1. 1 Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Mudflap. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jackfork, Just signed on today .. much to learn. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Appreciate the point you made. I shortened everything up ..removed the bold and Capital letters .. can't help but get excited though since this is litteraly history in the making .. I've been at this 10 fulltime years ...despite what it looks like.. I've have yet to see a nickel from it...God willing thats about to change. Niether did my late step father ever see a dime on any of his inventions ( 30 earlier years worth ) ... I'm proud to at least air history in the making on wikipedia. Really hope can agree on revised....Avgjoejohn316 PS sorry for total number of edits ... just couldn't shorten enought including the comments I made on your talk board .. sorry for inconvenience !

1. 2

Wikipedia is not here to promote a product or service; please read Wikipedia policy on self promotion. In addition, these edits violate Conflcit of Interest policies, since you are connected with the company. Seaphoto^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Seaphoto .. so a friend who's not connected to my company inputs the same information, information the readership want to know about the availablility of historical revolutionary technology and its OK ?Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. 3

I am sorry you don't agree with the way Wikipedia is organized. I reverted your last edit without a warning as I don't want to see your account banned for spam. Please read the sections I linked before editing again. Thank you for your cooperation. Seaphoto^Talk 05:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really ?? It's late, I've been at this all day...it looks like, because theres no real rules ( all rules in a system like this are debatable) it seems, if not with you, someone else will come along and I'll be debating this stuff from here to eternity Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC). This is not a word I've invented or a dance move .. It's my life .. this is not spam .. I really need a brake here .. there can't be much more to cut out. If it were spam I have given up a long time ago .. Why don't you graciously let me know what I need to cut out ?... You're volunteering already for the beterment of humanity I hope... We're talking here about breaking news history dealing with green technology and peoples saftey the world wants to know about .. hope by some miracle the group change thier mind ... take careAvgjoejohn316 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will try Toolmonger too. Have been and continuing to pour time into such forums and blogs that welcome new products with what limited time and resources I have left to post as descreatly as possible. At this juncture its about setting the facts straight on mudflaps on several platforms. 1) Historicly new mudflap technology - no small improvement ... monumental historical change ( More than any time in history people need to know that average joes like me and late step father can make contribution to society .. 2 ) Categoricly - ( ie. new category ?) Such revolutionary technology, now that you know it exists , needs to be added, in the name of keeping current. I haven't had time to figure out yet since I only learned how to input this stuff yesterday. If the conflict of interest can be saticfied simply by someone else ( arms length ) removed from my company I sincerly can't think of anyone who's as well informed, empowered, & sacrificialy motivated to contribute to the community ( society in general ) as seems you have evidently done. Afterall, with all due respect, sincerely, there could be no conflict of interest if recomended by someone like you because its evident from your response here you'd indeed be armslength. As a one man show - because others have tried to take advantage of me in the past ( Bullied so to speek for who knows .. a myriad of reasons ... from control mongers who tore me down so they could either attempt take over or simply just to look good at my expense (even supposed friends on powertrips - jeollousy is a terrible thing ... to be clear, no inference on you personaly as I sincerly beleive your last response is sincere, and that you have wikipedia's best interests at heart. I have exhausted all my resources including time . All that said, with the revisons I've made, before deleating all of it please let me know what I need to deleate or revise to make this work. If I'm the problem ( COI ) ...then please allow due recognition to my late step father who never earned a dime nore any societal recognition through such bullying himself. If you have to remove anything, please don't let the last part of the original mudflap defenition ( describing naked girls and waving hair & lengerie - if anything likely put there by the mudflap girl mudflap manufacturers ) trump my late step fathers global monumental historical contribution, including the aerodynamic application to the mudflap. In fact, as respourced as you are if you think his information could be placed anywhere else please take your liberty. Sincerly, Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Jac16888^Talk 15:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jac16888 .. duely noted. I appreciate the heads up ... will do.Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I sympathize with your desire to publicize your late father's invention, as I have said before it is a clear conflict of interest for you to do so on Wikipedia. If you disagree with that you can seek the opinion of other Wikipedia editors through this page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I would strongly recommend you go through that process before restoring your edits. Seaphoto^Talk 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaphoto, this is history. Tell me then where and how else this ought to be placed .. to get the point out that, in keeping with the times mudflaps are also aerodynamic. Appreciate the common ground in keeping " Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag " however just leaving it that way without expressing its patented opens up a can of worms for rest of world who think they can just add holes or perforate, as some have already attempted to do, thats caused undue hardship. We've sacrificed so much in the name of "innovation" ..( the only reason I hesitatingly included and still include the patent refrences was to confirm validity and ensure future violations don't occure) .I've now removed my name entirely out of the picture, incuding the refrences of the snow melter. Just seems like a disgrace to remove such History while keeping refrences like ... "Another is the mudflap girl, an attractive woman's silhouette, sitting with her hair being blown back in the wind... mudflap girl linked to promoting by Bill Zinda of Wiz Enterprises in Long Beach, California [1] [2].. ( That's monumental history readers want to know about .....??? ) ... I've seen your wikipedia CV . Your a smart man, I can't image you'd let, mudflap girl & Yosamite same ( that promotes an entire industry of now really rich companies like Disney ) trump this. Please. This is not about winning .. its about facts and history. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avgjoejohn, this is 148.17 from yet another computer/IP :). Did you read my comments on the article's talk page? Do you have any response to them except to revert the last edit? I think I raised serious questions about the claims you make in the article, leaving alone the conflict of interest issue. I also suggested an alternative. Please consider these suggestions instead of continuing to revert the article. 71.255.42.214 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks .. 148.17 ..sorry I'm new & somehow mised the article .. will review and revert backAvgjoejohn316 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

148.17 ... As for mudflaps 1st commercialization claim... is this what you were looking for ? landline article 2001 .. I'd send you a copy of the $10k it cost for the booth,and innovations transporter, but it hurts just thinking about it. :)

I Never said I was first to patent .. this is what I originaly said on Wikipedia " Vortex Splash Guards were first Patented in 1985. As a result of decades of work left behind by the late inventor A.Z.Morin - inventor of the mobile snow melter - inspired by his wife Muriel to improve road safety, with 6 subsiquent international patents, likewise daring to dream, Mark Morin inventor and IP owner consiquently so inspired, debuted the next generation technology in 2001 at the Great America Truck Show. This technology, by industry standards, is the most technologicly advanced mudflap in the world. NTEA going green without breaking budget - 3rd pgh from bottom " 19:59, 22 March 2011

What it turned out to be now on Wikipieda, because I've had to seemingly settle for what ever sticks, is as you see it. Not because of my doing. Bottom line is, our technology didn't just stay on paper, we were first to both Patent & Commercialise ... this is what matters in the real world ) Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you think your step-father's inventions and your mudflaps are notable enough, why don't you write a separate article about it/them, and add a 'see also' link from this article, as I suggested above? 96.238.148.17 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know and understand how easy it can be to get sceptacle the world gives us too many reasons.

Thanks for your care .. sounds like a good idea ..

Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, as has been reverted to( "mudflaps" ) dealing with aerodynamics as read ..."Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag" though true, cannot appear that way. The fact is "aerodynamic mudflaps are now a reality", but cannot be such without Patents. Without it, such a statement opens up the "Danger" for patents to be violated. Bottom line is, though it would not be your intention that you or other folks violate my patents, reality is removing the patent refrences does just that, I trust you, nor anyone else at wikipedia want to be responsible for that.

Reality is the afformentioned reverted statement ("mudflaps"), cannot be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag WITHOUT MY APPROVAL AS I OWN "THE" PATENT RIGHTS.

While, keeping the afformention in mind, if you have a better way to word it take your liberty. Thanks.Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avgjoejohn316. You have new messages at Danger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A tag has been placed on Aerodynamic Mudflap, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WuhWuzDat 18:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 30 March 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Aerodynamic Mudflap" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page) 22:33, 30 March 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Aerodynamic Mudflap" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

This what ever guy, who deleated the arguements I made in my contesting page ... deleated that too..so nobody else can commment on it. No comments himself.. brave really brave. Some people do stuff just because they can .. what an abuse of the system. Read his profile " REALLY " this is a representation of true wickpedians ? Hardly think so. Back on track ... If your're a real man/woman/person .. you'd post them back again to see what the rest of the world think. Will now save in a personal file for future use. One burned twice shy. Allright then, I'm up for some fun lets see where this wormhole goes .. If anybody knows where I can grab these comments back please let me know how. If anybody, who now knows about my late step father and feels it should be posted on a Notoriety premise, for wikepedians and the rest of the world, who know the system politics and what ever else you need to know .. please take your liberty then. This is not about winning its about history and the facts. Due recognition where it belongs .. please.

Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:96.238.148.17 said ... if you think your step-father's inventions and your mudflaps are notable enough, why don't you write a separate article about it/them, and add a 'see also' link from this article, as I suggested above? 96.238.148.17 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said ... I know and understand how easy it can be to get sceptacle the world gives us too many reasons.

Thanks for your care .. sounds like a good idea ..

Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:96.238.148.17 I took your advice and started new article but someone arbitrarily dealeated me ... needing help I've just reloaded for some kind of commity review (diff | hist) . . N Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap‎; 02:16 . . (+4,437) . . Here's where you can find it. It hasn't and doesn't it promote the company name. I've removed any refrence to " Smart flap" only becuase someone may think I'm promoting this name brand. You'll see I don't promote any name brand. Just the catagory. Removed the refrence just to be sure. Here's where you can find it Aerodynamic mudflap

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avgjoejohn316:

On your submission at Articles for Creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap), I cleaned up your references, using <ref>...</ref> tags. The links have been moved from the article into the Reflist template in the References section.

-- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bk314159, Thanks ... I was just relplying to you to notify you of the changes.. this is what the changes were under "Refrences"

Not suggesting to keep all the verbiage .. just an expanded perspective for anyone wishing to help/contribute.

• Alberts Patent Snow Melter
• Landline Magasine 2001 commercialised On the net or anywhere. This category in "the marketplace" doesn't/didn't exist before Albert came along. Of the multiple thousands of links to the aerodynamic mudflap technology, that now exist, of whom Albert is responsible for having commercialised ). If you searched from here to eternity, you will not find any other refrences of a "commercialised" aerodynamic mudflap than Alberts"vortex splash guard" ( aero mudflap )as refrenced in the Landlinemag article earlier than Sept 2001 when it was launced - guaranteed. Will never forget .. Sept 11 2001.. which happened 1 day after Alberts technology ( Vortex splash guard ) was launched at the Great American Trucking show.
• Latest Patent for the technology Albert patented and most esteemed for commercialisings

You got to to me first with your refrence adustments..so for now I just hang tight then ?It still shows on the bottom of the page declined .. is this the case or is still in "re-review" mode. Anything more I need to do ?Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally keep the old templates. This indicates that it was at one point declined. It also allows us to, at a glance, see how the proposed article has progressed. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bk314159 Thanks so just as clarification... its still in the hopper for consideration then? Is there anything more I need to do at this point?Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep improving it. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bk314159 ... appreciate the adjustments you made to the refrences. Just got declined, would you Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)have any suggestions.. really needing help on this. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bk314159 .. I've just made some adjustments.Would be greatful for your feedback. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BK314159 ... additiaonly, I've made some major adjustments 7 additional refrences .. removed reference to Muriel revised paragraphs reference NTEA and aeromudflap DocketNHTSA-1999-5101-0015. added 6 additional references. Clarifed the difference of the traditional mudflap category and the aerodynamic category. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to let me know every time you change something. If you think that you have fixed the issue, simply re-submit by following the directions on the template. You should also use the edit summary field to briefly describe what you did; this field need not be signed. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised its really only talk pages I need to sign ... will keep in mind for future. Thanks. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and some issues were found because of which it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 21:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pol430 : Appreciate your previous review .. I've substantially condensed paragraphs, included additional wikipedia references, revised to reflect ( a hopeful mutualy understood) neutral, factual perspective with additional verifiable industry references/sources and I've corrected spelling. Thanks. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and some issues were found because of which it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 23:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pol430 I appreciate the interest you've taken on reviewing the article. As you likely have discovered I'm new to Wikipedia. As you can imagine, I've spent a lot of time on this already and have made numerous adjustment including the last edits. No doubt you have too in reviewing and appreciate your time. I've come to realise "understandably" the adjustments have been necessary to ensure neutrality. I appologise to you and anyone else for any appearance of my initial lack of understanding and corresponding expression of frustration relating of the protocol set out by Wickipedia. Wondering if you or anyone else you know, might graciously consider mentoring me along with this article. I'm convinced The aerodynamic mudflap and Albert Morin is indeed an essential revolutionary piece of history that needs to be told. I value time, please be assured the last thing I want to do is waste anyone elses time. Would be forever grateful Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and some issues were found because of which it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avgjoejohn316. You have new messages at WhatamIdoing's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Also, you might like to make some friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trucks. A WikiProject is a group of volunteers who like to work together and help each other out. Some of them are pretty small, but I'm sure this one (or one of several similar transport-related groups) would be happy to see a new face. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Great suggestion. You bet. Many thanks for your gracious help, contribution and incredible difference you're making on wikepedia.Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a difference, none the less progress. Again, many thanks. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic Mudflap, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant, many thanks to you and all who've made sincere contributions,( both possitive and negative feedback )to have this category added, including but not limited to user talk: Whatamidoing, user talk;238.148.17, & user talk: Bk314159, User talk:Pol430, and user talk: seaphoto. Will do and will continue, to follow up on additioanl reliable sources that establish Albert M on a notable premise ultimatley responsible for creating this category. I would have thought that his patents and the host of other sources would have acheived that. Evidently not at this time, In the mean time I send out a serious challenge to anyone who likes a challenge to find through any other notable sources anyone who had both patented and commercialised the aerodynamic mudflap prior to 2001. I say this hesitently as I'd rather you spent the same time trying to help folks like me get their articles published. Because I'm confident it would end up no where, the only upside I'd see about the challenge is that it would seem to be the only confirmation anyone will accept, that Albert was indeed responsible for creating this category ( even thought he is not with us ) and my ultimate goal to have Albert recieve due recognition would then be realised. If that were the case Albert would never have pursued the technology ... Otherwise the product he developed could be construed as "knock off" . He was more honorable than that ... indeed well respected man.Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think that the removal of material in this edit was perhaps a bit overly aggressive—there's nothing wrong with mentioning the name on an inventor in the article about the invention, for example—but I'm glad to see that you've made this much progress so far. Just remember that WP:There is no deadline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I can see that, and I can see how my edit could be seen as aggressive, but really, I was just trying to get this into baseline shape as an approvable article, and get rid of the NPOV, duplicative statements, etc - as noted in my edit description. We can always develop the article, there is no deadline. :)

The reason I took out the 'inventor' info is I'm not sure this could ever be verifiably sourced as a true statement. Back when this content was trying to find a place in the Mudflap article, I posted patents for louvered mudflaps that considerably predate Mr Morin's, and indeed are cited as prior art in his original patent. And the company that is selling products developed from his work is not the only company selling aerodynamic mudflaps. It may be possible to find a source to cite him as a pioneer in the category, but to cite him as the inventor of the category might be a stretch, in my opinion. But I'm hoping to be surprised. :) In any case, Avg316, congrats indeed. I've been watching since the beginning, and I'm glad we got this to this point, and look forward to more good work from and with you. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]