User talk:Carmaker1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]


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[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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)


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. - SummerPhDv2.0 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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
  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 (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 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)


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[edit]

Stop icon with clock
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)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Carmaker1 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter 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.

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)