979 cars were better protected from the elements, - citation needed
these issues damaged the whole marque's sales success – according to whom?
on most export markets. - which markets? and according to whom?
However, thanks to its strong driver appeal, - according to whom?
the Beta still enjoys a dedicated following today. - does it? How do we know that it enjoys any following?
Surviving examples make an interesting classic car choice for the enthusiast. - this is a point of view or buying advice – neither of which has a place in wikipedia.
Myredroom (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Myredroom. 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)
Maintenance templates edit
I blanked your sandbox page because your use of maintenance templates adds your userspace pages to maintainance categories. Please suppress categorization if you are going to use them there. Thanks Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 21:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me. Myredroom (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Myredroom. 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 edit
Hello, Myredroom. 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)