User talk:Aero777/Archive 1

Congratulations
Doorknob747 20:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Aww man, thanks Doorknob747 ! I appreciate it very much. :]
 * Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Front) in Thailand.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Front) in Thailand.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Rear) in Thailand.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Rear) in Thailand.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Rear) in Thailand.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo (Rear) in Thailand.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia Skype chat
Hello, thank you for participating in WikiProject Malaysia! As per my previous message and the responses made, I'm organizing an informal Skype conference call on February 5th, 20:00 - 21:30 (Malaysian time). I'd love for you to join this chat. If you do not have a Skype but wish to join the chat, let me know and I'll try to work something out. iFurther details can be found at the Meetups page. You can also leave any suggestions or comments on that page. Please RVSP and hope to "meet" you there! Bejinhan  talks  14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proton Inspira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Damansara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Facebook of wikipedia malaysia
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ms.wiki/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9x (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

HELLO!
Hi! I'm one of the members from WikiProject Malaysia and I happen to come across your user page. I seriously love your userboxes! You don't mind if I use some of them, do you?

EnvyDC (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi EnvyDC, nice to meet you.
 * Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate it and I'm glad you like the Userboxes. Feel free to use anything you need, no attribution required. :D


 * Cheers,
 * Aero777 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proton (automobile), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Welch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Invite
Hi Aero777, you're invited to cast a vote at my request for adminship on the Malay Wikipedia here. Thanks. :) Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is a better categorical name to describe English for Brunei?
Hi Aero777, Which is Better? "Recognised" or "Used for some purposes"? please respond ASAP! Younlo9098 (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Invited
You're invited to vote Arctic Kangaroo as an administrator in Malay Wikipedia. To vote, please go to this page. Thanks.-- 法尔汉  Aplikasi  18:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Second invited
You're invited to vote SNN95 as an administrator in Malay Wikipedia. To vote, please go to this page. Thanks.-- 法尔汉  Aplikasi  14:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Message
You've a message in your talk page in Malay Wikipedia.-- Apli  kasi  10:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Message
You've a message in Malay Wikipedia.-- Apli  kasi  11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Tan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with an editor?
Hi! I pulled your name from the Malaysia WikiProject and I noticed that you speak Malay, if I'm reading your infoboxes correctly. I need your help with an editor, User:Irmancore, who wants to re-create the article PPD Baling Sik on Wikipedia. There is a huge language barrier here and while he can speak English better than I can most other languages, his English is still poor enough to where it will likely negatively effect his articles on Wikipedia. He really needs someone to help him with sourcing, general Wikipedia policies, and English writing. Can you help him? I'm having some trouble tracking down people who have experience with Malay and have edited recently, especially since the Malaysia WP is only semi-active. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, my apologies for the late reply. I've gone through most of the matter, and I thought the best solution for now is to just do what I can with the little info that was on the Draft page and Malay-language equivalent article. I doubt that speaking to him would be the most effective approach, because it could take days or weeks for him to learn basic Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm not able to log-in often these days. I'm not sure if I did enough, and I'm not really accustomed to writing articles like those, so if there are any mistakes on my end, I'd like to apologize in advance. I hope I can help out a bit more with this problem, but I'm actually quite tied up myself, I'm afraid. If there's anything much else that I can do, please let me know, I'll try my best to help. Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cars in Vietnam and Singapore
G'Day Aero777,

My name is Nim and I am going to be heading to Vietnam and Singapore in December for a holiday with my family. Over in Vietnam my Design Teacher kindly donated a camera kit for the trip. I would like to photograph all the cars in both Vietnam and Singapore. I am writing up a list on Microsoft Word on which of the cars I need to photograph at the highest priority. The cars are not avaliable in Australia.

Do you have any suggestions on which of the cars I need to photograph. I would really like to know :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Nim, nice to meet you, and my apologies for this late reply ! I came across some of your photos on the Commons before, keep up the great work man. :D


 * Hmm... well, I'm not sure if I can properly sum up the automotive scene in Vietnam and Singapore, as I've never travelled there before. But regardless, I can certainly share what I know thus far. :]


 * For Vietnam : Cars are generally a luxury item, and most people there have motorcycles. Most new cars in Vietnam are actually built there (to reduce taxes). They might look just like the ones in Australia and other parts of Asia, but they're made with different components and parts. Some of the more recent built-in-Vietnam cars include the following;


 * Ford EcoSport, Escape, Fiesta, Focus - Kia Morning (Picanto), K3 (Cerato) - Hyundai Santa Fe, Avante (Elantra) - Peugeot 408, 3008 - Nissan Sunny (Almera) - Mazda 6, 3, 2, CX-5 - Suzuki Swift, Carry


 * I'm quite sure that most of the GM Chevrolets, Toyotas and some VWs are also built there, but I couldn't confirm the exact models. The above info is from a reliable source ( www.marklines.com ), but it's incomplete and there's still a ton of other, older models from the 90s and early 2000s.


 * Apart from that, Vietnam has little in the way of variety. I'm not so sure about how their grey market is regulated, but I know there's a unique company from North Korea called Pyeonghwa Motors that exports their cars to Vietnam. It's almost impossible to find any outside North Korea, so if you see one of them during your travels, go for it !


 * For Singapore : Weirdly, cars are also a luxury item here, but unlike Vietnam, the ones in Singapore are far more upmarket. You will likely find more Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Audis and the lot than Japanese econoboxes. Most of the cars here are also quite new, older cars are hard to come buy, and if you do find any, they'll likely be Malaysian-registered. Both of the above has a lot to do with Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement.


 * The great thing about the Singapore scene is the variety... you'll find obscure Chinese cars, the usual Japanese and Korean lot, the occasional American import, super/hypercars, and of course endless fleets of the German trio. I wish I could give you a solid list on what to look for, but the variety is quite overwhelming tbh. But as a pointer, I would suggest that you keep an eye out for the older models and supercars, as they're probably the rarest of the lot. Virtually all cars in Singapore are fully imported (mostly from Thailand, Japan and Germany), so they're likely to be similar or no different from their siblings in Australia in terms of specifications and components/ parts.


 * I'm not sure what else I could share apart from the above, I guess the most important thing is to just have fun and keep some spare batteries at hand ! I hope this reply is not too late, but in any case, I wish you safe and happy travels !


 * Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Pixarfan192, I'm honoured ! Terribly sorry I took so long to reply, but I hugely appreciate your kind gesture. :]
 * Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of G. Kogelen Govindasamy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article G. Kogelen Govindasamy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/G. Kogelen Govindasamy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Proton automobiles, Youngman controversy
In fact, it is the claim of Proton/Youngman assembling/selling 186,842 cars that is the bold claim. Look at the facts as to how unverified this claim is. Firstly, all indication (unless it can be shown otherwise) indicate that this figure is derived from one source, Youngman's Automobile division. How can this be credible when even China's car registration authorities don't believe the sales figure numbers? You are certainly showing lack of judgement by drawing the conclusion that most of the figures are correct, and that only 2015 figures are suspect. Where is the proof for this bold assumption? If someone (or a company) is known to lie about sales figures (so blatant to leave an unreconciled mismatch between sale and registration numbers), isn't it more logical to assume that all their sales figures are seriously suspect? Giving a known liar the benefit of the doubt is simply silly. So we have treat Youngman-provided sales figures as suspect, and to mark then as "unverified", if not even with a more qualified and meaningful entry (like marking it as “figure unknown”).

Here are more facts to consider. If Youngman Automobiles were a trustworthy operation with a good track record, then perhaps they might be looked at in a more favourable light. However, if you've been following their automobile divisions exploits, you will know that virtually (maybe all) of their high profile "projects", from their push into electric cars (Detroit Electric), offer for SAAB, buying into Spyker (250 cars in 15 years existence, not apparent mention of Youngman in Spyker's corporate news since 2013, and "convenient" bankruptcy filing in late 2014) kind of fall flat. In fact, Spyker seems to be following in Youngman's footsteps in "showmanship"- fancy cars at motor shows from which nothing materializers. Now I see Spyker courting another company from out of the blue for a partnership, a small firm called Volta Votlare (specialist aircraft manufacturer). All very suspicious. But I digress.

Here's another avenue to look at. If Youngman Automobiles sold over 180,000 cars, would you not think there would be a significant uproar by purchases of said cars for service/spare parts? From what I can see at of Youngman's corporate website (http://www.young-man.cn/eng/index.aspx), the link to their car division is simply dead - not really what you would expect if they actually had something to say to their many past customers. (The link to Lotus simply brings one to Lotus in UK). I am not fluent in navigating the internet in Chinese; maybe you can find some comments/requests in Chinese from the (alleged) over 180,000 customers, who must be up in arms about their car company's somewhat mysterious disappearance. I expect you will not find the number of pleas for help/assistance/information anywhere near what would happen if over 180,000 car owners are left in the lurch for service and spare parts.

In summary, unless it can be shown that the sales numbers come from a verifiable source (not past Youngman figures, which government authorities have discredited), those 186,842 Yongman-claimed "sales" must be marked as unverified (as must those individual year sales in the bar-chart).

Samhu (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Samhu, thanks for sharing your concerns in this extensive note. I understand where you're coming from, and I may not be able to provide all the answers here, but allow me to explain why this isn't some grand fraud that has been quietly swept under the carpet.


 * First thing's first. The reference that you provided had the following paragraph;


 * In fact, one company – Youngman Lotus, seems to be out of the game already. The passenger vehicle business division under the Youngman Automobile Group, which tried to purchase Saab a few years ago, has silently ceased production and closed dealerships, according to media reports. China Passenger Car Association stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales numbers because they were “way off” from registration numbers. Youngman Lotus likely is not the first or the last automaker to call it quits.


 * The most important sentence from that paragraph is; China Passenger Car Association stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales numbers because they were “way off” from registration numbers.


 * Clearly, it states at least one thing; that the registration numbers don't match up with the sales numbers. It does not specify any details, it does not even define which models are involved, it's a terribly vague, ambiguous sentence. Of course, for someone who is by default a sceptic on all things Proton, this discrepancy between sales and registration is a sign of a 'cover up' or something along those lines. But that's merely an opinion derived from a vague statement, unless it's proven that Youngman Lotus did indeed try to cover up falling sales, it cannot be passed off as fact.


 * What I can derive from the "way off" statement, is that Youngman Lotus is 'self registering' their cars to artificially inflate their sales reports. Again, this is what I'm getting, it's not a fact because I can't prove it. However, regardless of the circumstances, it's not only Youngman Lotus who pre-registers units to artificially inflate their sales reports, this is a common global practice. Often, car companies register units upfront and sell them as used cars at a later date. This gives off a false impression that sales are brisk, and that will bolster consumer confidence in the brand. Here is the evidence. I don't see why you've singled out Youngman Lotus of all companies for this practice, when virtually everyone else is doing the same in these troubled times. And it's not like Youngman Lotus is a popular brand in China either, in fact, they've never managed to capture even 1% of the Chinese new car market in all those years. Evidence here Yes, 200k units might seem a ton for outsiders like us, but in China, that's a joke, many are well into the millions, some double-digit millions.


 * The bulk of Youngman Lotus' sales appears to come from the less-developed inner states, where people are poorer or don't know any better. In the developed eastern states, cheap cars and Chinese-badged models sell poorly. As to why there isn't an uproar from the claimed 200,000 Youngman Lotus owners; it's likely that their voices go unheard as many still don't have access to the internet in the inner states and the nature of censorship and freedom of speech in China. Here's a 2013 review, it has some comments from Chinese citizens. As for the www.youngmanlotus.com website disappearing, well, it has 'disappeared' since mid-2014, this is what it looked like before it went offline. Youngman itself is not dead, it's just their passenger car division. The big man behind it all, Pang Qingnian is still at it with his commercial bus and truck division. Here's a late 2014 report. The main website still reports news, up to 2016 even.


 * When Youngman Lotus first appeared in China, their sales were negligible due to a limited dealer and service network and high prices. In the early years (between January 2008 and mid-2009), Proton exported some 30,000 completely built up (CBU) Proton Gen-2 units, and these early units struggled to sell as they cost as much as a Ford Focus or Honda Civic. It was only later in mid-2009 that Youngman started producing the Gen-2s under license in China, with completely knocked down (CKD) packs from Proton's Tanjung Malim factory. Proton also exported their CamPro engines to Youngman in the agreement. From 2009 onwards, sales picked up.


 * Here is a chart I made just for you, to show the relationship between Proton's exports of CamPro engines and Youngman Lotus' production and sales of the rebadged Gen-2 and Persona (both were sold under the Lotus L3 name in China). Both cars were produced in China from 2009 onwards up to February 2015, when there were no more official reports from Youngman Lotus. As per your request, I have found an alternate data source for Youngman's data here. I trust this website and the accuracy of their reports. According to the disclaimer, the data is compiled independently by MarkLines Data Center and indicates factory shipment figures. Please note that you will have to sign up for a 24h trial to access the data. However, I have made some screen captures for your convenience. They are as follows; Youngman Lotus production 2009, Youngman Lotus production 2009-2015, Youngman Lotus sales 2009, Youngman Lotus sales 2009-2015, Proton CamPro production in Malaysia 2011-2014. Please note that the CamPro export data is not available for 2009 and 2010, and for the naming, 'Guizhou Young Man Lotus Automobile' became 'Lotus' towards the end of 2009 and stayed that way until 2015. Thus, 196,234 were locally produced and 189,872 of them were sold between 2009 and February 2015. (Note that the 190k sales figure does not include the aforementioned 30,000 CBU Gen-2 imports, as imports are excluded and listed separately in Chinese auto sales.) Proton's reports on their CamPro exports also match up with Youngman Lotus' production data. Sometime in 2012 or 2013, Youngman started sourcing 1.5-litre Mitsubishi 4G15M engines from China, and these were fitted to the existing Lotus L3 range. Apparently, it was meant to pass China's new emissions regulations on car pollution in the big eastern/ coastal cities. The 4G15M models must have sold poorly, as the disparity between CamPro exports and Lotus L3 production is small (merely hundreds apart). As mentioned earlier, Youngman's products generally did far better in the inner states and not in the big eastern cities.


 * After comparing the 2015 sales, I found that the data from marklines.com matches the data from data.auto.sina.com.cn (the bar chart sales), which gets its sources from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM). CAAM and China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) appear to be one and the same. I don't see why the CAAM data can't be trusted, as it is used by other independent sources and also reports for all other Chinese car companies. If they felt that the sales vs. registration was 'way off' in 2009, they would have stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales there and then. It was only by early 2015 that the disparity was noticed, and I'm guessing it's because Proton stopped supplying CamPro engines to Youngman that year, right after Proton and Lotus signed a 3-way agreement with Goldstar on 25 February 2015. This is the last month that CAAM reported Youngman Lotus data... coincidence ? I think not. It's obvious that Proton cut supply of their CamPro engines to Youngman Lotus sometime in early 2015. Sadly, the marklines.com page has not been updated with 2015 Malaysian engine production data, but you can be it'll show a sharp decline in CamPro exports to Youngman.


 * On that note, if you still don't trust me with this data and the new chart, you're welcome to search and calculate them yourself on the marklines.com website. It's not like I'll gain anything by fabricating information... this isn't my job, I don't get paid to uphold Proton's nor Youngman's good name. I do it because nobody else wants to, because nobody else cares to. As far as I can tell, Proton or Lotus Engineering (or both) were unwilling to work with Youngman after their contract expired in 2012. For what reason ? I don't know, and I'd certainly like to know. Don't be fooled, this is China after all, they are no stranger to scandals and every major Chinese car company has received flak at some point in time, some more than others. Youngman itself has been reported to be heavily in debt, this might explain why they couldn't buy Saab in 2012, and were forced to milk Proton's products long after the contract had expired. The new Proton-Lotus-Goldstar deal has sealed Youngman's fate. Again, I understand why you are sceptical about the whole sales thing, what with the recent VW diesel-gate and even the 1MDB scandal. But until a reputable source can dig up more info behind Youngman's 'opaque' disappearance, it is unwise to jump to conclusions, especially with such ambiguous news reports as the basis. Here's an idea; if you still feel that something is amiss in Youngman's fall, why not write to one of the popular 'pro-opposition' Malaysian news portals ? They will be happy to pick up your side of the story, and maybe, it will get Proton's attention and we'll get a final, decisive answer behind this whole Youngman fiasco.


 * Thanks for your time, Aero777 (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————————————

17:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Aero777, I plan to respond in two installments.

This installment concentrates on why my modification regarding Youngman sales figures being marked “unverified”/”inflated” is justified, by debunking the references from which your figures that you quote as gospel are derived from.

The next installment, when I get around to it, will go through relevant parts of your comments and references individually. It is not an essential component in my stand about the lack of credibility of the figure(s) in dispute.

THIS INSTALLMENT - “In summary, unless it can be shown that the sales numbers come from a verifiable source (not past Youngman figures, which government authorities have discredited), those 186,000 Youngman-claimed "sales" must be marked as unverified (as must those individual year sales in the bar-chart).”

The references you provided are basically all “circular” in nature. By that, I mean they all rely on figures entirely from (discredited) Youngman, regardless of source provided. The oft quoted Marklines reference, clearly states that Marklines’ figures for China are (by) “Marklines Data Center” referenced from “factory shipment figures”. Clearly figures provided by the factory are from Youngman, who/where else? On the other hand, for the case of Marklines’ home country (Japan), the figures are stated to be registration figures, which should be undisputable. There is a huge difference in credibility between “registration figures” and “factory shipment figures”. We know which to believe when there is a discrepancy. The least credible are those from sources that mysteriously disappear ala Youngman.

Another reference that you based your published chart from (China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, CAAM) is even more vague, with its “Main Functions” (i.e. mandate) not even commenting as to where it gets any figures from. I went through all the current posted “Automotive Statistics” items (in English), and could not see any mention as to where the figures were sourced from. (Apologies if it’s listed in Chinese, which I don’t read). Most would reason that these unqualified figures are simply also (unverified) manufacturer’s figures. I also note the chart you chose to publish has (your?) estimate of 20,000 Protons exported per year shown boldly as fact. Surely this is against all that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for, which is “information being verifiable against a published reliable source, thereby excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research”. Furthermore, another of your quoted sources is left-lane.com (which askes for donations and to be thanked for the posting). Well, at least it is conscientious enough to prominently display that the figures it posted on its website are from “Manufacturers (and) Chooseauto”, the latter being what appears to be a lightweight advert-filled automotive blog. Clearly the figures quoted are ultimately derived from Youngman, and nowhere else. As for your final (circular) reference, you state that auto.sina.com.cn (another advert-fueled commercial website) figures match data at Marklines. But in truth, this doesn’t mean anything because the Marklines reference you keep referring to, as I mentioned earlier, clearly states that its China figures are (by) “Marklines Data Center” from “factory shipment figures”. Most people would understand that “factory shipment figures” to be something that the car factory, which in our discussion means Youngman, provided. Which leads me back to my statement that the figures provided are essentially single sourced (ultimately from Youngman), a source that is discredited as unreliable because its “factory provided” vehicle sales figures are now even regarded by local vehicle registration authorities as “way off” from actual official vehicle registration numbers, and no longer accepted by said officials. Why then should we/Wikipedia accept these figures? In fact, marking them as “unverified” is being perhaps too generous; the figure should simply be “unknown”, because that’s what it essentially is, as the figure is derived from information from a discredited company that has, to make matters even worse, simply “disappeared”. And here is some undisputable information that is probably the final nail in the coffin as regards to the alleged “sale” of up to 200,000 Youngman cars in which Proton is supposed to have been reasonably intimately involved in (and ideally, profiting from) over at least a 5 year timeframe. Ultimately, it’s really in the financial results where the “rubber meets the road”, the reason companies do what they do. And it is mandatory for companies with shareholders to issue such reports, which have to meet specific regulated compliances. They are indeed “official” statements of what a company does with and to shareholder funds.

Consequently, I have searched the PDF Annual Reports of Proton from 2008 to 2011, and DRB-Hicom (Proton’s new parent company) from 2012 to 2015 for “Youngman” and the findings are in the following four paragraphs. The lack of concrete figures anywhere, and most damning of all, the total absence of the mention of Youngman in the financial results (except for one mention each in the years 2012 through 2015 about Lotus Youngman being dormant) and one rather worrying entry in 2012 of apparent “cash flows shortfall” to be covered by the Group (DRB Hicom) attributed to a Youngman bond (I believe). This total lack of concrete financial events and records attributed to the Youngman venture, a business arrangement over many accounting periods that was supposed to have resulted in up to 200,000 “Proton-related” vehicles transacted in China, is truly contrary to the claims that anywhere near this quantity of vehicles were really transacted at all. By the way, that 200,000 figure is hardly trivial; Proton hasn’t matched that figure in annual sales in over a decade.

Annual Report 2008 (2 mentions) - From Pg 043 “.. in particular, the Groups business arrangement with China-based Jinghua Youngman Group, amounting to RM33 million.” And from page 077, the vague “The year was also marked by the successful roll-out of the Europstar in China as a result of a collaboration between the Youngman Group and PROTON, with significant technology and engineering involvement from Lotus Engineering.”

Annual Report 2009 (1 mention) - From the Chairman’s Statement, “In China, Proton has shipped more than 4,000 completely built-up Gen.2 units to Youngman. After the initial trial run in December 2008, the CKD supply and operations has commenced, opening a new chapter in PROTON in China.” (Note, no specific figures here or in accounts).

Annual Report 2010 (2 mentions in one paragraph, Pg 42) “Export wise, Proton also recorded a jump in sales of more than 35% as compared to the previous financial year and this is largely attributed to the much improved performances in China (with our business partner, Youngman), Thailand, Indonesia, Australia and Taiwan. Moving forward, The Asian Multi-Local OEM (AMLO) strategy remains the key driving factor with regard to our international programme. Thailand and China remain our most successful export markets and with our Completely Knocked-Down (CKD) programme with Youngman steadily progressing, we are very confident the China will be (my italics) a very successful international venture for the Company.” (Again no figures)

Annual Report 2011 (5 mentions) - Four on Pg80 “During the period under review, PROTON’s business arrangement with China-based Jinhua’s Youngman Automobile Group has developed from CBU into CKD to capitalise on tax savings for locally manufactured vehicles and leveraging on China’s lower cost base for manufacturing and components sourcing.” “Youngman plants in Anshun, Jinan and Tai An have been operational since 2009 and the Hangzhou plant has been operational since early 2011. The Hangzhou plant produces Youngman L5 model which utilises the modified Gen.2 platform and Campro CPS engine.” (By the way, the Marklines’ engine production figures column relevant to Campro is asterisked such *Production volume figures include some estimated values) “Currently, PROTON cars are being sold under the Youngman brand through 100 appointed dealers throughout China.” - One on Pg105  “Union members were invited to visit PROTON’s Rep Office in Hangzhou and plant facilities of Youngman Automobile Group to understand PROTON’s business establishment and our future goals in China”. (And again, no figures)

In summary, 15 very non-specific mentions of Youngman in 8 years of Proton annual reports, and a full 4 of the mentions being of Youngman being a dormant entity. As it stands, a “mention count” that is hardly commensurate with Proton being involved in the moving of 200,000 cars with its partner, Youngman.

To conclude, I reiterate that the references about sale figures you’ve used were ultimately all from a single source no matter where retrieved from, that source being Youngman. And with even local authorities in China doubting Youngman-provided figures badly enough that they have chosen to ignore them as unreliable (probably inflated), why should we/Wikipedia accept these figures? In fact, I’d say now that marking it as “unverified” is being too generous. The figure should simply be “unknown”, because that’s what it essentially is, as the figure is derived from information from a discredited company that has, to make matters even worse, simply “disappeared”.

Samhu (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Look man, all I'm saying is that your one and only reference is not sufficient to support all of your claims. The only thing it proved is that CAAM/ CPCA stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales data as of 2015 because they've noted that the sales. vs. registration is inconsistent. That is all. Anything beyond that is speculation, paranoia, bias... anything but fact.


 * I've already cleared the air in my previous message; you have jumped to conclusions based on a poorly sentenced statement, in itself from an article which isn't about Youngman but rather the general market sentiment in China itself. You keep claiming that it is Youngman Lotus who provided the sales reports from 2009 up to 2015, but since you're adamant that Youngman Lotus' sales are self-provided and not audited, I spent another day reviewing your concerns, and I found something quite surprising.


 * In your fifth and eighth paragraphs, you claimed that the factory shipment figures for the Marklines data was provided by Youngman Lotus, and I confirmed that the Marklines data is the same as that from data.auto.sina.com.cn, which is sourced from CAAM/ CPCA. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the entire CAAM 'sales' data for some if not all car Chinese car companies are actually factory shipment figures, not registration figures. Moving on, CAAM/ CPCA only noticed the disparity in Youngman Lotus data in 2015. The article that you quoted the "way off" statement from was published on 20 July 2015. It was only by 2015 that CAAM/ CPCA stopped reporting Youngman Lotus' sales as they had noticed the sales (factory shipments) vs. registrations was "way off". Thus, it is assumed that the 'problem' only happened in or close to early 2015. And because CAAM/ CPCA reported Youngman Lotus data from 2009 to 2014 without question, it is assumed that the sales vs. registrations of Youngman Lotus cars was not disproportionate, prior to 2015. However, you claim that the entire Youngman Lotus sales from 2009 onwards is fraudulent. How is that an acceptable conclusion ? The bar chart was made in March 2014, it doesn't even include the disputed 2015 data. If there was a "way off" trend in 2010 or 2012, then CAAM would have stopped reporting then and there.


 * So then, wouldn't it be more conclusive to just find the registration data instead of accusing Youngman of fraud ? That... is the golden question here. Take a look at this article, and also this one. It confirms your assumption that Youngman Lotus and all other Chinese car sales are self-provided. It looks like actual new car registration data has always been a state secret in China... this is China after all, things are done differently here. However, as it would seem, it's not only Youngman Lotus that had reported inaccurate sales (factory shipment) figures, Hyundai and Hawtai are also guilty, and there may be many more. That's why I pointed out on my 28 February revert on the Youngman article; '(CAAM) did not invalidate Youngman's 2009-2013 sales (likely, it's just their 2015 sales)'. Therefore, if CAAM or the Chinese authorities did not notice a "way off" trend in the manufacturer's factory shipment data and their own secret registration data, there is no point questioning the standard sales data (factory shipments). We may never know the exact registration data, not just for Youngman Lotus, but for all others as well. Unfortunately, we have to accept the judgement from the Chinese authorities and CAAM/ CPCA, if they're reporting sales data for a Chinese car company, then it is what it is. If they've stopped, then there's a problem. So that brings us to the final conclusion; the 2009 to 2014 Youngman Lotus sales will be left as is on Wikipedia. Only the 2015 sales (January and February) will not be published here.


 * Now, on to the other minor issues; in your sixth paragraph, you mentioned that my estimate of 20,000 Proton car exports for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 is questionable. Please understand that when I made that bar chart in March 2014, there was no publication of recent export sales figures. I used the 20,000 estimate as it was commonly reported that between 10% to 15% of Proton's production (about 20,000 units) are exported annually, and I highlighted the estimated figures for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 with 'red lines'. Any reader would have noticed that, the 20k figure is not my estimate (mine would have been lower, closer to 10k, because Proton recently quit many Middle Eastern markets, a major export destination, due to civil unrest/ war). Sometime after March 2014, Proton did publish their recent export figures, it's just that I've yet to create a new bar chart which includes their recent figures. In time, I will do so.


 * In your seventh paragraph, you said left-lane.com is not a good website, but be that as it may, if you went through China's annual new car sales data (whether on marklines.com or otherwise), it's all still the same; Youngman Lotus never managed to capture even 1% of annual new car sales in China, but because the market is huge, the 200,000 or so units they've sold over the years may seem a lot... but really, it isn't.


 * And I see you've found Proton's/ DRB-HICOM's annual reports... well, that's great and all, but have you tried looking for Youngman's annual reports ? I've tried, but no luck so far. As I mentioned in my last message, fully imported (CBU) and locally built (CKD) cars in China are counted separately. The 200,000 or so Chinese-built Protons are not counted in Proton's exports, it's just the 30,000 or so CBU units (which didn't sell well as I've pointed out, so I'm guessing it's closer to maybe half that). There's no real reason for Proton to include Youngman Lotus sales in their annual reports, because Proton doesn't own Youngman Lotus, they're merely a partner. What Youngman Lotus did with their cars is not Proton's concern, Proton only exported the CamPro engines and were paid royalties for the use of their technology. And apparently, Youngman couldn't pay Proton because they were in debt. This could have been why Proton decided to drop Youngman in favour of Goldstar.


 * That's all. If you still think the entire Youngman Lotus sales from 2009 onwards should be discredited, you will need to find a better source of information to prove your claims of fraud. You really don't have to spend hours typing grand essays. All you really need right now is a credible source with a headline like "Youngman Lotus: What happened ?", which then proceeds to explain their 'opaque' disappearance, and why CAAM stopped reporting their sales after February 2015. It should also explain why Proton has cut ties to Youngman, and did not renew their contract with them. If there is any fraud involved, it should be highlighted prominently and widely publicised... just like the Takata airbag scandal and Volkswagen diesel emissions fraud. These are questions neither of us can answer, only Youngman, Lotus Engineering, Proton, CAAM and the popular media can tell us what happened and why.


 * Some of your logic is quite questionable, verging on bizarre. For example, after implying that you, like most other people, believe that much data from China is fraudulent or state-controlled in some way, you go on to say "If there is any fraud involved (at Youngman in China), it should be highlighted prominently and widely publicised... just like the Takata airbag scandal and Volkswagen diesel emissions fraud."


 * How logical is that? The transparency of the news about the Takata and Volkswagen issues (discovered, investigated, reported and globally publicised via recalls) is about as far removed from the Chinese "system" of handling facts and figures, news, scandals, disasters and embarrassments can be. In fact, after all the years of loosening, much news and publicity in the Chinese context still often reads closer to propaganda than actual reporting. Samhu (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you appear to have some personal grudge against Proton and/or Youngman, and you're trying to spin a vague statement to confirm your bias. I will not have days of my research be nullified by clever spin doctoring. Why do I say this ? It's because of all the Chinese car companies, you chose to pick on Youngman Lotus... this puzzles me, as Youngman Lotus is nowhere near as 'questionable' as some other, more prominent names in the country. Have you not heard of the blatant Land Rover rip-off ?... mind you, it's one of many just last 2015 alone. Again, I don't see why you're kicking the dead horse (Youngman Lotus) when dozens more Chinese companies have and are still committing far worse corporate and IP frauds... like I said earlier, this is China, things are done differently here. Outsiders like us cannot apply conventional reasoning to the inner workings of China's auto industry, we'll only misunderstand it further.


 * As may have happened with contributions in the past, you seem to lose the plot when contributing to or editing a Wikipedia article. Here’s a classic example, a paragraph you just wrote above.


 * You do remember that we are talking specifically Youngman Lotus in the Proton entry right? That's why I'm analysing data and information relevant to Youngman/Lotus in the Proton context.  I'd similarly analyse and try to rectify any entries that had statements, facts or data that I feel do not meet Wikipedia stated guidelines in any other entry I come across.


 * Furthermore, if I read your statement in the middle of the quoted paragraph correctly, you are saying that accepting questionable (and indeed, in this case, already officially questioned) figures from Youngman is acceptable because it "is nowhere near as 'questionable' as some other, more prominent names in the country (where) dozens more Chinese companies have and are still committing far worse corporate and IP frauds." There is one huge difference though that you seemed to have overlooked; have these companies quietly “disappeared” without forwarding-address ala Youngman Automobile?


 * If you really feel this way about including questionable information, then maybe Wikipedia isn’t for you. Or at least please consider leaving this aspect of contributing outside the door when editing Wikipedia or you will be challenged/edited.  Save statements and charts with unverifiable/officially questioned information for blogs and such.  I should point out that figures that are derived by summing “unverified” figures into their total (“Total Exported”, itself used rather ambiguously in this article’s context) have also to be clearly marked as being imprecise. Samhu (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been almost two weeks, and I have grown tired of this Youngman Lotus matter. I did not join Wikipedia to argue with other editors. If you're not satisfied with the conclusion, you are welcome to take this matter up with someone else, preferably a senior editor who can read Chinese text. I have nothing more to say at this point, and until you can provide a solid reference which clearly highlights and explains Youngman Lotus' disappearance, sales data reputability and Proton's/ Lotus' decision to drop Youngman in favour of Goldstar, I am not compelled to reply your future messages or 'installments'. As mentioned above, the final conclusion is such that the 2009 to 2014 Youngman Lotus sales will be left as is on Wikipedia until explicitly proven fraudulent or fabricated. Only the 2015 sales (January and February) will not be published here.


 * Finally, with the attitude you displayed in the final paragraph, I believe we need the participation of a relevant third party to progress. Samhu (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sincerely, Aero777 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A Third Opinion has been requested. This above content dispute is really hard to follow because of it being too long (WP:TLDR) and lacking indentation (WP:INDENT). For ease in 30 volunteers responding to this request, I recommend both parties to summarise their dispute (make it as short as possible) on the article talk page rather than here and follow the WP:TPG. Once that is done, update the link on the 3O request. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have done so accordingly on the talk page here. Regards, Aero777 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have also made my comments on the Proton talk page, in the section started by Aero777. I've also tidied up my previous comments on this page into the Indent format. Thank you for your input and attention. Samhu (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Samhu (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Third Opinion request expired after 6 days on that noticeboard, and request has been moved to the Wikipedia Dispute resolution noticeboard where your input is desireable to help maintain a balanced discussion. Samhu (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Samhu (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Due to an outstanding issue, the Dispute Resolution has been refiled at Wikipedia Dispute resolution noticeboard Samhu (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PROTON logo (2016 – present).png
 Thanks for uploading File:PROTON logo (2016 – present).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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia October 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 1
The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!
 * Date: Sunday, 11 December 2016
 * Time: 12:00 - 2:00 pm
 * Venue: Sudo Brew, 7 Jalan SS 22/11, Damansara Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3.13169°N, 101.62122°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for a special session to discuss ms.wikipedia.org (subject to enough number of participants)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Roll call of WikiProject Malaysia for 2017
Hello there ! The biennial/annual roll call of WikiProject Malaysia have been started! The roll call was intended for maintaining a healthy list of active members in the WP:MY members section. You may follow the instructions to stay in the WikiProject, or leave the WikiProject. Make sure you've make the right choice! After about 1 January 2017, you will be moved to the inactive members list. The link is at here. On behalf of WikiProject Malaysia, NgYShung  huh? (Delivered at: 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC), one run)

Volvo platforms
Hi, thanks for standardizing the page names. Could you possibly take a look at the Volvo CMA platform article that is currently awaiting review? And add the missing 'platform' in the title if it's good enough to be accepted? Unsure about having Volvo in the title for the article because of who developed it (CEVT AB).

Thx 2A02:2028:52D:E101:A128:3528:A75D:AD87 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for leaving this message, I appreciate it. Sure, I will find a way to move the CMA draft into the main wiki. Actually, your draft is already very well written with many references ! Only minor changes are needed, don't worry, I will take care of it. Thanks again, and cheers ! - Aero777 (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Compact Modular Architecture platform article has been reviewed. Thank you for taking the time and effort to research and write the draft. Do feel free to edit and change anything if necessary (you seem to know Volvo cars much better than I do !). May I also recommend that you consider creating a Wikipedia account ? It will make things much easier for you (in the future, you can just create an article yourself without the need for a Draft). Anyway, let me know if there's anything else, I'll try my best to help. Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for reviewing the article. And changing the name, adding all the source details, improving the article and so on. Very much appreciate what you did. Happy to write the draft, although it is still lacking content. That will improve when the cars get released and all the marketing material becomes available. Will edit when possible. At this moment in time an account isn't important. I edit more than I write articles, this is only the third one. You nicely filled out the references and archived them, could the same be done for the 'Volvo Engine Architecture' article? Only if it is not to much trouble or work. Never realised how quick things vanish or URLs expire. Regards & thanks 2A02:2028:746:1401:7865:CDA9:F061:D39E (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries, you're most welcome ! The CMA article had to be created sooner or later, and you already made considerable progress in the Draft. I didn't want your efforts to go to waste, so I was glad to help, in any case ! Sadly, there are not enough contributors on Wikipedia's car-related articles these days, so every helping hand is appreciated. Thanks again for your efforts. Regarding the Volvo Engine Architecture references, sure, I will try to fill them out and archive them when I get the chance (since there's quite a lot of refs, it could take several days...). But overall, the article looks to be in good shape, so no worries there. I'm not very familiar with Volvo topics, but I'll continue to work on the Volvo articles in the future, whenever possible. Cheers, and best regards - Aero777 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We will probably 'meet' again if you continue to work on Volvo articles. That's more or less all I do. I figured there was some kind of easy click'n'go tool for filling out references and archive links. Just did a few myself on the VEA article. _NOT FUN_! Pleased to hear that the article is in good shape. That was my plan when I started it. Regards 2A02:2028:757:8901:E412:234:C9F0:560F (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, filling out references is time consuming and sometimes frustrating, but it no doubt helps make any article more credible and presentable. As for the Archive links, actually, it's entirely optional ! But in my experience, Archive links are worth the extra effort in the long term. Most URL links tend to disappear or expire after a few years (link rot), and although most can be recovered through the Archive website, some URLs are permanently lost. In any case, it's better to include Archive links whenever possible... at least, in my honest opinion. But I'm sure other editors have different approaches. Anyway, don't pressure yourself to reformat the references with Archive links. The reFill tool has already massively improved the formatting. The VEA article looks so much better now thanks to your efforts. But as mentioned previously, please don't overburden yourself with the reference formatting, using reFill alone is entirely acceptable as is. But if you really wish to preserve the sources in the best condition, by all means, feel free. I will try to help out in the future whenever possible. Thanks again, and cheers ! - Aero777 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I looked around for tools which could fix dead links or add Archives links, and found User:InternetArchiveBot. I must say, this is a fantastic tool, a huge time saver ! To use it, just click 'View History' on any article, and click 'Fix dead links'. Although, like reFill, it is not perfect... but it's so much faster than manually editing references. Now all we really need to do is 'refine' the references after running the InternetArchiveBot tool. But again, it is entirely optional. I have yet to try the reFill tool, but I'll definitely do so someday. Personally, I've always preferred to edit Wikipedia manually for the best results, but I guess there's no harm in using these time saving tools either ! Cheers, Aero777 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, great work with all that. The tool sounds perfect buuuut is only usable by those with a Wikipedia account. So the old fashioned, very tedious way will have to do. I don't think it's a burden to format the references, more like a necessity at this point. So many articles are vanishing behind paywalls that it's not even funny.One issue I have noticed is that some of the archive.org links just give a blank page back. Like a totally blank page. Doesn't matter if the archiving was done by one of their bots that crawl the web / wikipedia or if the link was manually added. Do you know anything about that? I looked but did not find much and definately no solution. A few complaints about blank pages that either went unanswered or the issue magically resolved itself. VEA article has nearly doubled in size just by adding reference information. That's one way to make the article more significant I guess. Hopefully it will stay and provide information. Volvo is bad at giving well layed out information or grouping information together. All the best, thanks & cheers :) 2A02:2028:554:3A01:B9F8:1488:1B41:8F53 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PROTON logo (2016 – present).png
Thanks for uploading File:PROTON logo (2016 – present).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) 02:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Table background colours
What do the colours mean in the chart of top sales you added to Automotive industry in Australia: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1BED:6D00:422:E66:1F89:2D66 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for leaving a message. The original table colours I used were meant to distinguish the origin of the different car models (i.e. Australia, Japan, Korea, Germany etc.). But after further deliberation and discussion with another Wikipedia contributor, it was decided that the format is too complicated and confusing. I have just changed the table colours to reflect the vehicle body/size segment instead, which is all-round simpler and clearer. I've also labelled the meaning behind the colours (I should have done this much earlier, my apologies). Do let me know if you have any suggestions for the table, I'll see what I can do moving forward. Cheers - Aero777 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Proton vehicles2
Template:Proton vehicles2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 16:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)