Talk:Spinner (wheel)

New York

A law has been proposed to ban the wheels in New York. The reasons aren't too clear so I wont add anything but I think it's worth a mention ~RICO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.207.8.4 (talk • contribs) 05:37, February 18, 2007

I speculate that it's because they can fool others into thinking the car is rolling when it's stopped, thereby causing accidents. I'd like to see the actual reasoning behind the ban. 203.73.235.60 06:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are proceeding to drive through an intersection and glance to your right or left, you might see a vehicle that's properly stopped but which appears to be moving into your path. You might brake suddenly and get hit from the rear by the next car. I almost got caught by this on one occasion, and would maintain that it can be deceptive. WHPratt (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

over one million patents later

What does "over one million patents later" actually mean? 1 million patent applications on spinning wheels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.50.6 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ANSWER: There were 1.25 MILLIONS patents issued in the United States BEWTEEN these two patent issuements. ~~Heather Ussery~~

'Modern' section

This reads more like a court case prosecution summation than an encyclopedia. It rambles on and on about patents and piracy but doesn't explain such things as what "non-adaptable spinning wheel only version" and "non-adaptable wheel only version" means. Some expansion on "27 different spinning mode capabilities" is needed - what are these modes and how do they differ from what is mentioned?  Stepho  talk  04:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll find more information on these issues at User talk:CZmarlin#Spinner (wheel). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it was your comment on his talk page that brought me here in the first place.

Looking through the edit history, the bulk of the 'modern' section was added by User:Srennipsurt. User:Cevikd reverted it all as spam (refering only to the inventors own website) and noted that 'Srennipsurt' is 'truspinners' spelt backwards. Srennipsurt restored it with nasty comments. Then a big re-organisation was done by User:Heather Ussery. Before her changes the first half of the article talk about knock off central wheel nuts (as used on classic sports cars) and the second half (the 'modern' section) waffled on about legalities of Graggs invention. Her changes put Graggs invention at the top, covering the bulk of the article and put the historical wheel nuts as almost an afterthought at the bottom of the article - ie heavy handed bias of WP:recentism and spam.

Searching on her name and "spinner" I found she is listed as a publicist for Gragg on his facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/James-JD-Gragg/116525785137706?sk=info When she reverted an edit by Srennipsurt she said "Any future cyber stalking/attacks Cevikd I will be reporting to FBI Cyber Crimes Division in the name of my client" (my emphasis). This is certainly WP:conflict of interest. Possibly Srennipsurt and Heather Ussery are the same user - which violates WP:sock puppet. Note also that Cevikd's, Srennipsurt's and Heather Ussery's accounts have only existed since this October and have only edited this article and a couple of user talk pages in relation to this article.

I'm all for paring the 'modern' section down to just the facts about the device itself. Given the obvious conflict of interest of the major contributors Srennipsurt and Heather Ussery , I'd leave out all the claims of being first and all the legalities. Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  08:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I just found some more info that should be read: User talk:JamesBWatson#Changes and User talk:JamesBWatson#Wheel Spinners. Doesn't change my opinion - in fact it confirms the conflict of interest. But I will at least strike out the claim of sock puppetry.  Stepho  talk  08:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking care of all this Stepho. Cut out as much as you like that looks like spam especially the links. Let me know when you have finished and I check it over. If any spam gets added when the page protection expires, I'll extend the protection. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like James beat me to it. Much cleaner and less hype. Many thanks James.  Stepho  talk  12:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JamesBWatson! The your contribution to the "modern" section was great. I have removed WP's "improve template" from that section. Keep up the good work! CZmarlin (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that my edits caused such a fuss (and potential legal problems for me, lol!) until just now. My account was indeed created when I saw this page and how strange it was, initially I anonymously edited the page but it was almost immediately reverted by a bot, so I registered my account and edited it again. I just happened upon the article and thought it was such a strange mess of spam and conflict of interest that it was a good time to try my hand at cleaning up a Wikipedia article. Since then I've noticed that I know so little of the culture and etiquette of the Wikipedia editors I've kinda just tried to stay out of the way (this became especially clear when I attempted to report Srennipsurt). I apologize if my edits were out of line or if I've broken any basic rules of etiquette. I certainly didn't expect the reaction my changes received! Cevikd (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern - part 2

User:Khriskidd added the following to the article. Comments about the article belong on the the talk page rather than the article itself, so I shifted it here.  Stepho  talk  03:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WRONG! The free-spinning spinners front spinners were different from the back ones, as the front ones were put into motion by the turning of the wheels left and right thus applying the bearings dynamic friction, this is what made the free-spinning spinners spin to begin with. This is why some of the rear free-spinning spinners would not spin at all unless designed correctly with the correct tolerances of the bearings set properly and many were not balanced correctly and simply would not spin. This was one way of being able to identify the massive influx of Chinese fake imitations from the real Tru-Spinners of the United States. There were also aerodynamics involved and this is how SOME spinners were able to actually spin backwards as the automobile moved forwards. But please, just question the Wikipedia writers here. They know it all! Apparently more than the inventor of the modernday free-spinning spinners. Maybe they should read the patent rather than Google sources. - User:Khriskidd 13 October 2012

It is interesting to observe that just before Khriskidd contributed their personal opinions about WP writers to this article, their only other edits were to vandalize most of the "DYK?" articles listed on my user page. These were the exclusive efforts for the one day that Khriskidd "worked" on WP! Therefore, I detect a little animosity being directed by Khriskidd because of my efforts to improve the Spinner article! CZmarlin (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Srennipsurt added the following to the article. Comments such as these are not to be put in the article, but here - on its talk page. Srennipsurt's (the backward way of spelling "truspinners") have been moved here. Thank you - CZmarlin (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please describe the correct 'means' of how the free-spinning spinner mechanical workings actually 'function' as your assumed analogy of "what little friction is produced makes the spinner spin" is completely inaccurate. If you can not, please only describe the 'function' as it is now corrected. The inventor does possess the rights to have his inventions "means and function" accurately described. Thank you.

I went to one of the older versions of the article and read through some of the patents a bit more carefully. There is indeed mention of aerodynamics being used to add spin in some cases. I didn't really want to spend a lot of time on such a trivial article (at the end of the day they are just ornamentation) but it looks like I will have to spend time searching for and wading through patents and online magazine articles. I intend to concentrate on the actual device rather than the legalities - mostly because I don't have time to go searching for counter claims that may or may not exist. But I'll be happy to consider anything that someone else points me to.  Stepho  talk  08:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gragg wanted me to express his thanks for "Getting it right"! That is, yes, you may explain the 'function' all you wish, but when you are attempting to explain the 'means' you had completely wrong except for about 5.% and as you can tell with Gragg he is one that is either 'get it right or don't do it at all'. So he appreciates not mis-informing the public untruths about how the free-spinning spinners actually work. And for this he says "Thank you". He also said "Thank You" for "Getting it" when he explained the early and original use of the "knock-offs' true application he inserted under the name of his friend Khris Kidd. He also wanted to apologize for the behavior of Khris as he caught him inserting text into other subjects and categories he had no knowledge of, also considered vandalism and Gragg expressly told him "NO MORE OF IT"! MR. Gragg has a high respect for correctness and the work it takes to get it right. So again, thank you for not explaining his 'means' of his invention on pure conjecture on an editors part. On a personal note from me, I do not know why in the world you do not care to utilize Gragg's expertise in the field since he was the one that created it. That is what the legal section was about, showing his originality and patent validity that Tru-Spinners were indeed the first and the one that invented and created the free-spinning spinners that took on the generic trade name of Tru-Spinners. I am guessing that since Tru-Spinners were the only free-spinning spinners that would spin for 18 minutes, had spinning capabilities of spinning in 27 separate modes, would spin backwards while going forwards and used 3-D holographics and that all other free-spinning spinners did not, could not, that one would need to name the only ones that did, Tru-Spinners, or it would be a lie but would be considered by Wiki editors as soap boxing. The free-spinning spinners did take on the generic trade name "Tru-Spinners" the same as "Channel-Locks" (tool) are ALL called Channel-Locks now days, regardless of the manufacturer. Well Mr. Gragg could care less about the name of his company ATS that is dormant or that you print his name, he does however care greatly about describing his invention incorrectly and the trade name. It also seems a bit weird that you would need to mention the name of the "group" that wrote songs about spinners rather than "only the name of the song" itself about spinners, since you have no problem mentioning the invention of 'modern day spinners' but will not mention the inventors name! Soap boxing for the music world or for the appearance of "knowledge"? It would seem so. Perplexed ~~Heather~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather Ussery (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply - family life and my paid job have been making demands lately. I'm glad that Mr Gragg is interested in presenting the basic facts. The reason Wikipedia has a policy of distancing those involved first hand is because they usually introduce bias - often subconsciously. In this case yourself and Mr Gragg have concentrated more on proving the legalities of ownership of the device. The WP audience is more interested in how the device works and perhaps a small paragraph on the legalities if the legalities were particularly notable to anyone besides those involved in the court cases - ie was it big news in the newspapers/magazines. This may seem harsh to involved people such as yourself and Mr Gragg but it has been found necessary. No insult is intended to yourself or Mr Gragg. Advice is welcome, although we may not always be able to apply it due to differing goals of the audience and the inventor.  Stepho  talk  23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Are the patents, and other legal issues, truly "notable" for the purposes of an encyclopedia article about this subject? This is because there does not seem to be any evidence as to the notability of the patents concerning the wheel spinner assembly or other ornamental wheel disk inventions. WP guidelines call for: "Significant coverage" [that] is more than a trivial mention. Of course, the discussion of a patent is vitally important to a particular inventor such as this axle mounted device. However, WP guidelines require sources: "Independent of the subject" [which] excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. My quick review of available materials shows there is a lack of multiple public and reliable secondary sources that document the legal issues concerning the modern spinner automobile wheel decoration. On the other hand, there is a significant amount of history, discussion, and books about "real" spinning-wheels. Just my thoughts regarding this discussion ... CZmarlin (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching you guys on here lately and I can understand Graggs confusion of how Wikipedia operates as I had no clue about you guys rules either and I've been a reader for years, but you guys have eliminated any and all of the creative innovations by now just saying modernday spinners spin! I looked at Graggs patent and it is exactly the spinners you are showing as old day and the modernday. All you have to do is look at the patent images here and scroll a page or two down past his other inventions, you can even see a patent formula for how the multi spinner spins right here, https://www.facebook.com/pages/James-JD-Gragg/116525785137706 You guys need to read rather than just skim it for peoples names. And here is the patent of his again at the United States Patent and Trademark Office http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5290094.PN.&OS=PN/5290094&RS=PN/5290094 . So when did the United States Patent and Trademark Office become an unworthy and unreliable source for Wikipedia? Had the invention not been his original the patent office would have "never" issued a patent to him and from all the legal talk it was recognized and stood up in the courts. I and an entire industry took it as a source of pride the an new American invention for one of the oldest inventions in world, the wheel, and you guys just snub the guy with no mention at all of who or where it was invented. Do you guys really think that is what your readers want? Seems to me he was the only one trying to set things straight here from the way you talk about him. I also read where you said the srennipsurt was only created a month ago and that is "completely untrue!" As we have watched this page for the last 5 or 6 years and that is the same name that was posting that legal stuff because my dad was in the business and the law suits were flying as the Graggs were stopping the illegal stuff from coming in the USA hurting American businesses. The page maybe use to have what you consider useless info on it but it wasn't boring. Now there's more on it about music that there are for the spinner device itself. This all makes me wonder just where are you editors are from, do you know anything about the US Patent Office and their rules of law, and lastly why snub the guy. I can't see where he did anything to you, he was just telling everyone what was happening with it all. ~~Langston~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langstontire (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You've raised a number of issues but many of them are based on a simple misunderstanding. The original use of 'spinner' was for a wheel locating device. Originally axles had a large thread on them and a large nut (the spinner) was used to clamp the wheel to the axle via a bearing. Modern cars use 3-6 nuts arranged in a circle to hold a wheel on but original it was just that single large nut in the centre of the wheel. To make it easier to get on and off, the nut had side extrusions that could be turned by hand (for the loose part of the thread) or by a rubber mallet (for the tight part of the thread). These extrusions spin exactly in time with the wheel because they were firmly clamped to the wheel. It was an essential part of the car - if it came off then a crash was likely. The spinners used in the 1960s were just hubcaps that look similar to the old functional spinners - underneath there were the usual 4-5 lug nuts found on most modern cars. The modern use of 'spinner' is a wheel 'decoration' device. It has no essential purpose other than to look interesting. The first picture on Mr Gragg's facebook page does indeed look like the old style spinners. However, it is still a merely decorative device that does not actually clamp the wheel to the axle. The modern spinners spin at different times and rates than the wheel itself. Hopefully this explains why the modern spinner is not a reinvention of the wheel (decorative rather than function).

Now on to the wiki rules. The one relevant here is that the article must not be overly biased towards one particular aspect. The original spinners were an essential part of early cars. They continued to be used on race cars until the 1960s and even today a large single nut is used at the F1 level (changing wheels with one nut is faster than fiddling with many nuts). The article had been rewritten to make the original, functional use a minor afterthought and had turned the article into an advert for the modern, decorative use. We've cut out the advertising but, admittedly, have cut the description of the modern use back to much. I've promised to research it and put some proper (non-advert) description back in but my new job and family activities have been taking a lot of my time. It's still on my list of things to do but the list is progressing slowly.

Lastly, srennipsurt's first edit was 11 March 2011 - see Special:Contributions/Srennipsurt (click on 'earliest' at the bottom). That name may have been used outside of Wikipedia but March 2011 was the first use on WP. You might be confused with the account for Heather Ussery, which was only created a month ago - see Special:Contributions/Heather_Ussery. Hopefully we've cleared up some issues for you.  Stepho  talk  22:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

A very supportive group Wikitruths has brought it to our attention that it is so very clear to see that so many of you are indeed the poster children of the "Dunning-Krugar" effect! Good luck with your begging for donations. We now see why you have stooped to begging and also see why the donations have stopped coming in. Soon you will have less, we assure you after we expose your editors "anonymously" vandalizing Wikipedia pages by eliminating entire sections rather than editing them. Then going from "Anonymous" to creating "Alternate Accounts" of their existing Wikipedia Editor accounts already active. These are not the acts of a legitimate 'editing process' and you have CesarB aka Cevikd aka Anonymous to thank for this. Jimmy Wales will probably thank you in person as they contact him and explain. I have been told that there is a NEW website being launched daily about Wikipedia's fraudulent and prejudicial acts of editing of only printing what the editors limited IQ of understanding is of any said subject, when the people of the private sector need the entirety of it and the truth of subjects history as you are NOT a dictionary, even though that is how you conduct constructing your articles. You're just a tad over your heads. ~~Wikitruths~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.160.36 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The spelling is Dunning–Kruger effect ('e', not 'a'). Do you have criticism specific to this article or is this just a general rant?  Stepho  talk  22:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is apparently the same J.D. Gragg from above, through a bit of Google Fu I found this: https://sites.google.com/site/wikitruth6/. I have no idea why he thinks I am User: CesarB, but I'm very flattered by the association! I do not think that Gragg quite understands what a Wiki is, and he's a little lost. Cevikd (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that wikitruth6 site and it was just a rehash of the complaints laid down here. I was kind of looking forward to see my name there but it wasn't - probably for the better :) By the way, that site has 'wikitruth6' in the url, 'wikitruth5 in the browser title and there are no wikitruth5/7 sites. Anyway, it's just the usual WP evil cabal stuff and practically nobody will ever read it, so I'm going to ignore it until it shrivels and dies by itself. However, I will try to expand on decribing the various modes of working, although the real world is keeping me busy for the next few weeks.  Stepho  talk  05:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you really deserved a mention, you're the one that put all the effort into cleaning the article up. My only contribution was stepping on the land mine!! :) Good luck, sorry to have caused such a farce with my edit. Cevikd (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 November 2012

Typo in 3rd sentence: usege -> usage 76.126.116.195 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone just sent me this https://sites.google.com/site/wikitruths9/ and I am LMAO!!!!!!! I mean I sent ALL my correspondence with you all to my publicist and various friend's that were asking me what was going on, but I never thought you would make them angry. So I came here to see the following new comments of yours and I see that the Dunning-Kruger gang there are doing what you all do best, correcting typo's and gathering information of sophomoric websites.

So how do I know that Cevikd is an alternate account of CesarB? While in search for the non-existent User Account of Cevikd, the Wikipedia thread lead to the result below. WIKIPEDIA: This is an alternate account of CesarB that may be cited by others as an example user page and example talk page. Note to new users: This is not a testing space. Please experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Another note: Want to test user warnings? Try User talk:Sandbox for user warnings.

So you may blow more smoke up yours peers rears, but not mine! (I think I would be vetting CesarB Bachelors Degree if I were in your group.)

By the way Cevikd aka CesarB, you're such the smart guy, tell me which airport to fly into and you and I will sit down and play 1 game of chess for $20K, $50K? you name it! Any time, anywhere, and we will do it right there in the airport under security so you won't have to worry about your safety. .....I mean you are the genius that figured out that Srennipsurt is truspinners just spelled backwards! ....Kudos to you on your forensic capabilities.

In closing, I never tried to hide my name, I just used my friend's account Khris Kidd's one time to prove a point. The point was that you're more than willing to use my knowledge, but not while it is in my name! de facto!

PS: By the way, here in your WIKIPEDIA CHAT, there are 3 R's when spelling "referring" not 2 Mr. Wizard! ...You all are indeed a real choice group! ...lol WIKIPEDIA: You'll find more information on these issues at User talk:CZmarlin#Spinner (wheel). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Yep, it was your comment on his talk page that brought me here in the first place. Looking through the edit history, the bulk of the 'modern' section was added by User:Srennipsurt. User:Cevikd reverted it all as spam (refering only to the inventors own website) and noted that 'Srennipsurt' is 'truspinners' spelt backwards.

And again, I told my son and these kids along with ANYONE around my computer network to stay off Wikipedia so you shouldn't be bothered with any more edits and so forth. Best regards, J.D. Gragg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.176.121 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And thank you! You had me wondering how these guys had copied my blog. I found the settings still on private. It is now on public. As for me, it and this, just fading away as you suggested, wrong again. You must really perform more due diligence with your research especially before assuming anything about me. I do not run and I do not hide and I use my name (unlike you) but when I see an injustice, especially being performed by those that are over their heads in Intellectual Properties, I fight for the right, especially with some medium IQ's that are as dangerous , if not more so than SOPA. You have no idea of the thousands of people that follow me OR who I know and know me! I will also be taking out various 1/4 to 1/2 half page ads around the U.S. exposing your incompetency and alternate account 'black out' techniques. You my tell Cevikd aka CesarB, that even though he has now severed that thread to his alternate account I already have it ALL archived. I assure you that you have never met anyone like me! I document EVERYTHING! Such as this article with every edit going back to when it was started in 2005. I run dual terabytes, does that even give you a clue to the data I archive? Probably not, so good luck to you and your donation begging/raising. https://sites.google.com/site/omnimindmatters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.169.84 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gragg sir, I think you are quite confused. The User Account that you happened upon when searching for my account was that of Example, an alternate account created by (the now infamous) CesarB to use as.. well.. an example when examples are needed to show people how to edit pages. I am in no way related to CesarB, but as I said above I'm very flattered by the comparison.

Secondly, I do not think you really grasp the concept of a wiki. It's meant to be writable by anyone, even anonymously. My original edit wasn't done anonymously for any nefarious reason, it was done that way because I was too lazy to sign up for an account. A bot (a user created program that scans Wikipedia) saw that my edit was nothing but the removal of text by an anonymous user and it reverted my changes. So I registered an account and re-applied the changes to satisfy the criteria of the bot. No nefarious intentions or attempts to misdirect, just simply making sure the changes stuck. You also seem to be confused as to what a Wikipedia editor is. All users of a wiki are editors of that wiki, that's the point of the wiki! There are very few paid individuals that work for Wikipedia, a vast majority of the content was created free by volunteers.

Third, you seem to have taken the edits very personally as an affront to you. Nothing could be further from the truth. I saw a page that was not complying with the rules of Wikipedia, was clearly created in conflict of interest and using sources that were unreliable like the authors personal website with direct links in the body to that external site. All of these things are clearly labeled as prohibited in the rules of Wikipedia, you are not the first person to happen upon them nor will you be the last. I edited the page to bring it closer to compliance and you objected. This happens, so the conflict was brought to Wikipedia administrators and they remedied the situation. No one here cares about J.D. Gragg, I'm sure you are a pleasant person in real life and we'd be best of friends; however, everyone here is attempting to contribute to making Wikipedia a better place. You disagree with how it can be made better, and I apologize for the misunderstanding, but the rules are clearly posted and readily accessible by anyone. No one is trying to downplay the importance you attribute to your patent, congratulations on your success, being a patent holder myself I know how much that can be a source of pride. However, the minutia of patent dates and times is relatively unimportant data when discussing spinning hubcaps. It's trivial information that is not needed to understand what these ornamental hubcaps are all about. Cevikd (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gragg has been blocked for block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • Gentleman, J.D. Gragg here. I owe you an apology! Recently at the end of June 2012 had my identity stolen and several accounts hacked including very confidential information. You all seem you be very Internet savvy so I am sure you can understand just how upsetting and infuriating the event had been for me including my family, of which was the worst part of it. My investigator has just finished up with his duties and contacted me and I have found that the Wikipedia event was nothing more than pure coincidence. The main reason it did not appear this way to me was I had a lot of trouble believing that a true Wikipedia editor would edit and completely delete entire blocks and sections, including the picture that another Wiki editor then had to then reinsert, and that it was done "anonymously" at first, but then created an account just a few minutes later plus it appeared to be his very first edit, not to mention he was incapable of spelling the simplistic word "referring". Then the fact that it was edited for all "cites linking to personal or self-promotional websites" was incorrect. The only cite link back to any of my websites was the one linked to my personal name. All other cites were to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office along with cites to the U.S. Federal Court system East and West coasts, so I am sure, well I hope rather, that you can understand my position, confusion and knee-jerk reactions to all of this and accept my apologies for the entire event, as the apology is indeed sincere. I do understand that all of you do a tremendous amount of work and do it for the love of it and not monetary gain, that is for sure. So in closing, please accept my apology and should you ever require anything that I could do to make this horrid event up to you please feel free to ask. I am easily contacted via Google should you not already have my contact.

− − On a side note, please keep the mention of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner clean of misinformation as I still have licensing active around the globe into the 2020's and Wikipedia being international does reach them all. As for the confusion about phrasing, I have been throughout the U.S. Federal Courts and it is important that the Modern Day Wheel Spinner is not confused with the cheap spinning inferior hubcaps that trailed into the market place on the cheap end of the craze. Also, that the spinning hubcap that you have cited actually functions as a "stationary non-spinning hubcap" and has been reviewed throughout the original patent issue, again later validating the patent in the U.S. Federal Courts by U.S. Federal Judges and Magistrate Judges that specialize in IP's, plus the top 2% of Intellectual Property attorneys that were involved being the best in the field and was not, I repeat was not found to be "Prior Art". Just as an FYI that picture of the Modern Day Wheel Spinner you are using has been reviewed and is an illegal clone from China, just to let you know. So again please accept my sincerest apology. Nothing but the best of high regards to the all of you! James J.D. Gragg70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (I hope I finally learned to sign out correctly?)70.234.170.149 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr Gragg, in case you do not see the messages on your various IP talk pages, this is to inform you that your IPs will continue to be blocked for disregard of our blocking policy. The blocks apply to you whatever means you use to edit or comment on this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Simulated Wire Wheels"

Since the end of World War II at least until the later half of the 20th Century, some automobile manufacturers have also offered functional wire wheels as an option to simulated wire wheel hubcaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.84.232 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That is true. However, the first half of this article is not about the wire wheel but about the large nut which holds the wire wheel to the axle.  Stepho  talk  04:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thread direction

The first paragraph of the "Original use" section refers to thread direction related to "passenger side" and "driver's side". This is unhelpful, as cars are available with both left-hand and right-hand drive. It needs changing; I would do it myself but I'm not sure I'd get it right, although I assume the article is referring to rhd cars. Peter Ward (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, driver's side and passenger side are not appropriate in an international encyclopaedia. Dive straight in and edit it - the rest of us can fix things up if you accidentally introduce any problems.  Stepho  talk  22:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about in the US but in the UK we say "near side" [1] and "off side".[2] That avoids any confusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Good observation Peter Ward! To avoid confusion, I have added cited material that simply uses the left and right side of the vehicle to explain the direction of the spinner threads. CZmarlin (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung. Nearside means the side closest to the kerb/curb - which is the left side in Britain and Australia (my country) but the right side side in America. So nearside and offside is just a synonym for passenger side and driver side.  Stepho  talk  02:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what it means. I've been driving for 47 years and driven in over 30 different countries - including Australia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem then. I did't realise "That avoids any confusion" was meant in jest.  Stepho  talk  05:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)