Carmaker1

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Carmaker1. 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)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Another Carmaker1 report for NPA and OWN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1994 Odyssey Design.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1994 Odyssey Design.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:P8F Design Process.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:P8F Design Process.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Car designers in infoboxes

Hi Carmaker1. Do you mind if I move the designer info in some of the BMW articles from the Infobox to the body of the article? My reason for this is that long infoboxes are problematic for formatting of the article (especially regarding pictures for the early sections). Also, moving it to the article allows them to be clarified in more detail than can be squeezed into an Infobox? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as we keep it within the article, certainly.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BMW 5 Series (E34), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IAA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Backyard (Pebbles song)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Backyard (Pebbles song), Carmaker1!

Wikipedia editor Triptropic just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the nice article on the song Backyard. If you had a citation for the information about the music video, that would be helpful to add. Thanks again for your contribution

To reply, leave a comment on Triptropic's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

Based on your edit summary "Please prove why 2000 is when an album released IN 2001 was recorded? Is one checking what they edit? The date should be blank otherwise."[1] you seem to be of the opinion that changing recording dates requires neither sources nor explanation. This is obviously not the case. If you wish to change dates, you will need to provide a reliable source for the new date. I cannot "prove" the album wasn't completed and sitting on a shelf for 9 months. We don't have sources saying that is the case. Maybe it was recorded in one afternoon 2 months before it was released. Maybe it was recorded in bits and pieces over 5 years, then spent another 5 years in the can. If reliable sources tell us, we can add it to the article.

Despite your opinion that I "know very well why that edit was made", you gave no indication why it was made.[2] Presumably you found the date in a reliable source and merely neglected to give the source. It is also possible you meant to change something else and your finger slipped. Hopefully it wasn't based on the assumption that an album released in 2001 must have been recorded the prior year.

For now, I have removed the date from the article as unsourced. If you happen to run across the source again, feel free to update the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay that's understandable, as I was just trying restore what the IP changed. I guess since there was never a source for the 2001 date either, you made the right choice. I can see that now. Thank you so much Summer, for fixing this issue. I don't think we'll ever find an actual date in a reputable source, due to the lack of significance of the record to the artist in retrospect. Thanks for explaining this anyways, I now understand a bit better. Sorry.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Behavioral restriction

As per the community discussion (archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Formal_topic_ban_suggestion), you are prohibited for 3 months, starting today, from making any reference, broadly construed, to other editors in edit summaries. (Broadly construed includes just about everything short of a WP:EWN report.) Should you wish the restriction to be lifted before the 3 months are completed, you may open a discussion at WP:AN.--Aervanath (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very fair and I accept this resolution.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You're slipping back a bit, as shown here. While you don't mention specific editors by name in that edit summary, comments like "lazy lie" and "throwing it at the wall" clearly refer to whichever editor made the original change. Please be more careful. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Be more careful? Slipping? I find that to be rather reaching on your part, if not a light threat, that hardly is even a challenge to honour (Why pretend it is for me?). Don't scold/politely threaten me over things that have not been personally directed at any OTHER users. How really fair is that? I would've responded much better to this, if I blatantly addressed someone. I did not. And yes, it was indeed a damn lazy lie, typically bandied about by lazy journalists or spectators in automotive circles, after a production car is released looking similar to "concept car" that previously shown, doing so all without internal proof/timeline order of development. Often the sole work of ignorant journalists being lazy with research/facts and incorrigible with constructive suggestions, NOT so much users on this site. They (the users) do not control what is reported in news media, from opinionated guesstimates by automotive "writers" that fail to do adequate and professional research. Those same writers, end up misleading people/some Wikipedia users, that read and in good faith post their "news" on Wikipedia as "verifiable" or accurate. I am left to clean it up, from reading between the lines and quickly remembering that the subject of the article in question, had an April 2012 final design approval. The Resonance Concept's public showing at Detroit NAIAS Jan 2013 as a dressed up version of the Z52/P42M Murano production design was a subsequent internal development at Nissan Design America. "Throwing it at the wall" is suggesting a template on what NOT to do and not accuse/directly implicate anyone personally and specifically of wrongdoing. On Wikipedia, it is standard we do not throw things at the wall and provide reputable sources that do not throw things at the wall. In fact, that really mostly describes the faulty source's own irresponsibility with misinformation. Is it much different than putting a "<---DO NOT CHANGE....---> template? In that case, unless I have directly named anyone as of late in edit summaries, I do not want to be hearing any such faux outrage and admonishments from anyone in such a manner, masked as genuine concern (feels more like a subtle threat). I believe I am most definitely allowed to call out the CONTENT of an article, without personally attacking or referring to another user. In general, there is no point to address others by name in edit summaries even, especially since my concerns about calibre of editing have been heard long ago and no longer favour being loud/brash to call attention to "issues". If the prohibition referred to no text in edit summaries, then I'd understand this notification. I figure this is just a matter of mistaken context and perception.--Carmaker1 (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to use WikiBlame

Here on Jaguar XJ (X351) you reverted a change on the template's production = field with the edit summary "Stop vandalizing the article, when you did not even provide proof?" You have been warned about these hostile edit summaries before. In this case, the previous edit had nothing to do with the production; it was some images elsewhere in the article. I suggest in these cases you do what I did:

1. Go to http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
2. Enter Jaguar XJ (X351) in the page field
3. Enter the problematic text in the text field, in this case December 2009–present
4. Click Start and wait for the results

When it finishes the WikiBlame tool tells us the production was changed here, on October 13, 2017, more than 7 months ago It was an anonymous IP 90.203.103.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who hasn't edited since October 22, 2017. Most likely a dynamic IP who has long ago switched to some other IP address. You would have to do some detective work to try to figure out if they are still active and if they are still changing the production dates on articles. In some cases, they can be operating from a relatively narrow range of IP addresses, such as 90.203.103.xxx. If so, you can report the pattern of edits to at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, or WP:AIV, or possibly WP:ANI. It depends on the particulars, and whether it's practical to block an IP range.

In some cases, you can identify a small set of articles that this person is vandalizing and page protect the articles at WP:RPP.

Most of the time, there is simply nothing you can do. It's a fact about anonymous internet addresses that there is no way to consistently stop an individual who is persistent. Not to mention the potentially hundreds of thousands or millions of people who are simply making erroneous edits. Many of them are making their first-ever edit on Wikipedia. Errors are to be expected. That's why article maintenance is necessary.

Even if you can't do anything about it, it's at least useful to know that the person you are trying to reach in your edit summary was long gone more than seven months ago. It's unlikely an IP editor from more than a few days ago will pay any attention to your edit summaries. New editors usually have no idea where the article history is and have never even read an edit summary. Trying to communicate with them is a waste of time.

Trying to communicate with them in a hostile tone is useless, and has resulted in sanctions against you in the past. I have observed several times that if you do succeed in getting the attention of this anonymous IP editor, antagonizing them has the effect of motivating them to become more prolific and more persistent. You risk making it personal and that is the root of most long term abuse.

The difference between March 2009 and December 2010 is an error of only 10 months. How can an error of 10 months be worth escalating conflict with other editors or bringing sanctions on yourself? You can handle this kind of article cleanup in much less dramatic ways. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Checkmate

Just saw your Checkmate edit; thank God someone here knows what they're talking about! Cleanupbabe (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. You have engaged in edit warring across multiple articles and have persistently added unsouced content and continued doing so even after being asked repeatedly to do so. This is very disruptive, is not compliant with Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, and is not acceptable behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Carmaker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like a good explanation as to why the other user reverted my edits 4 times, yet I am considered edit warring or doing disruptive editing? The content I added is not unreferenced either. I have made more than enough contributions here and I will take necessary action ASAP in conclusion Oshwah.ᗲ:) Carmaker1 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to address your own behaviour, not the behaviour of others here. You will also need to address the issue of your poor referencing as brought up by Nick below. Finally, be very careful about threatening "necessary action" - it really doesn't indicate you can work with us as a team. stwalkerster (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would suggest this justifies a block on its own - there's clearly competency issues in using a third party YouTube video as a source, I'd say when that YouTube video doesn't even say what you're claiming it says in order to use it as a reference, that the block isn't indefinite and for competency I'd say you've gotten off very lightly. I do hope you have no other skeletons in your user contributions closet because that standard of referencing is so appalling, I don't see how I could possibly allow you to return to editing today, or indeed in 36 hours, unless it was a careless one off mistake. Nick (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick - I would normally be inclined to agree with you, but I'm hoping that this block will help Carmaker1 to understand the issues behind his edits and that they need to improve, and I really hope that Carmaker1 takes the time to do what's necessary to make those improvements. I don't want to send someone away from the project without at least giving them one chance to turn things around if I think that they might do so... I think that's logical and fair. The ball's in his court; this can either be a very small bump in the road and what was needed to get him back on track, no big deal... or this'll be seen in the future by others as a very fair action and opportunity that he didn't learn from or take advantage of, which will make the imposition of an indefinite block justifiable should it be considered. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The text in the description box of the Youtube video (NOT the video itself), highlights some items, in which the artist "Tammy" was at Creation Audio in Minneapolis, MN during March and April 1988. There she met Abdul, who was STILL recording, at a point when her album would be borderline due for submission to the record label. Various sources specifically list that track as one of the few recorded at Creation Audio. Practically none of the other tracks were recorded at Creation Audio, let alone in Minneapolis for much of them. She was based in LA. Abdul started working with Leiber in October 1987, starting with The Way That You Love Me. Months afterward, A&R rep Gemma Corfield contacted Leiber last minute for "ONE more additional song". Judging by the pattern of copyrights by Oliver Leiber between July 1987 and April 11, 1988 on identically named tracks, I saw a pattern that closely followed his timeline with Abdul, something he stated particularly in his Songfacts interview. In terms of how he met her via a client doing a music video (filmed and released in the autumn of 1987) and giving subtle frames of reference regarding timelines, that have provided insight to me and a time period of when she was recording with him. Plus that of her own recollections in various interviews. I have noticed similar with other writers/producers, regarding copyrights. Abdul finished working on this record in April 1988, in advance of its June 13th release. After doing YEARS of research, I have never found anything that places her doing any recording during May 1988. I've found information that coincided with September 1987 to April 1988. Discrediting me for using another artist's mention of Abdul's presence at a studio in April 1988 from a Youtube description box, doesn't invalidate the reality Abdul can easily be placed then & there. Unlike Opposites attract, both the title track and second single, are listed as 1987 recordings by copyright and Leiber's claims back that up, based on it "being earlier on" and Opposites Attract being his last track with her. Not to mention, how in the Summer of 1989, Abdul was mostly focused on promoting Elliot Wolff's Cold Hearted and was barely shifting attention to both a re-release of her second single and Opposites Attract. Copyrights for those videos, show publication dates of September 20 & 21, 1989. To film a video and release it takes an average of 3-4 weeks at minimum. For an animated video, it took even longer. Any recording work or changes need to be done in an advance, such as MC Skat Kat/Delite Stevens' contribution. July and August 1989 would count as SUMMER 1989 in the US. As for Cold Hearted, Abdul was working on Coming To America, while recording with Elliot Wolf in Los Angeles. A movie filmed in Los Angeles during February 1988 and had started filming in NYC from January 4, 1988. That perfectly matches the time period Abdul was working on her album, as by May 1988 both her album and Coming To America were in post-production, BOTH intended for June 1988 release dates. How dare one presume, I made up that Abdul recorded her signature Wolff tracks in 1988, when it's just the obvious? She wasn't working with him in 1987 and wasn't a musician in 1986. Not to mention, her history greatly highlights (via interviews) she was struggling in the second half of 1988, that until one day after November 1988 Straight Up was released and started getting steam during December 1988 and January 1989. At that point during late 1988, Abdul even adding a rap to Cold Hearted still was of no interest to Virgin Records, who were borderline ready to discard her and move on over dismal results. Changes to C.H. only became relevant to Virgin, after she released and succeeded with both Straight Up and Forever Your Girl as a remixed single. They started planning Cold Hearted as a follow-up single in the spring of 1989 and had new changes to it. The single was released on June 15, 1989, with those new vocals. Naturally, that means she recorded additional vocals in preparation of her single release. Can someone even claim, that she recorded those rap vocals before 1989, yet they didn't exist on the album itself in 1988? I am someone who is already doing their very best to get lost and hidden information out there that provide a frame of reference, regarding time, location, and how, in the face of many good older sources turning into deadlinks and no proper archiving of them. Many viable sources are just GONE, therefore one is just picking up the pieces of what little is left anywhere. In between that, you have unregistered users making weird edits to dates at random with no little to no explanation and then when I find it later, I have fix back to what it once was, because some other users don't really bother to study a page history at times and understand the context of certain information being present or needing to be restored. Adding things at random, with no explanation at all is one thing to do. What I do in many cases, is just not stuff that gets passed around on average. Date of creation information mostly has to be unearthed and whatnot, being very privatized or forgotten easily by artists. One works very hard to map out these timelines and provide ANY sources for them. I am not focused on politics here, but giving readers all the information they can get and it being copied elsewhere as factual and informative, which it indeed is. So threatening me in ways, won't do much either.--Carmaker1 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's excellent original research. We don't allow original research. If you're correct and I've no reason to disbelieve you, you'll need to work on finding reliable sources (newspapers, music press publications etc) to confirm your hypothesis. If you can't confirm your hypothesis, you can't include that information on Wikipedia, because no matter how certain you are that it's correct, we can't be fully certain it's correct. Nick (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For that matter stwalkster, I have no made any formal request to be "unblocked". That isn't my focus, I am making my point, plain and simple. I don't live here. All the many links, interviews, and whatnot I have encountered might be gone today (now deadlinks) to use as reliable sources, but I did see them and therefore my frame of reference on this album is clear to me. There are no doubts in that area that I have.--Carmaker1 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you formally request unblock with the {{unblock}} template if you didn't want to be unblocked? Abuse of that template isn't looked kindly upon. stwalkerster (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care and did not then either. I DIDN'T abuse anything, so you take it easy with the accusations. I have so much more important things to do with my free time as a hard-working automotive (mech) engineer with an MBA (with honours), than waste it making these tiring & thankless contributions to Wikipedia, which is more of a hindrance and unwelcome stressor (compared to my high school and university days). I am bloody tired of the endless, nonsensical Wikilawyering that goes on this site, which only seems deter well meaning users away, who have better to do than fight to trace the untraceable and defend their efforts. One can know very well, that Abdul's career development 30 years ago, is not something that can be documented word for word, day by day 3 decades later, from dead and lost news archives. Having tried to connect so many dots over the past decade, I made direct correlations to actual points in the timeline of her recording career. In general, if not for much of the global public, ignorantly copying and pasting text elsewhere from articles on this site like it is concrete fact, I wouldn't gave a damn about logging in here to contribute to anything. I will NEVER make edits to this site again, that are ADDITIONS. Any single damn thing I will ever touch again is plainly correcting existing items, which can be supported by existing sources. I do not have energy nor time I want to waste, explaining the faults on this site, that make for an unnecessarily frustrating editing environment and why I refuse to ever apologize for anything that happened recently. It is one thing to be uncivil (and I have apologized for past examples of deeply personal attacks), but that has NOTHING to do with anything as of late. It is purely politics in this respect about so-called edit warring and I am above bothering myself over it. Wikipedia will continually lose its credibility, when the agenda of select users' pettiness overshadows the need for informative accuracy. I have only contributed to this website to provide deeper information on who, what, when, where, and why. I certainly didn't see any of you fixing a Britney Spears article, which had already been verified so many times, (thanks to me many years ago) that Max Martin and Spears recorded his material for her sophomore effort in the first week of November 1999 at his defunct Cheiron Studios. Yet for 1 whole year someone managed to change that to 2000 without ANY VERIFICATION and I certainly didn't see anyone besides me make an effort, to restore that to accuracy. Yet so many readers will be quick to lazily copy and paste bad information from these articles as factual, yet you cannot be bothered to prevent that from misleading them. It is somehow more important to fight editors on credible content and grey area "policy", than stamp out outright violators of it. Plenty of IP-based vandals and blank user profiles endlessly make destructive edits to Wikipedia, often going unnoticed and unchecked for months to years on end, yet some of you hold a greater focus on chastising users for reinstating credible information that lost previous citations. After all of this nonsense, I am done and will no longer put up with this petty bullshit. Good luck watching after all the crazies that mess up articles for kicks, as I am done repairing such issues and trying to fill in the blanks within this echo chamber.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to My Lovin' (You're Never Gonna Get It): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevrolet Suburban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Car design dates

Hi there, I notice you have been making several edits adding the dates various cars, mostly GM cars, were designed. This is great information to have, but, do you have a reliable source for any of this? Maybe you work or used to work at GM, and you had access to this information. But, Wikipedia users can't be primary sources, see No original research. If such dates were more public knowledge, I wouldn't worry about references, but they're usually kept within the company so a reference from a media site or a book would be good to have. --Vossanova ^o< 21:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vossanova, I feel like I've seen this name outside of Wikipedia, but maybe I am mistaking that for someone else. To the point, Robert Lutz in several sources stated that up until 2000, all design freezes during the 1990s were approved 36 months before Job 1, for cars released in the early-mid 2000s, this figure was solidly 30 months and 6-8 months before that was concept definition. Concept definition is where stylists and management settle on a look at 90%, at JLR we call Strategic Intent. This is the final design without complete engineering input and verification to be a manufacture-able design. The design freeze is essentially 99.9% the production model and at GM is called "Vehicle Production Intent". In my own experience, I have been instrumental in implementing design freezes on new models. Whether mid-cycle updates or full model changes. Usually between the two, it differs greatly. I have worried that the Lutz quote isn't too specific, so I have not really added it. All I just heard from him, is that it was the standard for all GM models. On the other end, I am supporting my own original research, but in the form of cited sources to ensure that I am not the only source of this information that exists on Wikipedia, if possible of course. By my own contacts and personal knowledge, I know when the designs for many models were set by the manufacturers. The problem in some cases is, lack of public access to it. In cases where no shred of public sources exist, I will gladly work with you to remove what proves to be contentious or work harder to find better public info. Development timelines by nature are very private business, so one is just not going to know such things very easily via basic news, because as an engineer I observe that most journalists are not attentive, skillful, or investigative enough to ask such questions. OEMs may or may not have issue answering these questions after the fact, provided the questions aren't too invasive or risky bet against competition bench-marking them. I am using Wikipedia to counteract poor misinformation from automotive magazines and media on how certain models were developed and designed, as often general automotive media make their own opinionated guesses that are misleading to the public. Like a car was designed just yesterday and not 5 years in advance, with final details at 2 years prior to launch. Or the false idea a concept car is developed for 6 months and then once shown at an auto show, it can be turned into a production in just 1 year and go on sale. Very false, as the engineering behind a car requires many months of design work and is more expensive than a one-off concept, needing significant lead time for manufacturing tooling and supplier involvement. For this reason, I am doing my best to provide in-depth information & timelines for development of each single car on Wikipedia. Only one user in User: Guiletheme, has so far taken an interest in doing so consistently and I wish for more people to join us, possibly exceeding our own capabilities in doing so. I want to provide a step-by-step encyclopedic description of each model's development, so that owners and curious readers, can understand the history behind a model and see Wikipedia as a unique source for this information. It is just a challenge to do so without running into WP: OR too often, when journalists are not doing the legwork and I have to learn this by other means.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

References

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carmaker1. Having read over your responses to editors in the recent ANI thread regarding your behavior, I understand that you do not believe your communication manner through edit summaries, talk pages, or otherwise is problematic. Understand that there are expectations for how editors can and cannot interact with each other on this project, and that communications like this or this are needlessly aggressive, which has come up in some of your past interactions. I agree that quality control is important, and I can assure you it is entirely possible to do this well without being combative or writing excessively in your messages when it's not clearly necessary. Your experience with motor vehicles appears to be pretty extensive, and I see you've made a lot of important contributions to articles like Lexus LS and Infiniti G-series (Q40/Q60), so it's clear you have a lot to offer in this topic area. I hope you'll consider some ways to avoid these behaviors moving forward. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Carmaker1. 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)

Year of introduction categories

Hi Carmaker1. Just thought I'd let you know some info about how the "Cars introduced in <insert year>" categories work (relating to today's edit of BMW 3 Series (E30)). Adding the specific year also automatically adds them to the category for the decade (eg the 1980s for the E30), so that doesn't need to be done separately.

Personally I think it is best to just categorise it as the year that the car was first introduced (instead of also adding it to other year categories, due to when was introduced in certain countries), but it is up to you. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sure that makes more sense. Particularly regarding the E30, I understand your point and agree. As for the E36, it seems German market launch truly was January 1991, but a few sellable pre-production units might have been available in November 1990 and December 1990 as BMW Corporate owned cars.

Range Rover (L405)

Hi, what are those year you add to Range Rover (L405) designer? if there is not someonelse designer those years are not needed there, and dont remove valid references. IF you add some years there would be nice to tell what those means and what happened in those years, and this info is better suited to bread text. -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The L405 design was set in 2009, at the point where the design team working under director McGovern concluded their principal work on the exterior design. The Autocar source highlighted that by the middle of 2010, the design would be entirely finished with as quoted per McGovern. This is correct and went according to plan internally with no delays.

My new source publically supports both that of Gerry McGovern's role in leading design and that of the design dates in question. Just as another user pointed out, maybe it does not have to be in the info box the design date. However that is simply a difference in opinion and more of a content dispute, than that of false information even being added.

Plainly the design freeze happened by Summer 2010 in reality, which is when test mules were first constructed and put into testing in August 2010 under modified L322 bodies, before JLR engineers built the first to spec L405 prototypes in 2011.

Bear in mind a lead time of roughly 2.5 years is needed from design freeze to start of production at Jaguar Land Rover, which for L405 started in Q3 2012 for Q4 2012 launch. The next Range Rover L460 has been designed and finalized, scheduled for MY 2022. Yet we are still in 2018, see how long it takes?

I most certainly did not make up my L405 design dates, so I rightfully disagreed with you and did nothing wrong. I can easily replace one source with another which is more expansive, without violating anything.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Sable232 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Carmaker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

From what I have noticed, it seems that Nyttend's hoaxing accusations are no longer listed as the main reason of this and seems to be called now, "Abuse of editing privileges". One of the listed reasons happens to be "Abuse of Email". Newly discovering the Wikipedia email system while blocked and wanting to reach out to admins, hardly warrants a 1 month block on that very basis, SOLELY. It was already uncomfortable, providing my email address to other users. The administrative staff on Wikipedia are either on vacation understandably and/or deliberately ignoring this matter and even playing a game here, over a seemingly juvenile vendetta against my strong criticisms of Wikipedia quality control versus actual evidence of concrete wrongdoing or deliberate vandalism on my part. That's a theory, as I can't say I'm fully aware of how admins are kept in their place. Honestly, there is no evidence against me.

Secondly, it is ludicrous User: JzG is allowed to change block reasons on the fly, without it being carefully scrutinized and heavily supported with evidence in face of other administrative bodies. And compared to Nyttend, even JzG's own Wikipedia history is terribly riddled with serious incivility issues that rival my past small squabbles. Through some oddly vetted means they became an administrator, now showing once again they are not fair and impartial in the least, based on their temperament. That right there is a red flag. It is okay to block emailing ability, but to block editing on the basis of emailing other users, is absolutely stupid. They are not behaving like a professional admin whatsoever, if this is how they go about matters.

If this block continues on for another week without proper intervention from sensible administrative oversight, correction of the mistaken accusation, or an actual valid block reason provided for the present time (not dredged up old nonsense), then every individual involved in this matter, should be taken to task with the proper Wikipedia ruling bodies for their own gross abuse of administrative privileges with a light reprimand and hopefully stripped of them.

As crying wolf when there is none, is hardly professional and in my line of work (and just about most), you'll be out on your hide for it. There has been no hoaxing and no abuse of email use on my part. The admin was not been able to prove the former without being challenged, so instead going after "email abuse" is the next thing that was clutched onto by JzG out of personal annoyance from being emailed by me, to look into my matter. Either prove that I'm guilty of such or it just looks like you're fishing/reaching for something, that you think will somehow stick. A very silly witch hunt and grasping at any straw, as an excuse to block me.

This block needs to be lifted on the basis of no hoaxing and no actual email abuse. No one will stand for words being put in their mouth and that of false accusations, bandied around by a few. If this was simply a case of me actually being accused of claiming Jack Telnack was a GM designer and then claiming a source from a journal said so, the accusations would more than be credible. I never did that at all, so one can understand my anger. It's bloody hypocritical, to pretend I should be content with that. I added new names, forgot to add my sources in being overwhelmed. It was reverted, so I restored it with the intention to provide sources. Within several back-to-back diffs by my account, I indeed did so.

User Sable932, jumped on anything they could refute or revert of my contributions that week and eventually started an edit war, by becoming hyper-focused on removing any said content I was responsible for. Any trouble areas I caught or they highlighted, I fixed ASAP. To their chagrin for some peculiarly personal reason, it wasn't taken well that the vast majority of things reverted or chastised by them, I corrected and restored with proper citations or text. The one citation I struggled with adding in the right place in the Taurus (from confusion over Telnack's name in multiple sections), they jumped on using against me and found a willing admin that wasn't very investigative, to give them what they wanted to take me out of the picture and satisfy their vendetta.

So all because someone brought up petty complaints mixed in with hogwash over a citation not being provided in one article, then an admin takes the least credible evidence as the defining reason and no other admin has the quick sense to call this out, except for another to latch onto the user-provided ability I utilized to email other admins to intervene? I can see right through this farce and I'm not the only one. I will decide against using a colourful choice of words to describe Nyttend's reasoning (or lack thereof) and that of JzG's juvenile abuse of their administrative privileges. Not to mention, that of other admins staying silent and some intentionally allowing this to fester (with knowledge of it). I unfortunately cannot respect either of the two as credible admins, if they cannot be providing valid and solidly supported reasoning for blocking users. At least User: Oshwah (despite making unsavory threats once), provided reasons in the past, as opposed to this joke of a circus.

There are reasons one can provide against me, but they have not been named in place of these farcical accusations or deemed not strong enough to stick, so these unfactual claims instead were made by a seemingly naive AN/I admin, that possibly doesn't know about the content they are trying to even oversee. And then abuse by a hostile admin, who was annoyed they were emailed for assistance. In conclusion, there needs to be an valid reason for the blocking of User: Carmaker1 provided or the block rescinded ASAP. Turning any of the statements I have made since this happened as "personal attacks", has no muster when worse has been said against me and then equally disputed by other peers, who see right through it. You cannot expect a user that has been blocked under ludicrously provided reasons, to be so giddy when this has stretched out quite a bit.

Certainly Wikipedia is not a farce, where an admin can claim someone did "X" to support a bitter editor and yet there is no proof of the accusation, all while their poorly executed administrative actions go unchallenged? How can I add a source, in the prose and then be told by an edit-warring aggrieved editor (who decides to overlook the added source), that "they warned" me? Such silly, bureaucratic drivel that has no basis in fact and seemingly senseless discretion. The accusation typed up by Nyttend below this, is chock full of fallacies that any blind person can even see through. They in reality blocked me for reasons, NOT even provided in this and wanted to use "Hoaxing" as an official excuse to not look unprofessional. Any competent person will see through it so easily and call their bluff.

I am utterly done with defending against this and have said more than enough. I am more than capable of providing to this site and already spend great money against WP: PAYWALL to get exclusive information, without expecting a cent back from this site. More than most users are willing to do on their own, because I have the means to independently flush away $22,000 on deep research and more (to only be told WP: OR in some cases). As I've said many times, provide an ACTUAL reason that warranted a 1 month block on December 19th or adjust it accordingly. The accusation doesn't fit the crime (lack-thereof) whatsoever. GoldenRing (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A one-month block for what you yourself admit below was very poor behaviour is run of the mill and I advise you to sit it out. I see nothing above to indicate that this block is no longer preventing disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disruption? Editing and adding to new content to articles, WITH F**KING CITATIONS is DISRUPTIVE? (LOL) Oh shut up. You clearly don't read anything and make poorly thought out snap judgments just the same. There have been no real disruptions, but just the same it is too much work for a few of you to read anything carefully and review actual evidence, as you'd rather manufacture it or feign blindness to valid defenses. Other people have supported me on this, but a select few of you have made it personal. I will indeed appeal this in any way possible and also report you for abuse or poor oversight, as the block reason (s) is/are utter crap and not one iota based on credible evidence. Nor have any of you provided a blatant reason, that can be supported with evidence. LOL, I'm not taking any of this sitting down whatsoever. As I said before, no email abuse nor hoaxing can be proven. The lot of you are being hypocritical bold-faced liars, so don't expect me to sugarcoat my words. Stay blind to it, as the block reason never even listed "incivility", "arrogance", or "edit-warring" as a reason, it listed "Hoaxing" (and then "Abuse of Email"). You have no damn proof of the "listed reasons", but you hide behind them as a crutch, because the rest hardly hold any water. Get your acts together the same, as what you said doesn't explain anything anyway and simply regurgitates already disproven accusations. This is simply you making a stubborn personal decision than an actual professional one. Jumping on a bandwagon and getting back at me for long past gone instances in a veiled manner, is pathetic on a number of your parts. I suggest you also abide by the rules here fluidly and no one will call you out for nonsensical decision making either, instead of the pettily handled, vague discretion borne from your insipid fake moral outrage, that I didn't cower and beg any of you. I will NOT do that, as I am for once NOT in the wrong regarding these specific accusations. Change the damn block reason to a valid one such as INCIVILITY and I can accept that. But don't any of you f**king dare accuse me of anything, I am NOT guilty of and expect me to swallow it as credible. For that matter, I always have been and am wealthy enough to invest in my own project dedicated to automobiles as an encyclopedia format and certainly don't need to waste my hard, wasted efforts on here. I have made countless contributions here, but this silly witch hunt takes the cake. My profession as an automotive engineer, has nothing do with any of the greater means behind me estate wise and ability to invest in large side projects and much more for my greater interests. Obviously, the most level-headed admins are tuned out or MIA, leaving a set of belligerent and/or sanctimony-afflicted hypocrites to lazily misread countless cases. You didn't read a damn thing and expect me to take you seriously? Yeah right and pigs can fly. TL;DR syndrome is the mark of a poorly vetted administrator, who has no business reviewing intricate cases and appeals AT ALL, if they can't see what's in front of them and at the core of it all. Three blind mice and one rat against me, simple as that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is related to your persistent addition of hoaxes at the Ford Taurus (first generation) article, by claiming that a name was derived from a source that didn't include it. Obviously anyone can misread a source or misremember where something came from, but when you're warned that you've added a hoax, and yet you edit-war to ensure that it remain, you've gone well beyond WP:AGF. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to what I said in declining your appeal above, while it may well be true that some things we do here would result in instant dismissal in your field, by the same token, this is our site and so here you play by our rules, not those that apply elsewhere. I suggest you read up on our rules and expectations before editing further (once your block expires).

If you honestly believe that administrators have abused their positions, you should email the arbitration committee as they are the only ones who can deal with such cases. I would not recommend it in this case, though. GoldenRing (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Email Usage

From what I can see, @JzG: has taken the action to now imply my newly executed use of the email feature has somehow been abused with no evidence nor reasoning openly provided.

I consider that right there to be gross abuse of administrative privileges to merely change the reason for the block so casually (like a light switch), which I wonder how acceptable that even is? As other users highlight at ANI, this is now a personal attack by a small minority of admins, namely Nyttend who had no case regarding "hoaxing" and at this point now lying in face of evidence.

My attempts to reach out to other administrative staff via email is mostly certain not any form of email abuse, which JzG has falsely latched onto out of some misplaced personal annoyance at being emailed by me. JzG is not allowed to read contents of my other emails to other recipients, to even know where they truly constitute abuse or not.

That needs to be explained right there, as I am also entitled to edit my talk page without volatile personal attacks. None of the involved are behaving professionally and it is quite transparent for future observation.

I am calling it for what it is and other levelheaded users can see right through all of this, a petty personal attack and gross abuse of administrative privileges, via poorly executed Wikilawyering and creating their own hoax.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

BMW G20

@Toasted Meter: I'll be honest and say this is how I ended up with this information on the November 2015 date and have kept it for the past 37-38 months or 3 years in my memory. You can review it if you choose, but I didn't pull it out of thin air honestly. I understand German, but not 100% fluent. Give me 10 minutes to provide the requisite links.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see it, I don't like "sources" that don't have the correct content in them. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh of course, just my mistake it was the right one where I found the G20 section. These links are not sources though, but a frame of reference for you.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

[3]

[4]

Looking closer I think this line from the article "Die endgültige Designentschei-dung fällt Ende November. (The final design decision will fall at the end of November.)" is good enough to support it. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I found it! Thank you BTW. It's actually issue 43 of Autobild. To add, a mention by a heralded BMW HQ marketing employee SCOTT27 on March 2, 2009, the design approval of the F30.

However the big news today was the selection of the new 3er before we all packed up for Geneva - MINI-E anyone?

To say the chosen car is very avantgarde is one thing. It is reminicient of a3er but the details are very in your face the grille which featured in the GINA is right in the middle of the car enclosed in a V-Shape which forms the sculpture to the bonnet and A-Pillar. Next generation BMW's will be given as an option full LED lights so the standard car will feature a very typical lighting unit whereas specify the option and they replace the large lighting units with smaller slits. As evident on Huckfeldts 1er images ( He knows more than people think) The air intakes are slightly bigger than todays car forming a link with the upcoming 5er , GT and 7er. The rear has smaller lighting units that wrap around similar to the CS Concept car but are more triangular at the edges of the rear wing. The new3er overall is definetely more design led than any other previous3er, it is not as truncated as the E46 or indeed E90 the roofline gives it a less stubby appearence. Think of a smaller CS in profile with shortened bonnet , smoother trunk lid and a well proportioned roofline. Will people like it?

The first idea of the new3er will be the3er GT as they will all segue together. Some already balk at the idea of the 5er GT but many will not be happy with the3er because it reinvents the traditional BMW compact sports sedan concept. The interior concept is similar to the Z4 but the iDrive screen is more like the traditional BMW sedan.

Half in Half between evolutionary and revolutionary. I think it looks great but there will be controversy and debate it's just not a BMW without it.

I have worked very hard to providing supporting sources for that text as well. With E36 it was 42 months prior to Job 1 in 1990, so that was in early 1987. Information from 30 years ago is hard to come by, other than Dr. Wolfgang Reitzle mentioning on August 12, 1991 that it took 42 months from styling approval to Job 1 for the E36 and other sources have highlighted final freeze was in 1988 after styling approval.Carmaker1 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:INTEGRITY

@Power~enwiki: Yes I will I admit, I am sorry about being ignorant on the matter of integrity of citations. Thank you. I have been confused by within the text that, it is always imperative a citation is included next the exact line of text. I had added my Killing The Goose source to another Jack Telnack line of text within the article, using the "find" function.

Considering that many other users have used the excuse that "as long as a statement is already cited within an article, then there is no need to add the citation again or repeat it essentially." In cases where I had issues with content, I was told this example and I accepted it. It honestly varies between users and pages.

I never for one second had any interest in the Coachbuilt source, as it only referenced Jack Telnack. I added the needed source, when I saw I hadn't done so previously.

This matter via ANI is plainly reaching and reads to be "any excuse" to block, versus a concrete irrefutable reason. Judging by initial ANI commentary by some users, many fallacies were espoused on the topic of me hoaxing. Which many other users have rarely been reprimanded for, particularly where they change the text on cited article information I (or anyone else) provide and it ends up not even matching the citation. Often I do become frustrated in such instances, when no one else catches it and reverts/restores good information, because they don't care and are focused on other things.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The demand that a claim in an infobox must be accompanied by a inline citation disagrees with WP:INFOBOXREF, which says you don't need one if the claim is cited in the article. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I also got confused by the dif before I saw your explanation, the the citation would have been more obvious if it were added in one big edit, or if there were some descriptive edit summaries. Although I think the people at ANI should have paid more attention to the full picture of your edits. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Very much appreciated Toasted Meter, thank you. You didn't have to help highlight that, but you did anyway and I am wiser for it, than being somewhat unsure.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Claims of Hoaxing

@Sp: (Alternatively to @NinjaRobotPirate:@Jpgordon:) Thank you very much your points being made at ANI, as a neutral party. I really appreciate it, even if that may or may not have been your intention. I am saying expalining this, mainly to let you know at least what my intentions have been as I cannot defend on ANI.

I was shocked to see in a design sketch of the Taurus, "Jeff Teague" as opposed to "Jack Telnack" being written while researching Ford Design history 10 days ago. It immediately told me that Telnack was being given sole credit and I needed to expand on that as I now do in several other articles.

What has happened instead, is some form of reaching and smearing to imply that I intentionally used another source AFTER being warned, which is highly false based on the diff times on my talk page and in Taurus edit history.

Anyone that objectively studies this as you did, can see the reality I did not commit the act of hoaxing, nor according to contentious admin JzG (bad history with personal attacks), had no grounds to change the block from hoaxing to abuse of emailing privileges, by reaching out to others regarding my case.

Such a flippant change to the block reason is an abuse of power by JzG and cannot defend against it by myself. Trying to block my ability to defend myself, is being perpetrated by a small few, who have other underlying reasons they are not mentioning aloud to possibly avoid looking petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

While I agree as I said at ANI that your edits were not a hoax or hoaxing, you need to understand that your edits were still quite wrong and harmful to wikipedia. You should not generally add information to articles unless you provide a WP:reliable source to support that information when you are adding it, or that information is already supported by one of the reliable sources. Yes people do it anyway, and we don't always remove it straight away, but this still isn't justification for you to do so. If you plan to find a ref but haven't yet, it's probably better to just wait until you found the ref before adding it. It's generally harmful to edit war to preserve unreferenced content while you find a ref.

What you especially should not do is to add info to an article in such a way that it appears it's supported by a source but isn't. If you really feel the need to add unsourced info you need to make it clear it is unsourced. If you are adding it to an existing sentence and that sentence is sourced, move the source and add a {{fact}} tag or otherwise structure your addition in such a way that it's clear that it is unsourced instead of appearing to be supported by the existing source when it isn't.

Likewise, while it's true infobox content doesn't normally need to be directly sourced since it should be mentioned and sourced in the article proper, if there is a source in the infobox you need to structure your addition in a way that it does not appear to be supported by a ref which doesn't support it. Of course, your addition needs to be mentioned and supported by a source in the article proper.

As a reader of articles, I can tell your it's incredibly confusing when you check out a source, and it doesn't mention what we are saying. In addition, people often assume that when something is sourced it's probably correct without checking the source, especially when it's relatively non contentious. For these reasons and more, it's incredibly bad when info is added in such a way that it appears to be supported by a source but it isn't

As for the block, while I have no comment on the length and have already said it was wrong to call your changes hoaxing or a hoax, as I also said what you were doing was quite wrong and harmful to wikipedia. The fact that were edit warring to preserve your changes and have had problems in the past meant a block of some length was always likely. Once you actually provided a source then yes, instead of simply removing the info it probably would have been better to simply restructure your addition. But likewise you could have fixed your addition rather than letting someone else do it.

BTW, do remember your talk page access is only really intended for you to make unblock requests while you are blocked. Of course, with reason it's generally acceptable to use your talk page to better understand why you were blocked, and what you can do to avoid it in the future. But using it for other purpose like attacking other editors or getting others to edit for you is likely to lead to a you losing the ability to edit your own talk page. And also remember that while you can make unblock requests, making repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests is also not acceptable.

Likewise your use of the email ability should be restricted in the same fashion. There's rarely a good reason to email people to make an unblock request especially when you still have the ability to edit your own talk page. If you did want to email an unblock request, you should be emailing UTRS or arbcom instead per Wikipedia:Appealing a block etc although again you should normally make a request on your talk page if able. Just as with your talk page, if you misuse your email ability while blocked, you are likely to lose access per our Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I may not 100% agree with everything you said, I appreciate the wise advice you provided me. Thank you for the insight.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: To be honest, I can't say I'm not bothered by the newer charades going on at ANI on this matter. Now that I have calmed down somewhat, I want to explain what is going on here. You are correct in your assumption, that I made a very careless mistake. The way I saw it then, there was no reason for Sable932 to continue to remove to text I had believed I now supported with the Killing The Goose reference. In their case they were unaware of the ref in the prose. Before the new ref, I initially reverted it stubbornly, with the intent to support with the requisite source. I forgot to add the link immediately and then did so afterward, before he noticed the lack of a reference. Despite adding that source, he made more reverts. I actually saw that right there was edit-warring, as HE was the one reverting as opposed to me at that point. I plainly saw it, I did my part to add and a source. The same I did in many other articles he was WP: HOUNDING me in, such as Ford Explorer and Jaguar XJ. I did my part to provide citations of my newer findings, he opposed.

As previously said by Toasted Meter on this page, I indeed believed that as long as a source is listed within a page, whether in prose or elsewhere, it was fine. They way I saw it earlier, Sable932 disregarded the new source I added, despite rightly reverting it the first time around this week. After that, I found the next revert ridiculous and unusually dismissive, in an attempt to antagonize me, by implying that the effort was to simply blockade my additions. As I said not long ago, I had made many edits in that time period and worked hard to restore them and fix many others, as Sable932 kept monitoring by some supposed coincidence (which it was not). Some articles had little to no connection to each other, other than me editing them very recently. I felt I was being stalked or hounded. Hounding my edits is disgusting and if anyone find that acceptable, well what does that say about them? Don't hound others, but hound Carmaker1 and get no reprimand, because I'm too busy to report folks over indiscretions.

Unlike many other editors in the automotive project, I am finding him to be deliberately unreasonable and in opposition to the idea, that it is better for an article to include both start of production (SOP) and market launch dates/years. Plus avoiding prose that misleads people to mix up production/calendar dates with simply numerical/seasonal designations that are model years. That is my perception. It's unusually disruptive, in that it isn't truly targeting WP: OR issue anymore I once struggled with, but to simply ensure his singular point of view and that of a minority of US editors (I am an American and a Brit). I am seeing now, Sable932 is invested in a rather petty effort/campaign to target me for being booted from automotive related pages. This is not an effort to necessarily protect the automotive project from me regarding active threats on my part, but actually seems like an attempt to permanently blockade me from interfering from his US-centric viewpoint regarding a heavy basis on marketing-originated "model years" and poor use of them, that I've rendered misleading to the average unassuming reader. I've refrained from practising original research as previously and now only introduce information, that can be supported by a source.

It is a joke to take such accusations of his on ANI seriously, when a few of the parties in question supporting that stance have a clear agenda that has nothing to do with bettering Wikipedia, as opposed to satisfying their axe to grind over some personal slight or plain egging on the matter via trolling. In example, EEng who only interests themselves in cynical provocation and joking around, as opposed to being actually constructive in any ANI case. The minute EEng "heard" of hoaxing, they jumped on the bandwagon. Others such as yourself and a few like User: Sp, NinjaRP/etc, have not fairly enough. In fact regarding Sable932, you can see his pattern in regards to my edits. See how I corrected the second generation Ford Probe article's infobox in September within this diff and see how eagerly Sable932 is to respond to it negatively (outright removal), despite the prose reflecting the correct information in the article I was aligning it with. Thankfully, right after that User: Watchdevil restored the correct info in this diff almost immediately. How petty is that, as it is unchecked edit-warring, yet one expects me to swallow the drivel being bandied about "hoaxing"? Sable932 is so biased, it is very clear that any amount of editing that I do, they will look for a way to rebut or revert it. Such an individual is hardly a reliable voice on what areas I should be allowed to work in or not. The agenda of theirs is laughably transparent and highly self-serving and not much more.

I am using my talk page in this manner, since I have been deliberately denied the opportunity to defend myself elsewhere by two admins, that are not doing their homework in a thorough, impartial and fair manner. I've seen other admins, that don't let emotions and bias cloud their judgment, but in this case I can't speak for it even being done correctly. Studying the past history of the two, I've unfortunately arrived at that assertion. There are so many holes in this "hoaxing" accusation, that the ban needs to be correctly labeled for what it is. Feigned outraged on topics not of their forte and dredged up past instances, dead and gone. You cannot block someone for instances long and gone, if already addressed. Alternately, JzG who has been known to be rather uncivil, particularly before becoming an admin by some means, at random comes and changes a block's defined reason for "Email Abuse", without his actions being peer reviewed or held accountable? All this forced outrage, as opposed to active threats from my editing and actual situation at hand. Many editors are plainly focused on formatting of Wikipedia, as opposed to the content and informativeness of it. What is the Wikipedia, with dull and shallow information, that barely goes beneath the surface? The same approach of basic information doesn't fit every article.

Even when sourced thoroughly, some editors have a clear allergy or intense disinterest, towards providing a concrete timeline and thorough history behind a model/product/topic, deeming it in their personal opinion as "trivial". How can you work with someone like that? When your idea is to enrich a site with everything you can find on a topic, that explains the intentions of the people behind it at those points in time of creation, and by some miracle, find a public verifiable source for all of them? That is what myself and some editors here have met. Yet, the most eager staff is always on the side of those who only care about Wikilawyering vs actually contributing new content, even without cases of violating guidelines and just brush off instances as "content disputes". I've learned to refrain from original research, but it just doesn't end there anyway. It becomes that trying to enrich readers' knowledge and inform them in a broad manner with even verified content, becomes simply trivia to some dismissive users.

I had thought the "automotive project" was not simply a marketing arm in encyclopedic terminology, but maybe I am wrong then and should make use of my time differently. As many other engineers, don't bother to provide deeper details because of things like this. To be honest former Porsche and BMW designer Pinky Lai himself edits his own Wikipedia page, yet never has a conflict of interest been seen with that. Plus many other industry members, who covertly skirt the Wikipedia guidelines and create accounts here to do so, editing topics on themselves.

Many past instances I had other issues with, where when a source provides a misleading and inaccurate narrative contrary to reality, yet it is eaten up here and considered "verified" from being "reputable". Never mind that many journalists can make careless mistakes and report falsehoods by intention or genuine mistake. I do my best to counter all of that, when such falsehoods make their way to Wikipedia by unassuming users. When I become the only person making these corrections as manually done reverts to vandalism or repetitive good faith errors, it becomes frustrating when no one else cares and my edit summaries highlight it. Anyone knows very well, it is not reasonable to discuss another user, yet cherry pick evidence and ignore pesky facts. Simply put, my contributions here have nothing to do with WP: OR issues anymore as claimed by this individual.

The real issue is WP: INTEGRITY right now, yet even this quote from Toasted Meter says otherwise, "The demand that a claim in an infobox must be accompanied by a inline citation disagrees with WP:INFOBOXREF, which says you don't need one if the claim is cited in the article". Equally, it takes two to tango. Edit-warring only thrives, when another user chooses to antagonize another editor's work continuously, plus not cooperate on an article's given talk page nor understand their point of view and contributions in entirety. Making up my intentions on my own very edits in absentia, is not something I will ever stand for obviously nor would anyone else. I definitely provided a source, so a good deal of what's going on with these hoaxing accusations, is purely conjecture. The responsible admin knows that, but has other plans in spite of the evidence or lacks the expertise to handle this matter credibly. As much as I'd like to humble myself, I cannot over a false accusation nor a witch hunt to remove me from automotive, borne out of plain as day pettiness, because I successfully edited many automotive articles on the 17th and 18th of December, against Sable932's unfortunate expectation I could not do so and did not end up empty handed without requisite sources. The only straw to use against me last minute, was some easily falsified "hoaxing" drivel out of tens of productive diffs. I am sorry Nil Einne, if I have crammed this into here. But it has to be read somehow, as I cannot contribute to ANI, because I was very busy with my personal day on the 19th and did not have time to even notice any random notice regarding ANI. That is the biggest reason this went through unchallenged and undefended. --Carmaker1 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Carmaker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23644 was submitted on Dec 24, 2018 08:37:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

In regards to this edit summary: you went back 12 years in the page history for the sole purpose of harassing another editor and myself. Your continuing incivility is unacceptable and by now you certainly know it is unacceptable. Consider this your final warning on the matter. --Sable232 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You can go piss off and get a damn life. Don't post on my page and mind your editing skills for the past, present, and future, so that myself and others with pure intentions have less work to do. I do not enjoy cleaning up your annoying mistakes, so find them all to date and fix them.

Bother me again about any petty BS and I will report you for harassment. Pissed off that I won't entertain the poor prose in articles regarding timeline/date references, because they confuse people the world over? Be ahead of it yourself then, so I don't have to be. Not your damn maid/servant.

Next time you address me on this page without an @ or invitation, I am reporting you for WP:HOUNDING and much more if necessary. I do not want to hear from you again, unless it is collaborative. Take a hint and stop searching for trouble. Last warning to you, as this time around I am not sleeping on any of this. I certainly do not have to tolerate such disrespectful drivel, all because you have nothing productive to do and have a silly axe to grind.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to talk

You messaged me about disruptive editing on the Ford Explorer page. I didn't disrupt anything. That was a good edit, don't be stupid. I'm doing my job. People like you make me sick! Let's love each other with respect okay. Bye. Thanos2556 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are editing with good faith, there was no reason for you to remove the Donlen source. My own knowledge for the May 6, 2019 date is more personal/professional, but like you I have to use publicly accessible citations and therefore I used Donlen's. I do put a lot of effort into finding such background information and making sure it is valid in the first place, so if someone is removing it and making it harder for others to read, then I read it as vandalism or disruptive. Secondly, I believe you have figured out your mistake and realize I am clearly not "being stupid", so just make sure if you are removing a source/citation, it's because it is not verifiable or is contradictory. I want people to know when Explorer production starts and to have some background knowledge to work with, so you removing that link, makes "May 6" a candidate for deletion. I despise that and find it destructive, as this year has 365 days and 12 months in it. Narrowing it down to 1 single day, does a hell of a lot of help for people who are not sure when to expect it, which is June 2019.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thanos2556: Wow, I am really, really sorry. Please disregard the above. You have built the 2020 Explorer section from ground-up and I misread your diff terribly. You never removed anything. I greatly apologize about that, as you've done the legwork with that section. However, you did move the location of my citation and I didn't see it wasn't removed because of the new location. Please make sure to remember, that WP: Hoax is a thing and you almost implicated my May 6th date citation, so it might become a candidate for deletion or I can be accused of introducing unsupported info. Otherwise, fantastic work on your part regarding the U625 Explorer.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Sable232 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Perceived attitude

I noticed your comment at [5] "The person who labeled this, is ignorant of the fact that you couldn't buy an SC in this iteration before 1994. Please do to some research or read the prose to understand differences between 1991-93, 1994-96, 1996-2000.)" Most people reading this comment would see you as arrogant and naming everybody else (or least those that allowed the caption label) as idiots and/or lazy. Perhaps this is why you seem to gather so many vehement enemies. On the other hand, a simpler, factual edit comment such as "Corrected capture for SC300 image to match the years this configuration was available" shows you as a knowledgeable editor who is willing to share his expertise. Both comments carry the same information but the first makes you look like an asshole and the second makes you look like a good guy. I'm not going to raise a fuss - just trying to make a helpful tip.  Stepho  talk  00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen, I understand your concern, as surely you do empathize with the content factor and genuinely mean well. Regarding vehement enemies, well you and I both know that some people are not really here to make contributions, but simply be "deletionists" or maintain contradictions in articles. My text can misinterpreted anyhow as you said.
Random note, but the thing about Z30 is weirdly enough, that although the pre-facelift is called a 1994 model in the US and Canada, all pre-facelift units were produced between April 1991 and December 1993. January 1994 switched over to the facelift, yet rushed over to export markets in March 1994 as a 1995 model.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you about the deletionists - not much can be done about them except to grit your teeth and bear through. But there are also many others than can be swayed to be friend or foe by a careful choice of words. Regarding the Z30, perhaps the last of the pre-facelift were manufactured before 1 Jan 1994 but did not reach US shores until after. Hence, they might count for the 1994 model year because they arrived in the US after 1 Jan 1994. If the new ones arrived in, say, March 1994 then they could count as 1995 models (ie included in the months surrounding 1 Jan 1995). Just a theory - I have no proof.  Stepho  talk  05:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I had been a bit busy and forgot to log in and reply promptly. I am really still trying to better understand the Japanese Domestic Market for automobiles against Australia and NZ or North America. Because it seems as if "start of sales" means very different in Japan versus other regions, where people don't really order their new Lexus cars and that sales can't start until an official date. The LS 500s first customer deliveries might have not been until February 2018, as although production started, I am certain that Japanese customers ordered in 2017 and had to wait until they were built and delivered, where as some other spots of the world got their new cars off the lot.

To cut it short, I am really becoming frustrated with a lot of news sources that blur the lines so much and make it hard to effectively contribute valid information to Wikipedia, as very often a lot of my submissions feel borderline contradictory. Where production starts of a new model November 1st, but a different date of November 17th applies to the first completed units . As editors, I don't know how good it does us when our sources can't get the facts right and lead us in the wrong direction. Anyway, I digress. I'll be more respectable ;).--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Caution: Adding unsourced material

What are you talking about? I never seem to see this being emphasized with IP accounts and the many peculiarly non-responding "red-name" editors who tend to ruin articles, by sneaking in misleading gaffes that go unnoticed for months, years and become falsified fact worldwide (Wikipedia is relied on way too much as a source). Please also pay more note to such individuals who are FOND of deleting citations and introducing contradictory or false information to articles for amusement. I am not here to introduce false information, as I pride myself on maintaining "the facts" and elaborating on backstories.
It is hardly fair to me, to be chiding me for what I am more than aware of, for what can be perceived as petty reasons veiled in feigned cordiality. I really despised having to recently restore earlier content that was eventually screwed up by troublesome users tinkering around and left unfixed, from a failure to adequately and promptly reprimand mostly IP trolls (who abuse their anonymity). I don't see the point of filling up my talk page with vague accusations, over questionably implemented bureaucracy. Instead, summon me to the talk page(s) of the item(s) in question, so it can be COLLECTIVELY resolved. I am not directly going to acknowledge such a claim sent to me in this manner, without being directly informed of which diffs actually concerned you. It is unnecessary anxiety and nearly a time waster.
Signed, Dr. James I.N (aka Carmaker1)--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And that wasn't to be harsh (you might mean well), but to point out I do not tolerate hypocrisy and more than anything do not favour vague accusations littering my page (that don't tell me where, what and why).--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Japanese patent section

Thanks for the useful information but is it easy to navigate with using English?--Guiletheme (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You recently added content on the Chevrolet Corvette (C6) and Chevrolet Corvette (C5) pages without a source. If you are going to add content please add a reliable third party source in order for its verification instead of telling others to do it. Cheers.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Want It That Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TRL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

350Z

Not a page I am interested in, but I feel the same way about ip edits. I think registration should be required, that would remove about 80% of all the nonsense I end up wasting my time reverting. Allowing ips to edit made sense while Wikipedia was being built, but I think it has shifted into more of a maintenance effort to a large part. I don't know where to begin such an effort, but I think it long overdue.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree Mr. Choppers, thank you. It is not a good experience to our efforts on here, now becoming a babysitting or maintenance operation as you said. The goal I thought was to build upon existing content on Wikipedia, not just fix endless mistakes, which keep being reverted by an unregistered user with no accountability. How can users learn from their mistakes genuinely, if the IP address changes and they start over with no recollection of warnings or suggestions to them? The excuse is that everyone is new once (so be nice), but that I can respect more with newly registered users being given guidance or set straight to avoid future mishaps. IP users are not getting that same chance and are essentially in many cases, plain destructive and hinge on the perceived anonymity of a non-registered account, allowing them to run away scot-free from messing up content.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Listen up, if you can't read the infobox template and sort out things then you shouldn't call out other editors like you did on the Chevrolet Corvette (C7) page. If you are so insistent on adding all those designers then add them in a separate design section. And you should get a life, calling out names isn't going to change a thing here. Either properly source your edits when you add your so called info or don't bother to edit at all. Next time, I'm taking this to ANI. Given your previous blocks, I'm certain that you would be penalised this time as well.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Darling, that's very rich coming from you in regards to your own 2019 log history and documented harassment of other users. Let's be civil for once and discuss all these issues on a talk page regarding the C7. You can't keep reverting the valid work of other users solely on your opinion and expect there to be no consequences. Don't comment on my page again, as you've earned the right to barred from addressing me on here. You can @ me instead, to discuss matters of concern on article talk pages. Or I will take it as unnecessary harassment. I am only interested in receiving mandatory notices on my talk page (from talk page barred users) or communication from welcome/respectable users, who work with me and not to simply antagonize or go in opposition of me for the sake of it (or to satiate a bruised ego). At the end of the day, I actually contribute to automotive sector of the global economy and not just as a casual or weekend hobby. It's my profession and expertise, especially that I have registered patents in my name. See you on the C7 talk page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Civility in Edit Summaries

Hi Carmaker1, I would like to remind you that edit summaries are for a quick summary of the changes you have made, not for ranting. Here are Wikipedia's guidelines for edit summaries:

WP:EDITSUMCITE

WP:ESDONTS

Here are some uncivil and unhelpful edit summaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_Governors_in_Nigeria_during_the_Ibrahim_Babangida_regime&diff=prev&oldid=943590602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mazda6&diff=prev&oldid=943573648

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infiniti_Q70&diff=prev&oldid=941160830

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edsel&diff=919527671&oldid=916688646

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_P_platform&diff=prev&oldid=940049417

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_(sixth_generation)&diff=prev&oldid=939088951

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Expedition&diff=prev&oldid=923073546

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_F-Series_(first_generation)&diff=prev&oldid=924812536

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler_LH_platform&diff=prev&oldid=924819283

Thanks, drt1245 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I don't really care. The quality control on this website is awful and I am sick of playing cleanup, because other people don't put in the effort or remain incorrigible, in regards to exercising due diligence. Carmaker1 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You've said many times how awful you think Wikipedia is, and expressed ongoing anger and frustration at other editors. You're probably going to end up back at ANI, and you'll probably try to excuse attacking other editors by changing the subject to article content instead of your behavior towards other people. This is what you've done a dozen times. Every time you are admonished that no matter how wrong you think article content is, you aren't allowed to heap insults and scorn on other editors.

Are you going to keep trying to ride this merry go round forever? Wikipedia makes you unhappy, and you are clearly unable to edit within Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. You've tried, but when you see an article about cars with what you think is an incorrect fact, it sends you into a rage. You're supposed to simply correct the article and write an edit summary saying what fact you changed and why. Not insult whomever wrote it. But time and again you can't resist attacking them. I think we can agree that you will always react this way. I know that for years you've said you would stop, but do you really think you can?

I don't understand what reason there is to keep doing something that you say makes you so unhappy, on a website that you say you have no respect for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What did I tell you about commenting on my page? I don't randomly comment on yours, so don't comment on mine. We have nothing to discuss, unless we work on a page together. You are still bothered about how I vaguely referred to "hicks" years ago, because of me being someone of a racial minority raised in both Texas and UK in an upper class background by successful medical specialists. Reverse racism, classism, or whatever apparently and how dare it come from someone like me? It is too bad I have to say this, but yes I do. Get over it, as I know what serious racism is in my shoes and the many anti-PC knuckle draggers I encounter as offroading acquaintances, reminded me of the ignorant drivel I saw here. That is the only thing driving you to continually stalk me, because I have seen much worse on here, laden with expletives. I never cuss...

As for Wikipedia, it is a world of too many uninformed or lazy individuals who copy and paste what comes here, whether added by well intentioned people, who truly put in the effort or by worst of the worst vandals. I do not want someone's experimentation on Wikipedia, to become fact in the eyes of lazy readers/reporters. People are welcome to edit here without stress, but they cannot expect no pushback when corrupting an article with misinformation or turning the reverting of contributions of others into a pseudo political agenda.

Some automotive journalists, in feeling they're not being thrown a bone, will make up some of the most ridiculous things as credible and run with it, because it somehow flew under the radar and wasn't counteracted officially. Regarding everything topic wise, that is only reason why I am here. If you were observant, you would notice that I don't just focus on automobiles. I care to prevent misinformation, not silly politics nor unwelcome yo-yo babysitting. I rarely if ever see anyone else doing that, as if I did see people wholeheartedly picking up the slack and delivering 10x better on ALL fronts, I would have little to no work and just endless thank yous to give. As someone that graduated with honours from 3 well-known universities with a BSME, MBA, and now PhD, I have never commanded special respect over that. I expected genuine open-ended cooperation, NOT interference and resistance via stupid pissing matches.
I suggest we chat only if we are sharing work on a mutual page/project. Otherwise, don't comment on my page Dennis Bratland, unless it is in response to a comment towards you. I will treat it as stalking or harassment. Coming to someone's page to randomly chime in with no prior invitation nor duty, says more than enough...obsession and baiting. Signed Dr. James N. "Carmaker1"--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1: Most of your edits are useful, bring in correct information or correct wrong information. But having seen many of your summaries, they almost look like thy have been deliberately crafted to annoy people. Which would go a long way to explain why people are annoyed at you. Surely you know the old saying about attracting more bees with honey.

Wikipedia is a community effort. We work together. If I make a mistake I prefer it when somebody instructs me constructively, so that I may learn. I may not always enjoy it but if it helps, then it is good. Dennis has politely instructed you that your edit summaries are rubbing people the wrong way. He could have told where to shove it or told you to leave WP but instead he gave some useful tips. This is a good sign of a community working together. Telling someone to "don't comment on my page" is a sign of a community falling apart.

People make mistakes. We all do. I do. And so do you. I get annoyed that intelligent, thoughtful people go to the effort of finding a reference and then insert it as a bare URL, without a title, date, author, work or formatting - in spite of plentiful examples in the article to copy from. I can lay this directly at your feet. As I said before, the majority of your edits are good. But this little flaw annoys me. I could rant at you about how pathetic or lazy you are. Or I could just format the references for you and get on with life. Ranting about others does little to help but does stress everybody. "Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but not notice the beam in your own eye?"

Again, we're here to work together. No shouting, no blaming, just helping.  Stepho  talk  00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You have politely addressed me many times no matter what the circumstance, even if on occasion a bit snide. I have not observed similar from Bratland. Because I have highlighted my background at times and a previous comment which stated "American hicks*, they have likely chosen to take personal offense and hold a grudge over it. I don't really seek their attention, in order to avoid unwelcome problems. Carmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And yes I do agree, we are all here to work together and I champion you, on teaching me a good compromise and realizing MYs in articles should not dominate the narrative. It's very easy to say it's trivial and irrelevant, however other people do make inferences based on the perceived life cycle of generations and if they think a model run is much shorter than it is by an arbitrary model year, they're not going to really know what to expect. You know this so well, which is probably why you steered me correctly, back in my university years. Technologies are introduced on new products and that includes American cars. If a new Ford product of ours entered production in December 2020 and launched in January 2021 as an early 2022 MY with a major invention, it is misleading to put "since 2022" or "in 2022". What happens if our competitors introduce such tech 1 year later? Our innovation suddenly loses credit for being first to market alongside a competitor? I am here to avoid that and I wish you would extend that to other articles too more often, as I'm probably the only editor in American articles doing so. Your point isn't lost on me, but I don't think you are aware of a deeper history, on my both archived talk page, ANIs, edit summaries, article talk pages, and etc with this person. Unlike your post, it comes across as baiting, to interject in such a manner and not be truly well meaning, which again you have been. Carmaker1 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Mazda MX-5 (NC). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Areaseven (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Areaseven (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to get it together and realize that expressing concern over what you carelessly add to articles isn't necessarily attacking you. That's childish logic, so stop spamming my page with nonsense and wasting others' time during a crisis. Anyone with eyes can see what I said, attacked Evo the source of the bad information itself, not so much yourself who casually fell for it. I have the right to express that I have taken "intense issue" with your damaging the credibility of an article, without cruelly calling you an idiot or worse. No one called you an idiot, but you can pretend all you want to feel aggrieved and establish victimhood.

You need to have a more discerning eye towards the more secret, behind-the-scenes aspects of automobiles and not just sucking up anything a magazine prints naively. I learned that the hard way in my youth about the press and changed how I observe automotive news articles based on that. They misquote, make bad projections, don't have all the facts. Remember it. I suggest you get past that, instead of using being incorrect and addressed for it, as a reason to fish for any latent excuse to satiate your bruised ego. Grow up.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1, Wikipedia's threshold is verifiability, not truth. Guy (help!) 08:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So because one can "verify" a lie from any random writer, then it must credible? That's a serious weak point regarding supposed verifiability. I don't buy into that, as it can hurt this site, by pointing out anything a writer says based off of their opinion as fact. Carmaker1 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom Request

You have been named as a party to an ARBCOM request. You are invited to post comments on the page here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And now I see the ArbCom is closed. Excellent. No more unnecessary drama, so I will continue editing as I was.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, just checked my talk page right now. Carmaker1 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration preliminary statement exceeding word limit

Hi, Carmaker1. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, wow. I wasn't particularly aware, did I misread a byline? Carmaker1 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Carmaker1, and thank you for refactoring your statement. There is a large pink box at the top of the page with instructions, but it is not uncommon for people to miss that. We should really consider adding an edit notice as a second reminder. Thank you for the feedback. CThomas³ (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, thank you. Hope I have respected that.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolving your ANI

Hi. So, if Dennis Bratland makes another appearance on this talk page, please let me know about it. I am ready and able to act decisively. El_C 22:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much I really appreciate it El_C! And I will mind my own behavior and be more civil. Carmaker1 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fer sure. Anyway, sounds like a good plan. El_C 03:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm finding a particular issue developing again regarding User: Dennis Bratland, following me around to other Wikipedia pages and interjecting in a manner that's designed to antagonize or counteract, barely in relation to content. I am not the most objective person in the world nor am I perfect, but yes I did bring up 2-4 discussions today and removed an irrelevant, toxic response to my commendation of other editors on this page [6]. A look at their diff history on 19 April 2020 expresses this [7], as well as the discussions in question [8][9][10].--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also just removed a comment on my page by Bratland, as they are not honoring my request to not comment here.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have opened an AN/I discussion on this matter.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your comment at ANI: diff. However, the fact that you made that comment before removing it indicates that the concept of emotionless commenting, while sticking to substantive issues, is elusive. You must also remove this comment or immediately provide good evidence to justify your statement. If you make another edit or comment before doing either of those, I will block you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I perceived the other individual as being unnecessarily snarky (unlike others involved in AN/I), yet they were complaining of myself being snarky (I never spoke to them prior to AN/I), is exactly where that statement of "hypocrisy" came from. I didn't see the need to provide evidence, in the same section. If someone personally attacks me, it needs to be fair & balanced by someone else reminding them to get ahold of themselves, particularly you. I would like to hear about what you say regarding that concern. You have to take notice of their own volatile statements here as evidence [11][12][13], as there are much better ways to address your concerns without resorting to borderline emotional text and snarky, dismissive remarks which are equally antagonizing. I equally find your threat unwarranted and extreme, being that I am not the only person who made the observation of hypocritical hostility[14][15].--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Carmaker1, please try your best to temper your disposition, because you're starting to skirt the line. If you wish to make a report on Dennis Bratland, it's best not to do so here, because they can't respond and end up (correctly) refactoring the discussion to my talk page and responding there. I have admonished Dennis Bratland for editing your talk page, thereby breaking his promise. But you writing about him in this thread, wasn't the best idea, either. So, please make sure to report any issues with him directly to me (or ANI), rather than anywhere on your talk page. Thanks. El_C 21:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thank you El_C. Point well taken. Carmaker1 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Has there been a conflict of interest found or not? COI is still open, with no input. I've been very transparent for years and I actually hated editing Jaguar Land Rover articles when I worked for them, in feeling a bit "too close to home". My highest editing count is for Lexus, showing a great ability for objectivity. I will try not to work on articles regarding actual products I'm directly involved in, as I am not responsible for any Ford products outside of the 2023 Super Duty, 2022 Lincoln Navigator and 2022 Ford Expedition.

I am telling you this, to point out that those particular sub-sections, I will not involve myself in when they do go into production. Ford is a very large company and I frankly do not benefit from products outside of my field of expertise. It would be disingenuous to dismiss that reality.

Editing sections about old generations of cars regarding, timeline and development history, which I had no involvement in, has nothing to do with my professional work nor does it improve the fortunes of the company in current day. If this site could even be used to influence the market, a lot of corruption would be going on and it would be a messy disaster. I honestly have no favorites, being heavily unbiased.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

COI

I'm not sure entirely what the dispute on AN/I is about, but I hope I can give you some friendly advise. COI violations on Wikipedia can not only get you booted off Wikipedia, it can cause major PR damage and reputational damage to the firm the editor works for. I would be very careful writing about your company. Personally, I can see your intentions are good, but I would genuinely be very, very careful around this area. COI is not just about actual conflicts of interest but perceived conflicts of interest.

If you want to edit Ford related articles, then it is extremely important that you reference all your material to solid, reliable sources. If you are sourcing Ford documentation, I'd be very careful, it must be openly accessible at the very least, and even then I'd hesitate to use it. A compromise is if the material is added you add a talk page section explaining your use of the material and inviting comment. Even then it might be best to ask on the talk what you want to add and ask someone to review it for you, and perhaps have them add it.

I know this is a pain, but it's really all in everyone's interests. There have been severe personal consequences for a number of people over the years who are caught in conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. That hasn't always come from Wikipedia either.

So... please keep contributing as I can tell you have a lot to give, but please be careful! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm barely only 3 decades on this earth and quite younger at heart, so still have a lot to learn! This is very informative.--Carmaker1 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey :-) I know how that feels. I've been editing, on and off, since 2005. I've seen some things (missed lot of drama for half a decade though). It can get pretty wild here. You'd never know it from just the articles. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as I have observed the perspectives of many people on and off here and see serious underlying issues. Thanks for the input, it is much appreciated. My incivility might be somewhat distasteful, but in the same breath it's quite obvious there is more to it and thankfully it's being noticed by some objective, well-meaning users.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the request for arbitration

In addition to my prior comments, as one of the arbitrators, I've posted a question to you on the requests for arbitration page. (This is just an additional heads-up in case you don't see the question in the middle of the page or the ping doesn't work.) Please answer in your section on that page. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to you at Arb Com, with the implication I have changed my outlook and evidence of that provided. However, that does not seem to be up to me anyway. The starter of the Arbcom requested it based off of a well-described example by @Swarm: at ArbCom, not so much myself. I didn't request anything, other than concerns about my talk page in an AN/I[16] and a concern about Wikihounding.

The impression being given it isn't being "handled" by the community to support arbitration is laden with vagueness, because there was only 1 recent AN/I not "3" against me as casually implied by Tomstar [17](who even called me a "jackass"). (Anyone who objectively expects civility, should practice that themselves by not name calling) In total there were 4 in April, with any mention of my username in prose.

The only (borderline) valid AN/I actually against me was started by a user Areaseven, leading to the Arbcom. The other 2 were in fact started by me, to protect myself against harassment and then my talk page ironically being hijacked. @El C: tried at first and helped resolve the matter, so how does such an AN/I count against me, when a violation of a civil request turned into an edit warring of my user talk page[18]? It's somewhat a reach, even if past incivility claims are founded.

Claiming "WP:PAID" was even an actual worthwhile AN/I, is an inaccurate reach as well and in some ways an aspersion, when the user who rudely inserted themselves in my report to AN/I and engaged in their own incivility[19][20][21] there (see statements by @Chris.sherlock:[22][23], helped initiate the accusations of COI with little provided evidence and lost interest in it within hours of forcefully campaigning for it[24]. I have been very transparent and mostly not found to be guilty, because my interests are not sinister nor self-serving[25]. One can make their own inferences on why they pursued doing all that and more, despite me being transparent...

I am understandably going to defend myself, as everyone is entitled to a defense and within that, to point out flaws in terms of bias and unfounded accusations.

Going forward, I am only to defend myself in a "Level One" manner (templates, cordial warnings/level discussion) and if someone else wants to take it beyond that, I will seek additional help to not feed into it and prevent uncivil escalation. The majority of users have no issue working with me, but that is up to you and others to make that observation objectively. Not knowing how to add another statement in ArbCom, I chose to address you here (second time).--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, and as a result of that ping, I have made a brief statement at the Arbitration request: here. El_C 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks for taking personal time out for your input.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed

Dear Carmaker1, the Arbitration Committee has declined the recent arbitration case request involving you. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

6th gen Mustang using D2C

May I ask what your reference is in regards to the notion that the current generation Mustang still uses D2C? According to this article from Car and Driver, the S550 platform is (or was, depending on your point of view) all-new, with only the wheelbase carrying over. Dave Pericak even says in that article that it's all-new. Have you seen something different? Carguy1701 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

G20 designer

Someone has been adding Alexey Kezha as the designer of the G20, this seems plausible but I can't find a cite saying that he actually designed it. Do you have any info on this? Toasted Meter (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to look into it immediately. Carmaker1 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's valid, I was about to dismiss it, then I saw who added it and then remembered various people can work on a vehicle. https://de.linkedin.com/in/alexey-kezha-15a52613

Both Marc and Alexey worked on this vehicle. As we both know more than anyone, they worked on this vehicle design until styling approval in late November 2015. Although a public source is not provided for this portion, design freeze (sheetmetal lock-in) was in the middle of 2016 and full styling completion was in spring 2017 (details down to plastic/trim).

It is going to be a bit of a headache for me trying to figure out why Mark Michael has any connection to the vehicle because his role isn't specifically spelled out like Alexey's resume. Carmaker1 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guide for 'Designer' is supposed to be the exterior designer. not middle mangers or project leaders. Allegedly there are so many middle managers and project organizers in a production car project. Mark Michael is known as one of those managers. For example Nader Faghihzadeh also worked on G20 project as a creative director. And Mr. Peter Gabath as well. there might be many "come and go" managers during the project. but exterior designer roll is rather fixed or stable unless resign. Therefore Alexey Kezha is the one who can be record as the actual exterior designer of bmw G20 3series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleracoon (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, as I work for another automotive corporation in a design engineer capacity, but not as a member of the design department specifically. My only connection to BMW is my mother's family's past distributorship, paternal uncle taking over national franchises, and her being a VIP customer in terms of buying BMW on both a fleet and personal basis. On the BMW Group corporate level, my knowledge can be rather limited at times, regarding their latest internal movements. Thanks for your input, as I myself struggle with news media giving glory and credit to the wrong parties and having to rely on patents to give due credit. I am wondering why your knowledge goes so deep, but I consider it welcome. Carmaker1 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. U¹ _quattro TALK 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Battleground behaviour

Carmaker1, I spoke up against arbitration because I think you improve the accuracy of articles. However, that is not a free pass. Your excessively combative behaviour is degrading other people's enjoyment of our shared hobby - Wikipedia - and is disruptive. I am going to close the admin noticeboard thread with this final warning to you.

You must stop your combative behaviour. Our rule is: bold, revert, discuss. If someone is wrong then you are free to show why, using reliable independent sources, on the Talk page, but please talk about the content not the editor. If you continue as you are, then you may expect blocks of escalating length. Do not be provoked. If someone repeatedly adding incorrect information then (1) discuss it on talk, if necessary via RfC then (2) if they fail to follow the sources or abide by consensus, make a neutrally worded report to a suitable venue (e.g. WP:RSN to ask if a source is reliable, or WP:DRN if you disagree on interpretation of a source). If someone is baiting you, please ignore them, and if they continue, make a neutrally worded report at WP:ANI.

Edit warring and belligerence are considered disruptive and if you continue with this then you will be blocked from editing. I don't want that to happen. Please help me make it not happen. Guy (help!) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1, a dispute resolution request like 3rd Opinion could also be helpful. I recommend you heed Guy's instructions. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well understood, thank you and I understand your great concerns. Particularly in not allowing one's self to feel provoked and biting back. Much respect to you both, please take care as well in daily life. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chrysler 300, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Gale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"It Wasn't Me"

I noticed you undid my edit on It Wasn't Me. I'd like to ask why. Template:Infobox song states: "Indicate the commercial release date, whether it is a single, album, or other." I've spoken with User:Ojorojo about this, and they said that radio and promo releases do not qualify as "commercial" formats. The parent album, Hot Shot, was released in 2000, but it is not the most well-known format of the song since the single release became a worldwide hit. Unless you have a good reason as to why you removed this date, I'm going to have to revert it. If you take issue with the way the "release" parameter is defined, please speak with Ojorojo about this. Thank you. ResPM ^{come to my window} 12:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not consensus, when it only is discussed by two users and ignores existing standards. Apply the same logic in other articles, then maybe that has more credibility. Release date on Wikipedia has never been broadly defined as CD single only, closely studying many music articles. 1 or 2 individuals cannot solely decide otherwise, when plenty of other users and likely many admins, believe differently. You can change it for now, but when I am not busy, I will remove it again and back it up with plenty of support, as that misinforms readers. I think you should just be inclusive of both radio and physical single release dates. Your theory is rather contradictory, when many successful songs only had airplay as singles and never saw physical single release ever. Does that make them never released? No, it absolutely doesn't. Carmaker1 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See, that's the thing. There's no consensus. Some users agree that the radio release should be used, but others say the physical date should be used. When I brought this up at Template:Infobox song, I said that several songs had never been physically released in the US, but the responder told me to use other dates, which didn't sit well with me. If you ask me, this needs to be cleared up, but I know that's probably not gonna happen anytime soon. Meanwhile, it's not misinformation if you add a reliable, cited release date, but that's beside the point. I'm honestly getting frustrated by this point, mostly because unregistered users are adding uncited dates, but I guess I can't do a thing about it now since I'm apparently always in the wrong. I'll just stay away from release dates until we figure this out, because this is too confusing. ResPM ^{come to my window} 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Laundry Service

Hey friend today i was investigating today and discovered that the same Rolling Stones said that Shakira sold more than 15 million copies with Laundry Service. Could you please update it? Link from Rolling Stones: http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fmusic%2Fartists%2Fshakira%2Fbiography AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Ford T plarform. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. N2e (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You know very well why I removed that and these notices on my page mean nothing, as I wasn't born yesterday and my edit history is age old. I will not provide Ford Motor Company internal docs as a source either.
I do find it insultingly amusing how none of you questioned the glaringly unsourced Ford U Platform and P Platform articles for the better part of 15 years, until me as a former undergrad and grad student (my early Wiki days), (who later) joined Ford as an engineer, then noticed the glaring misinformation that was proudly plastered everywhere as the underlying basis for body on frame Ford vehicles. Which I campaigned to have deleted and removed last year from Wikipedia, with pushback from Ford article contributors who were so desperate to retain it. Gotta love the selective bias, how anything I add demands a citation or special proof, yet any other clown can toss scat at the wall and it sticks as credible, with no maintenance tags added. I do get it though, so no more repeats of misinformation.
T3 is the current body on frame architecture for every full size Ford ladder frame vehicle, that utilize aluminum bodies, since 2014. Unfortunately the news media is more focused on reporting on BS fluff like cup holders or Doug Demuro style, than deeper insight related to product development such chassis and etc. I can't use my internal information, unless already available publicly. I am surprised that those who put maintenance tags, can't be bothered to do the research themselves as part of a collective. Carmaker1 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mazda platforms

Since Ford P platform and Ford U platform is completely fictitious, and I know you know a lot about Ford and presumably Mazda, I want to ask does these Mazda platforms are also fictitious? These articles really sounded like they just put together models with the same first letter of the model code, just like Ford P platform and Ford U platform articles. If it indeed fictitious I'll propose a deletion. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are Andra Febrian, thank you so much for bringing this up. I keep forgetting to raise this topic and now remember, the proof doesn't exist. Carmaker1 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, AfD is now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazda B platform. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much Andra. I'll do my best, to identify the actual platforms. From what I can recall, the 1982-1987 626 was heavily revised on the same platform for the GD and built until 1992. The GE was an all-new platform launched near-parallel in November 1991 and the GF was a heavy revision in 1997. GG was all-new as the Mazda6, becoming the basis of the 2006 MY Ford Fusion. It was heavily revised in 2007-08 as the Gen II Mazda6 and was ultimately replaced with the SkyActiv focused architecture in 2012, to be retired in November 2021. Carmaker1 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So this is how it goes. GC-GD are the same platform, from 1982 to 1994.
GE-GF were the same platform, with differences, manufactured 1991 to 2002. GG-GH, the first generation Mazda and second generation, were the same platform basis from February 2002 to 2012, with a redesign in 2007-08. GJ was on Skyactiv-M, the last FWD platform for the 626/6. The 2013-2018 Mazda3 used Skyactiv-C. Carmaker1 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Carmaker1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W202), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Your edit summary [26] "Our recent 2021 Bronco launch at Ford..." suggests that have a conflict of interest. Meters (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that the page listed above is not the company with which you apparently have the conflict of interest. It is simply the page you were editing when you left that edit summary. Meters (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a subject already visited and cleared well over a year ago. I don't give slanted favor to the products I am involved in P708, U553/554, T3, future T* and TE1 program vehicles. I treat them normally, but inaccurate information or poor context on them is something I primarily take issue with. I am extremely objective. Carmaker1 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You work for Ford, you edit Ford articles, but I don't see a conflict of interest declaration on your user pages or whern you edit Ford pages. Meters (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to describe this without being too verbose, but this subject was first approached out of spite towards me in an effort to prevent me from editing articles [27] and then dismissed on the premise that my style of editing does not present a major conflict of interest regarding automobiles and the FMC. My significant conflict of interest, the Ojukwu family and N**** family of Nigeria, are where I am pseudo-banned from editing, as I am part of that family and have way too much bias to be involved in any capacity on them. I gladly accepted that, but my contributions in terms of Ford and automobiles is not as significant to become a conflict. I am not there to promote, but contribute. To reopen this discussion, strikes me as an insult, since it was already resolved after in depth discussion and research by others against me. It is like double jeopardy and quite unwelcome, 16 months later. I hear you though on it, but COI was opened and closed a long time ago. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no intention of insulting you. As I said, You work for Ford, you edit Ford articles, but I don't see a conflict of interest declaration on your user pages or when you edit Ford pages. The appearance of a possible conflict of interest s a justifiable cause for concern for any editor who notices. There's no reason for me, or any other editor who stumbles across your case, to know that this has previously been raised. You have a large talk page and I wasn't going to read every thread. And please provide a proper link to the discussion next time, not just a diff to the notification on your talk page. Meters (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I had done a quick scan of the table of contents without seeing another Twinkle-standard "Managing a conflict of interest" header. I see I missed the "COI" header. Sorry. Meters (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W123 passenger-side airbag

You deleted the entry about Mercedes-Benz W123 passenger-side airbag.

That is unfortunate because you seem to miss the point about the country-specific options that are not widely available around the world. Not every option is available in the US market. German market had the option of electric front windows and manual rear windows as well as headlamp washer/wiper options: both were never offered in the US, for instance.

Sometimes, the manufacturers offered the limited run of test options in the specific markets prior to the official introduction as to test the consumer's response or to weed out any potential issues. Sometimes, the manufacturers selected certain groups of consumers to test their products for a certain length of time.

In some instances, they aren't officially listed in the catalogue. Alfa Romeo didn't list the automatic gearbox option for its 1750 Berlina. Lot of people didn't believe 1750 with automatic gearbox existed until the photos of interior and dashboard with automatic gearbox selector and operating manuals showed up.

Mercedes-Benz offered the driver-side airbag option in W123 for German market as the German price catalogue showed in the citation. If you had bothered to look at the photo and German Wikimedia file information, you will see that W123 has passenger-side airbag.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Beifahrerairbag_W123.jpg

Now, look at the rescue chart where the airbags, seat belt tensioners, battery, fuel tank, etc. are located. You can see that the airbags (as denoted by circle 1) are installed on both sides.

https://rk.mb-qr.com/de/123.1/

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Consequent to that discussion -

You have been blocked temporarily from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are blocked from editing the Ford Bronco article. You may suggest edits to the Ford Bronco article at talk:Ford Bronco using the {{edit request}} template. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

After your massive personal attacks at ANI, you will be waiting for the ANI siteban decision without having an opportunity to respond there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good for you, as I said the redacted truth and save for some typos and formatting gaffes, it's much more filtered than much I could have nastily said otherwise, in an unfiltered, explicit and scathing fashion with extremely foul language.

A few anti-social outcasts with fragile egos. That are laughably intimidated by someone who may or may not know more than they do, a formerly dedicated undergrad site contributor to now successful professional at a Fortune 500 company with an MBA and hard-earned PhD, who has no patience for the unregulated BS here creating gross misinformation. I have engineering and design patents in my name, which very few here even do. Twelve of them so far, from JLR and Ford, plus more coming as new filings are made at USPTO and globally.

Feigning victimhood and pearl clutching in over the top theatrical outrage, says more than enough about that irrelevant set of few users, out of many people worldwide who have always appreciated my efforts and my gifted work I globally contribute in my freetime. People can twist any semantics how they want to, especially because they live on here 24/7 and honestly have no real lives I can imagine. Check how often I don't login. I have my great fiance with the same dedication to our profession, millions of dollars at my disposal from my N. & Ojukwu family trusts and maybe even more from willing investors on upcoming plans. With dedicated effort, I can replicate this all on my own and cast a large shadow over it all in a few years. I will do that indeed, as I have those God-given privileged means, without involving any management here. Get some genuine meaning in your lives, as living on here 24/7 isn't it. You only live once and staring at a computer screen all day to copy text and play politics, means little to nothing in the real world, when you have no actual power like the rest of us on a global scale. Any wonder why I am so confident in my abilities?

Signing off, Dr. J.N. aka Carmaker1. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

With that, I revoke your talk page access. At your service, your researcher and a full professor at a top university. Cheers.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Community ban

Hi Carmaker1. Just letting you know that the outcome of the ANI discussion is that you have been community banned from editing. The close is here but is really just a restatement of this message.

I gather from your talkpage posts that you've already signed off from Wikipedia. If you do ever wish to return you will need to first appeal this ban via the mechanisms outlined at WP:UNBAN. If you don't wish to return to Wikipedia editing then all the best for wherever your interests take you. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)