User talk:Joe Patent

tWelcome!

Hello, Joe Patent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe, I assure you, I'm no insider. The reviews (from auto publications) were pro-Vega..yes Joe. That's the ironic story of the car. However, in the Crticisms section the problems with the car's underdevelopment are explained. In retrospect it is shown clearly (in intro and in Criticisms) the car did not live up to expectations. I have owned over 20 Vegas since 1977 with milages of 5,500 (currently owned) to over 100,000 miles and have a large archive of information from the beginning, and I think I know more about the car than someone who has owned one or two with no archives. The poor public perseption of the car is mentioned in the intro and in Criticisms. No need to mention it in every section. The reader will draw their own conclusions based on the referenced facts in the article; not an opinionated conclusion. Since about 2,000,000 were made at the rate of 100 or more per hour, the Vega was not a consistent car due to this high build rate and unfinished development. Some owners experienced a trouble free car.. the ones who usually were careful with their attention to fluid levels. Some experienced nothing but problems. Development went on throughout the cars life-span. The article touches on this in the intro, in the reviews, and in a full section near the end. In 35+ years it was time for a neutral history. The article does just that where all of the retrospective internet articles make statements and claims without references. Every bit of info in this article is referenced. To list all the negative opinion articles on the net does not give a neutral history...just a biased view. 1968-1970 section was provided by the Vega Factory Coordinator. All reviews are referenced by publications who actually tested the car. Current reviews are based on what? All of the Vega's problems are outlined in the Criticism section and what was done to correct them. There might have been more Vega owners who had good luck than bad although I have no statistics and make no claims nor do I express ANY opinions in the article although most other articles assume all Vega engines and fenders went bad. We will never know how many engines and fenders were replaced under warranty. I state that engine damage was common (under-development) and what Chevrolet did. Same for the rust issues (cost related) Its all explained, and what was done over the seven years. That's enough. As far as your link above..The writer is probably frustrated by the neutrality of this article which I'm sure he has read as he made comments on the Vega talk page. He needs to state his OPINION in his articles which isn't allowed in any Wikapedia article. I had listed some owner reviews good and bad which were regarded on this talk page as not reliable and I deleted them, but Money magazine editor Mr. Newman's selected reader comments and his conclusion are? I don't think so. Recent auto publication retrospective views are listed in reviews. The article is neutral. (Vegavairbob (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC))