User talk:Carmaker1/Archive I

Image copyright problem with Image:Erica_2000.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Erica_2000.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:1996 OLTL Closing.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:1995 OLTL Closing.jpg. The copy called Image:1995 OLTL Closing.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of notability/context templates
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --Darkbane 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1992 OLTL Closing.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1992 OLTL Closing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Darkbane 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1996 OLTL Closing.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1996 OLTL Closing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Darkbane 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1997 OLTL Closing.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1997 OLTL Closing.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images
The 1996 and 1997 images have obviously been deleted (the 1992 survived). If you can, upload them again using the description and fair use rationale from the 1992 image and restore them to the One Life to Live title sequences article (or let me know, and I can do it). Thanks. TAnthony 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:January 2 1990 All My Children Opening Credits.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:January 2, 1990 All My Children Opening Credits.jpg. The copy called Image:January 2, 1990 All My Children Opening Credits.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:1992_OLTL_Closing.jpg
I have tagged Image:1992_OLTL_Closing.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Core desat 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oltl95_003_0001.jpg
I have tagged Image:Oltl95_003_0001.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Core desat 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oltl95_003_0001.jpg
I have tagged Image:Oltl95_003_0001.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Core desat 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:1997_OLTL_Closing.jpg
I have tagged Image:1997_OLTL_Closing.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Core desat 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One Life to Live title sequences
Taking a video of a copyrighted television show does not make it or any stills you take yours; they are still copyrighted. See WP:NFCC; since the stills are no longer used in any articles, they will be deleted in a week. As for the page, it was deleted in Articles for deletion/One Life to Live title sequences, and it is not yours, either. See WP:OWN. --Core desat 06:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One Life To Live Sequences
A tag has been placed on, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how One Life to Live title sequences is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:One Life to Live title sequences saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Eggy49er 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The recreated article has been deleted under General criterion #4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Continued attempts to recreate it may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you go to One Life to Live, a user has already added a section for title sequences. --Core desat 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1991 Opening Erica Special clip.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1991 Opening Erica Special clip.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1970 All My Children Opening Titles.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1970 All My Children Opening Titles.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:January 2 1990 All My Children Opening Credits.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:January 2 1990 All My Children Opening Credits.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1983 All My Children Opening Titles.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1983 All My Children Opening Titles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Erica Bumper-2000.1.6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Erica Bumper-2000.1.6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book.jpg. The copy called Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AMC Opening Sequence Images
Hello,

You have, on two occasions, removed images from the All My Children article to replace them with your own images. I would like to point out that the images that were initially in place were of a higher resolution than those that you proposed. Further, there was nothing that warranted the replacement of these images. Finally, the fair use rationales that accompanied the original images were correct, whereas yours originally stated that the copyright owner had released his or her copyrights to you, which might be doubtful.

I would also like to point out to you that the reason I originally posted these images is that the ones that were previously used were deleted by Wikipedia over copyright concerns.

As you know, Wikipedia is a communal effort whereby each individual contributes his or her share of knowledge to a specific topic. Please respect your fellow Wikipedia editors by not erasing their work or replacing it with yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allmychildren (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:January 3, 1995 All My Children White Opening Debut.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:January 3, 1995 All My Children White Opening Debut.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:January 5, 1990 All My Children Opening Book1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1978 AMCopen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1978 AMCopen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Abcdaytime98.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Abcdaytime98.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bianca May 2004.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bianca May 2004.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Andrea-Susan.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Andrea-Susan.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One Life to Live images
FYI, just because you screen cap or even manipulate these images in Photoshop does NOT give you any rights of ownership to the point that you can bestow rights for their use on Wikipedia. ABC OWNS THESE IMAGES. Please do not assert otherwise. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced info
Hey there, thanks for your contributions, but adding any info without sources (in this case, character birthdates and ages) is unhelpful and against policy. Thanks.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Next Album TBA
A tag has been placed on Next Album TBA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1992 AMC Bumper.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1992 AMC Bumper.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:AMC 1970 Open.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AMC 1970 Open.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Erica Bumper-January 6, 2000 bumper.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Erica Bumper-January 6, 2000 bumper.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Erica 2003.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Erica 2003.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Please comment  R  2  15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Age Ain't Nothing But a Number
Hey there, I noticed your edit summary here, stating that, "Aaliyah reported in a 1999 ABC interview that recording took place during 8 months from May 1993." Can you possibly cite this claim with a link to the article or video to verify this? Thanks. —  Σ  xplicit 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?
FYI, in which you say that I "stole" credit for this image is rude and a borderline personal attack. I could care less about "credit" for uploading images, but if you're saying you uploaded it first here under a different name, obviously it was deleted for some reason (perhaps inadequate fair use rationals) and I was merely replacing it (it was 2 years ago and I don't recall). Sorry if I mistakenly believed it was originally from the MSN group, but most of the OLTL title cards have come from there ... n any case, please grow up.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When Editing
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. ---Shadow (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

3 (song)
Yes, it does matter. Fansites are not reliable sources. Plus, the way you put it makes it look messy, instead of separating the recording studio and the date the song was recorded, it seems you don't know how to edit an article. I recommend you wait until the cd single or the singles collection is released and the official facts are released in the booklet. User:Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robinmattson96.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Robinmattson96.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battery Studios
A tag has been placed on Battery Studios requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Miyagawa  (talk)  18:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, It's True (Backstreet Boys song)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, It's True (Backstreet Boys song). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Backstreet Boys "For the Fans". Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Miyagawa  (talk)  18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cassie Cramer image
I'm so sorry! My apologies. Candyo32 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't even comment on your persistent need for "credit" for capturing/uploading images, but I have to call attention to your statement here that you "purchased, captured and publicized this video, while Candyo32 uploaded it by capturing the flash video offline w/o permission and then a still in this article." While you may have captured this video and uploaded it to YouTube, the copyright is held by ABC, not you, and no one needs to seek your permission to do anything with it. Actually, ABC has the right to remove it from YouTube, since you presumably did not ask their permission to publicize/make it available there. If you have the compulsive need to claim "credit" for providing images here you're certainly welcome to do so, but please do not confuse the issues of ownership etc. for users such as Candyo32 who may not understand the actual legalities.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 08:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment is uncivil and might even be construed as a personal attack. You've said before that you didn't like some of my recent comments to you, so you're welcome to report our recent interactions if you feel misjudged.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your warning to 204.2.37.158
I believe this warning you left for the IP crosses the line a bit. I understand that the IP has a history of vandalism (as well as some legitimate edits, probably a shared IP with multiple users -- an edit to a particular school district article supports this), but suggesting a user will be blocked simply for any editing is inappropriate. I'm removing the comment and replaced it with a standard template (level 4). If you'd lke to add more detail or to cite the article, feel free to do so. Cheers.  Me Three  ( talk to me )  14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To report an IP (or any vandal, actually), go to WP:AIV. You can add your report to the list by editing the "User reported" section at the bottom.   Once you click "edit", you'll see directions (as commented text) on how to report them.  Be brief - stating that the 6-month (or whatever) block recently expired and most of the edits since then have been vandalism should be sufficient.  They're generally acted on rather quickly, but it will be dismissed as STALE if the vandalism isn't recent.  Since I put a final-warning on the IP's talk page, you should be able to do it once the next instance shows up. Oh, and I apologize for the heading to this section; I suppose "uncivil" may have been a bit harsh.  I removed that word.  Me Three  ( talk to me )  18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning Templates
You recently reported User:190fordhouse at Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, you haven't actually issued any formal warning templates. While I am not an administrator and cannot take action, they may choose not to take action because he has been 'insufficiently warned'. You can find a list of warning templates at WP:WARN. Personally, I find using Twinkle helps when reverting, reporting and warning vandals. You may wish to try that instead. Acather96 (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re
Hi there. You're welcome for the revert on "Honey". I must've caught that during a recent changes patrol or something, but it just didn't sound right. I just looked at the editor-in-question's talk page and yeah, there seems to be a history of some unhelpful edits. Since this has been going on for quite some time, I would suggest that you open an thread at WP:ANI and ask for an admin's assistance. Explain the situation as clearly and concisely as possible and provide diffs to show a pattern of behavior. We're all suppose to work together here and that's virtually impossible to do if an editor chooses to not communicate and ignores warnings. If you suspect the editor is using sockpuppets to edit, you should file a sockpuppet investigation report ASAP. If you need any help, let me know.  Pinkadelica ♣  09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User 190fordhouse
Hi. Is this edit incorrect. How do we know? If it is incorrect, and the user has a ong-term pattern of doing this, we'd need to report the user as a vandal. It looks like the user doesn't respond to talk page posts. Just trying to help here. Dawnseeker2000  02:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Lets gather some information first. What we need right now is some diffs. the links that show the edits the user is making. With each diff we need a reason why the edit is disruptive. Gather a few diffs with reasons for each of the usernames that you suspect are the same person. Leave that info on my talk page and I will help formulate a report. Dawnseeker2000  03:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Reverts To Womanizer
I suggest you mind the act of reverting that edit again. I am not pulling dates out of thin air like some users do here, as I had one of them blocked. X17 online is certainly NOT a fansite, it is a celebrity media website that distastefully uses paparazzi to photograph(hound) and film celebrities in the developed world. Fansites are CREATED solely by FANS of a celebrity or group of celebrities. While I certainly disagree with their media-taking practices, they have provided DATED video evidence for me to present in that article. Britney Spears was seen wearing the same hairdo and orange turtleneck on September 15, 2008 in the video. She more importantly was seen leaving a recording studio with a personal set of cameramen who were none other than MTV's film crew. By watching the re-recording of Womanizer on the MTV special, it pointed out to me that both videos take place within the same 24 hours. The re-recording took place either on the late evening of September 14 or the midnight/early morning of September 15, 2008. Another user already edited that to reflect the VIDEO evidence and you TOOK it upon yourself to remove it for some personal reason. You and I are not administrators and cannot edit everything based solely on a personal opinion. Please remember that and make no effort to revert the listed recording date of September 2008. If you do that, I will need to take it up with a higher position of authority, as your excuse doesn't hold weight.Carmaker1 (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010
 * I believe that we're all trying to make Wikipedia a better place and provide a wide coverage about Britney. However, you insist on putting video links as sources with no citation style. The x17 online doesn't really say she recorded Womanizer that way. However, the Youtube link is from For the Record, which is a released DVD and can qualify as a source. Since its in the infobox and similar information is present in the background section, it doesn't need as a source and i will leave it. On the other hand, I really don't know what's your deal. You must think i have something against you, which i obviously don't. And all those comments about "take it up with a higher position of authority" made me laugh. You're not in the place to threaten me as i'm not in the place to threaten you or any other Wikipedia editor. Anyway, thanks. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User that was recently banned...
Yes. I would say re-report the user based on WP:EVADE. Try using the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Dawnseeker2000  16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. &mdash;Kww(talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if I take this to WP:AN3 that both you and Harout72 will be blocked. I would greatly prefer that you both stop edit warring. First, let's be perfectly clear: you are limited to 3 reverts per article per day. The limit applies to three reverts of the same thing, three reverts of different things by the same editor, or three reverts of different things by different editors. Go for the fourth, and you'll be blocked. I warned you because you are asserting that you are a new editor: Harout72 knows better, and requires no warning. If he gets blocked, he's got it coming, and he knows the risk he's running.


 * As for the quality of the material you persist on inserting, it's subpar. Harout72's version is sourced: he has correctly identified the European release date, which you delete for no apparent reason (and the date he provides is a release date, not a chart date). You are removing sourced information in other areas with no apparent justification. If you disagree with Harout72, source your position and provide sourced information, not vague statements like " ... the winter season ..." that you can't even source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys
Please do not remove highly regarded sources supporting statements as you have in this edit. If you disagree with any of the statements with [Backstreet Boys]]' article supported by reliable source, feel free to discuss at the talk-page of the article. Your further undiscussed removals will constitute vandalism and will be treated as such. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How I Know
I have a watchlist with 8809 different Wikipedia pages on it. I monitor changes to all of those articles, and any page I edit gets added to the list. Backstreet Boys is on the list, as is User talk:Harout72 and, now, User talk:Carmaker1.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I am glad this article is getting the attention it needs considering it was a mess before. However, I do not agree with some of the actions taking place.
 * I'm confused as to what response you were expecting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Title Card-12-23-1999.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Title Card-12-23-1999.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OLTL Title Card-11-20-1995.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:OLTL Title Card-11-20-1995.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Release date
Hi, I noticed you changed the release date of "She Bangs". In light of the recent problems with an editor and possibly his socks changing release dates en masse, could you please reference your source for the date change? The problem is that the lead of the article says the single entered the charts on October 7, and when you make a change to a fact in one place, you need to change it everywhere it appears.

The only problem is I don't think your date is correct. "She Bangs" was a pretty quick hit, debuting high on the charts when Martin was still extremely high-profile, and anecdotally I recall hearing it on the radio, you know, the day or day before it was released, it definitely did not go under the radar, so it doesn't make sense that it would take seven weeks between release date and first charting. | I'm the editor who added that October section, back when weekly Billboard charts were more readily available at Billboard.com, but of course now those refs are dead links. I'll await your answer instead of just reverting your edit, as I can't point to the ref any longer as proof, but I'd appreciate your double-checking your source and your referencing of release date changes in the future. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's taken me a while but I just wanted to say thanks for your response and for taking care of those edits. Best, Abrazame (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Word Up!. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do the same as both the artist's page and Word Up! have no citations. That is clearly original research what is provided there, so saying that doesn't make sense.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 18:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"What a Girl Wants" (recording)
The original album version of "What a Gil Wants" was recorded in June of 1998 while the new and released version was recorded in September of 1999. I hope you don't stay confused from Dbunkley6-talk

CONFUSION
NOW I see what meant. You let me know how confused I WAS. The first time I made an edit on "What a Girl Wants" I edited that the original album version was made 1999. You gave the page the actual recording of the original version which was June 1998. I thought you were reffering to the new and released version of the song, which was recorded in September 1999. Now I see where I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. IT WAS ME WHO GOT CONFUSED. I didn't mean to cause any trouble. from Dbunkley6 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My Prerogative
The first link gives information about the studios and locations. If you check, this is already mentioned in the background section of the article. So that leaves up with that supposed date of "May 2004". The other two links you provided don't mention Britney going into the studio, and even if they were, we don't know if she recorded MP that day. She could have flown back any time of the year. So i'm reverting it until you understand logic. Xwomanizerx (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again
Well, about the My Prerogative page... I'm just following Wikipedia's guidelines to what administrators consider reliable sources or original research. If it were for me, I would leave your additions too, but they would be reverted eventually by another editor or administrator. And, honestly, if don't really like the site, why don't you just leave?. Now about the Britney Spears page, all the information and links you provided is indeed accurate. But it really doesn't belong in the main Britney Spears page, since there's no details about the recordings of any of her other albums. I will not revert it. Instead, I suggest YOU remove the paragraph and add it to the Oops!... I Did It Again, where it would be a great contribution to the background section. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ooooooohhh... On the TLC Tip
Yeah, sorry about that. I rewrote the infobox from scratch, that's why I forgot to put the recording dates back on the article. However, it must be noted that just because the group was able to contribute to the soundtrack in September of 1991, that doesn't necessarily mean the recording for the album itself began around that same time. Also, how can you be certain recording was finished by December? That's the sort of information you might need to find a reference for. WikiGuy86 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note regarding WQA submission
Remember to notify the user being reported when you submit a WQA. Also, the specific user that you reported hasn't edited in a while now, so we might not get a fast reply. Netalarm talk 23:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wannabe
Please stop adding unsourced information to the article. There is no source that have April as the recording date. The group wrote the song when their first professional songwriting session with Stannard and Rowe was booked by the Herberts in January 1995. I don't know from where did you get the beetween March 3 and May date, and if indeed was beetween those two dates, how did you know if the group recorded the song in April and not in March or May. If you have a reliable source with the recording date then add it, otherwise I will keep reverting. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slick Rick
Why did you list his debut album's recording period between 1986 and 1988? I believe from copyright registrations most of the tracks were recorded in the studio in 1988. Nothing leads to 1986 or 1987 in the least.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Ruler's Back" was released as a 12-inch single on Def Jam/Columbia/CBS in 1986 and played on NY radio stations long before the album was ever released. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello, Carmaker1. First, thanks for using edit summaries when you make edits to articles. So many editors (be they IPs or named accounts) fail to do so, and it drives me crazy. However, your summaries have an angry tone to them that doesn't help the sense of community we're supposed to be fostering here. I'd like to ask you, therefore, to refrain from referring to editors as "idiots" or similar as you have so often. Please try to keep cool and remain civil while you're working on the project. Thanks, and happy (and relaxed) editing. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't let them get to you. Yell loudly at your screen, if you want (I do), but type as if they don't faze you (just bore you, at most). You're the experienced, serious WP editor, remember? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Toni Braxton
I also saw that you've had problems with this editor (User talk:68.167.83.210), regarding the age of Toni Braxton. Can you block this page? Thanks =) --ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrongly reverted
Please look at someone's edit before you revert it. I didn't change Toni Braxton's birthday, I formatted it to look like every other article's birthday. 68.61.155.41 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Everytime
Well, my problem is not with the dates Timberlake released the video or the single, I'll leave that because it's irrelevant. My problem is with this claim: "Spears notably began recording for In The Zone in early December 2002, so sometime during the whole month she likely recorded the demo or a partially finished version." See, that's original research from your part. And where did you get this information? "The copyright registered by Spears on April 26, 2003, lists the song as a 2002 creation and audio recording, also listing Spears(age 21, born 1981) and Annette Stamatelatos(Artani, age 26, born 1976) as writers." If you can present a reliable source for this statement I will not oppose. But it's ridiculous that you don't accept that what you're doing fails WP:OR. The first time we knew of the song was in 2003, when she was still working on the album, so that's why I added 2003 until a source proves me otherwise. For example, in the "Radar" article, we have a source from the producers claiming it was recorded in 2006. If we didn't have that, it would probably be listed as 2007. Anyways, I think the answer for this debate is probably delete the recorded year altogether, whether is 2002 or 2003. Tell me what you think. ;)

And please archive your talk page, it's a mess right now.Xwomanizerx (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Single covers
do u mind uploading some single covers 4 me?

single cover
do u mind uploading some single covers 4 me? Dbunkley6 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns towards Vanessa Williams' The Comfort Zone
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Eduemoni↑talk↓  16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whitney album
Hi. Firstly, I'm glad to know other Whitney golden fan. :) Yes, I provided that information, from this source: Whitney Houston’s Whitney LP revisited with producer Narada Michael Walden I don't know as accurate as you remember when the song had been premiered. I just believed the source's saying. crowded (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Prototype Clay Model (W163).png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prototype Clay Model (W163).png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you feel that is acceptable then, I gladly proceed to remove EVERY single contribution I've EVER made to Mercedes-Benz articles(leaving them as they were before, INCORRECT) and also multiple other automakers as that is foolishly absurd. There is no reason why that Mercedes-Benz M-Class article should benefit from anything I have added to it. Too many clueless or simply troublesome fools contribute nonsense to numerous articles on Wikipedia, yet those atrocities can stay there upon months to a year without notice and at times are even described as "good-faith" edits, while they are extremely detrimental to the quality of this site. I would like to see how the quality of numerous articles fair, as I already see how many people naively copy & paste, or quote false information from here across the web(ex. Youtube, Facebook). It is already cringe-worthy seeing so much false information sourced from Wikipedia in biographies and video descriptions/comments(that I personally have to debunk from them being absorbed as correct), so I can't even imagine how much worse it can get. The quality of Wikipedia will continually deteriorate in public opinion as more web users begin to perceive the lack of personal attention to detail given here and permissiveness granted towards vandalous and clueless editors' contributions. I do not have time for silly politics concerning "original research" and abuse of positions on such a site that should strive to be informative.-Carmaker1 (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

design date vs release date
Thank you for your recent edits to many Toyota and Lexus articles. However, there seems to be a common theme to your changes. Where an article says a vehicle was redesigned or a particular year, it was really trying to say that the new design was released in that particular year. Most readers understand that the design work was really done a year or more before the release. Perhaps it would be clearer to change existing occurrences of 'redesigned in 2004' to 'the new design was released for sale in 2004 (for the 2005 model year)' - with years and model years adjusted as appropriate of course. Cheers.  Stepho  talk 09:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure! I think you're referring to the J200 Land Cruiser edit, right? I imagined that would stand out more. I now try to research and include the design years as it helps to spread the information around about a model, as unlike you, some readers and web users fail to understand how significant lead times are applied to automotive design. I hope we can prevent greater amounts of people from accusing an automaker of "stealing" a design that may have been finalized before a similarly looking vehicle became public knowledge (example: The 2001 Lexus LS UCF30 design was approved in 1997[later shown in January 2000], yet accused of copying headlights of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class W220 shown in June 1998). I'll try to separate them in order to not confuse readers.—Carmaker1 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, the J200 LC. Judging from your edit summaries, there seemed to be a bit of angst that I thought might have been merely a misunderstanding - my apologies if I read that wrong.
 * I agree with you in general. However, there are some fine points to consider. Most people only care about the dates the vehicle was available to the end user. People like us like to know everything about the car and how it came about but we are in the minority. I suggest that the release dates go at the beginning of a section but that design dates come along after (maybe at the end of the first paragraph or even in the next paragraph).
 * Secondly, these dates need to have references - preferably with page numbers if the same book is used for many sections of the same article (eg J100, J200). Otherwise it looks like the dates are coming out of thin air and some other editor will revert it as original research.  Stepho  talk 05:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please include references
Thanks for your article edits about car development and patent dates. Your edit summaries often say there are sources to support those additions (patent offices, books, links, etc.). It would greatly help preserve your edits if you would please include those references at the end of sentences. It's as easy as: " "

For more details, please see WP:INCITE. Please note such instances:


 * To cite a book, it's as easy as adding the page number: " "


 * No reference link is ever too long, example: " " shows up as TITLE.

Thank you for your help. It is very important that date and production claims have references, otherwise they eventually can get deleted. MTan355 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Carmaker1 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Okay thanks. Some of my links are restricted access, does that present a problem.

Calendar years vs model years.
I notice that you edit summaries are getting a bit edgy about calendar years and model years. WP has an international audience and most countries do not understand the US model year system. For most of us (ie outside of the US influence), a 2000 Lexus LS is the version that was introduced in mid 2000. We get awfully confused when a car introduced and built in 2000 is called a 2001 model by Americans. So the automobile project decided that US only vehicles can continue to use model years (as long as the term 'model year' is used occasionally to warn non-American readers) and that calendar years are used for all vehicles with more than token sales outside of America. This can be a bit confusing for Americans but we haven't found a way that is unambiguous to both Americans and non-Americans. We mitigate it a bit by providing both a production field (always calendar years) and a model years field (always US style model years) in infoboxes and to use sentences like "In 2000 (for the 2001 model year), ..."  Stepho  talk 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please tone down your comments on other editors
Ordering editors around ("Make yourself useful and stop tampering with dates...") and attacking editors ("That lazy vandal(91....) couldn't be bothered..." and "The clueless IP vandal...") is not productive. Personal attacks are simply not acceptable.

In Wikipedia's terms, a "vandalism" is "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. There is no indication that the edits you were reverting fit this definition. The IP editor should have explained why they were removing it. It is entirely possible that s/he feels the dates are not sourced or has reason to believe they are incorrect. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true, I am sorry about that. I forgotten about that, which isn't acceptable and I refrain from making such statements.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello
and welcome. I just encountered a large number of your recent edits and would like to reiterate the requests from previous users to supply references. They don't necessarily have to be available online, but should be citable and trustworthy. Without references many of your edits are at risk of removal. I'll be happy to help with any formatting concerns you may have.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  07:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research
Hi. I really appreciate your contributions but you need to source them, for example this. It may be true, I mean it is true but the source does not support these details. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I believe you but we need a source. Whatever you said is logical and I know. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Z40 SC Kovos Sketch 1997.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Z40 SC Kovos Sketch 1997.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release 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) 23:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That in the first place is absurd, as I do understand copyright laws to some degree, but I'm not expectant of retrieving such pivotal information on old photos. I see endless imagery here that is equally questionable, yet not studied for obviously illegitimate fair use licenses. I do not have the energy to make a case for this anyway, so I will not waste my time regarding this again or discussing it with you.---Carmaker1 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Car plants in Germany
I see you've been policing the accuracy of one or two entries on German automakers and cars in English language wikipedia. Needs doing (and always will) so thank you. Hope that doesn't sound overbearing, but the gratitude is genuine. But (ah yes, always the but)....:

I wonder if you might be tempted to set up a few entries on individual car plants in Germany? Some of them - probably all of them if one knew - have interesting histories. There are plenty of equivalant entries on French automakers - Peugeot car plants all round the place, but there's only one I can find on an Opel car plant (which I mostly copied myself from German wiki) or on a German Ford plant (which started with me copying the bones from French wiki). Obviously it's relatively easy if someone else has done the work already in a translatable language, though I did also do - maybe I was the one who started it - an entry on the Ford plant in Valencia loosely based on (what must have been) a lengthy press briefing that appeared in Auto Motor und Sport in the '70s and I've also used old motor magazines to build info into entries on one or two other Ford plants in England. But it would be great to know more about the VW plant in Sindelfingen (my father once owned a Volkswagen 411) or Emden (I once owned a Passat myself) or the NSU plant in Neckasulm (if only to help reduce confusion between the NSU plant and the Fiat plant: I'm still confused) or indeed the D-B plant in Sindelfingen. A lot of this stuff may be general knowledge for people in the areas concerned who remember when the plants were opened, but for the rest of us ... and when we are gone who will know of it?

Well, it's a seriously long shot, I know. But long shots just occasionally produce good results. If you have the time and access to relevant info to kick off a few more entries on German car plants, here's one reader who would be interested and grateful. If you will ever feel tempted to do it, thank you: if you won't, no problem! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Audi 100 C4 Mays
I've created a discussion regarding J. Mays and the C4 on the article's talk page. It would be best to provide solid sourcing for a such a big statement, that J Mays designed the C4. Short of that, it doesn't belong in the article, per Wikipedia rules. It is not enough to suggest that ostensibly "inaccessible" sources contend that Mays was "the designer" and its not incumbant upon other editors to prove a statement false. It is incumbant upon the editor who makes an assertion to provide bona fide support of the statement. In the meantime, the info doesn't belong in the article. Thanks for engaging in the discussion and wanting to improve the article. Best.842U (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept why that's necessary. That J Mays source was accessed by me over a week ago in doing heavy research on 1990s Audi introductions & developments that included various mediums. I'll have to get back to that when I have time, as I have been tied up regarding many edits this week.

US patent references
The template might be useful to you for references involving US patents. Eg gives.  Stepho  talk 23:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I see about doing that. I am a bit guilty of doing fast ones on patent and link additions, instead of properly citing them and adding templates.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Car designers
I've noticed several edits where you introduce edits defining the "designer" of various vehicles. The problem is that, in at least three cases, the sources you cite do not support your edits. Because you find a design patent for a vehicle that cites certain inventors -- that's not sufficient for you to pick one of those indivuals and cite them as the designer. In the case of the Volvo XC90, the "link" to your source, which is very poorly formated, doesn't work. Please either stop making these edits, or start making them more carefully, and citing your sources more carefully. 842U (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very productive and helpful as against the thousands, if not millions of individuals that come here and lazily do not even bother to research proper information and corrupt articles with their glaring inaccuracies, that remain unchecked for years in many cases. Your subtle request to "stop making edits" and insinuating that I'm making designers up from patents, is somewhat unwarranted and borderline insulting. Such efforts should primarily be targeted towards outright vandalism and genuinely false additions, that I already spend excessive time cleaning up as well.

I invest my efforts in here often and take very long periods out of my day to double-check my tasking research that concerns often hidden and borderline secret information, which I end paying out of pocket for on certain sites. Automakers are very covert about production development information, especially timelines, so that makes my work very difficult. Not only do I have to sift through numerous deteriorating archives/pay-per-view and links from the 1970s-late 2000s, I am not able to link sources to private/exclusive corporate information, video sources from Youtube, nor the personal exchanges between myself and company employees via "original research". There are way too many articles on Wikipedia that fail to have actual or sufficient sources, yet my information regarding vehicle design is considered dubious? I am not going to actually waste my time posting incorrect information here, so why is it that every letter and word I type each requires a source or secondary source for some of you? Despite how I mostly end up having to do research for someone else and provide new sources for their questionable additions that many of you do not succeed in pointing out earlier or correcting beforehand. Regarding automobiles, I come here as I know people generally do not know the age of their car's designs nor background history from inception, so I'm obviously still here to contribute that for them, via Wikipedia information spreading all over the web to others.

The decade-old Volvo link is not poorly formatted by me, as I certainly did not create it and will just replace it with a working back up link. Design patents clearly credit and cite the designer of a vehicle's exterior as the inventor for a reason, as without them the exact design wouldn't exist. Multiple designers can work on a vehicle's exterior, while having their contributions not award them credit on a patent due to the overall design credits belonging to a single person or design chief/engineer being named. Google's patent database fails to properly single out the actual responsible designer, while OAMI Europa Patents directly reference the one actual person responsible that drew it. At OAMI/OHIM, it is usually the person who created, sketched the design, and developed it into clay form. Not the headlight/taillight or door handle designers. Some of these designer names listed will correlate to the vehicle name on a web search and will be dated on some occasions in a published medium. Usually my information obtainment succeeds in the form of design magazines or books are not freely accessible, so I cannot provide direct links always.

I am not picking them out of the blue, and I'm sure you would understand that if you did the lengthy research I do concerning them and their complex parameters correlating to designer responsibilities. I do understand mainly you are interested in keeping things organized here, but I will not swallow such accusations as clearly you've not undertaken the circumstances regarding the difficultly and longevity in obtainment of such information with no-cost limits. The J Mays situation may be one thing as I retrace the source to re-validate it, but that does not warrant the assumption of me intentionally designating random and incorrect designers for vehicles. Patterns are established when several identical vehicles name an individual as an inventor, who shows up in other similar model's design patents and is named a lead designer, senior or product design manager for a vehicle. By example, I've already identified the designer of the upcoming Mustang (S550) by myself using coded sources, so clearly I'm an expert at this. I'm not adding incorrect information nor deserve to be addressed as if I am.Carmaker1 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for intruding. Your additions are welcome but one of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is that verification trumps truth. WP:VERIFY says it as "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." So, if nobody can verify it then it mus be rejected. WP:PAYWALL allows for sources behind paywalls, but of course easily accessed sources are preferred. Heavy use of paywalled material could be seen as a way to tell lies in the hope that nobody is willing to pay to verify the claims (not saying that you are doing this, only that heavy use of it could lead to accusations that would be hard to disprove).  Stepho  talk 02:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as a few years ago I stopped contributing to an article due to a user's and biased/corrupt(now banned) administrator's rejection of WP:PAYWALL and never looked back again. [Car Design News|www.cardesignnews.com/site/home/design_development (Car Design News)] and Auto & Design magazine are some two unlisted sources I frequent(& substitute with patents), as are conversations with a few insiders at companies via email and forum chat. As you can see, that is tricky in being original research at times. My last guaranteed resorts are design patents, designer resumes, and publicized articles. I just want all of you the loop, so you'll know the concrete development patterns of automakers and when to time new models properly. I'm sorry for being so abrasive at times and will try to at least not be so difficult when the evidence isn't there in plain sight(but hidden sight). BMW's SCOTT27 insider reported the BMW F30 design to be chosen on March 2, 2009, yet using him as a source really allowed.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts, but if you continue to introduced poorly sourced information into the articles, you will suffer the consequences. Wikipedia has outlined the rules for editing; it's incumbent upon you to abide by them.842U (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Carmaker1. I've been asked to comment here because I have some experience of sorting out conflicts between editors, invariably on subject that I know nothing about, so I can concentrate on actions rather than the details of content. I don't, at this stage, particularly want to go through your article and talk page edits, partly because it's very time-consuming, and partly because I would rather try to find a way forward.
 * You acknowledge that edits must be referenced, which is a good starting point
 * Some of your references are not easily verifiable. That's not a problem if the change is uncontentious and is accepted by other editors.
 * Unfortunately, the comments above show that some of your edits are being challenged by other editors. I therefore suggest that
 * You provide readily verifiable sources if that is possible
 * You consult other involved editors before making edits based on sources that are not transparent to make sure that there is a consensus. This is to avoid edit-warring and ownership issues.

Please contact me if you have any questions, or comment here (I'll watchlist this page),  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have taken on board that edit summaries and talk page comments should not include ad hominem remarks. That helps to reduce the chance of conflict.


 * In my opinion your most recent edit to 842U's page breaches WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You are reverting to ad hominem attacks. Please try to reach consensus, if that can't be done get a second opinion. If you really think another editor is behaving inappropriately, report it, don't jump into the ring yourself. Take this as a warning to be civil to other users.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Rush(1991).jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:The Rush(1991).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

??
Any reason why you have posted on my talk more than three months later? I don't mind, just wondered what's sparked this off. I think you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists. I haven't monitored your edits or 842U's, I assumed that one or both of you would get back to me if there were further problems. Not sure what you mean about out-of-view comments, I assure you that my only contact with 842U has been on Wikipedia where everything is visible except deleted articles. I couldn't really care less about car articles, my only involvement is to try to ensure that edit-warring and incivility are avoided, it's a pity you see that as a plot <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mustang introduction years
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ford_Mustang_(third_generation), you may be blocked from editing. ---Cudak888 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you thought you could hide the author of your threat, you are mistaken Cudak888 and adequate action will be taken against you if my page is spammed with such an empty accusatory threat again.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the production field for is always in calendar years - no exceptions. There is a quite separate field called 'model_years' for the US style model years. Hence, Carmaker1 has been doing the correct thing for the infobox. For vehicles in international markets we also use calendar years for sections titles, etc. However, for the vehicles sold predominantly to the American market only, we allow the article to be written in terms of model years - which means Carmaker1 was mistaken for those bits. It is recommended that phrases like "In 1978, for the 1979 model year" be used occasionally in the articles so that both Americans and non-Americans know whether calendar years or model years are being used.  Stepho  talk  05:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly Cudak... is a bit confused on properly using the talk section, as he has no grounds to accuse me of such a thing. I'd say he is out of place regarding that, so don't he shouldn't comment on my page again nor falsely lead me to believe that you (Stepho-wrs) was responsible for that bogus threat of being blocked for vandalism. I purposely leave all my talk history here to show I'm not hiding anything, but will possibly delete this as it possibly defames you (User:Stepho-wrs).--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My warning was based on earlier edits past that of the infobox and particularly the endless bickering in the talk section that could have been addressed with civility as opposed to what it is becoming. There is no excuse to refuse mediation of the subject; after all, who's to say the verdict will not be in your favor? Furthermore, has it been brought to the head editors that perhaps the US vehicles are in need of an additional infobox field delineating actual month and year (plus day, if available) of original release, if available? If I may bring up a textbook example, consider the '65 Mustang: By legal and VIN terminology, a 1965 vehicle; by release date, 1964-1/2 - specifically, April 17, 1964 - and one has to dig to find that clarification on the Wikipedia Ford Mustang page when important and quick data such as that should be immediately apparent to the casual reader (that's what the infobox is for, isn't it?). That would solve half of the problems being debated to start with, and it is data worthy of encyclopedic archiving. Cudak888 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Cudak made the suggestion of an additional field for the infobox. In fact, it already exists. The production field is meant to show the actually month and calendar year of the start and end of production. The model_years field is (obviously) meant to show the US style model years. Both are allowed to be in the same infobox, thus keeping everybody happy and avoiding confusion and edit wars. I have given further comments on Cudak's talk page.  Stepho  talk 05:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Stepho, I inquired for clarification as to the production field on my talk page, but I'll put a copy here for the record, as there's a potential issue between production dates and release dates (aside from the legally-based "model year"):


 * It would seem then that the "production" field can be more detailed than the year itself then; it is safe to add the month. However, what should be done in the case of a vehicle where the full introduction date (month/day/year) is known? For instance, this is the code presently reflected on the infobox for the first-gen Ford Mustang:


 * production  = 1964–1973
 * model_years = 1965–1973


 * Given what I mentioned above, would it be within acceptable reason to update the production field as follows (given that reliable sources are available to confirm the day of release and the final month of 1973 Mustang production)?


 * production  = April 17, 1964 – July 1973
 * model_years = 1965–1973


 * There's a further problem in that the April 17th date reflects the date of the Mustang's public introduction rather than the actual start of manufacturing, which is claimed on the first-gen page to be March of 1964 - with no citation to back it up.


 * Let me know what you gentlemen think. Actual production line dates for the first car off a line may be difficult to dig up, while release dates may be easier to come by. Granted, some cases may be the other way around; hence why I believe there is a place for all three fields:


 * production  = March 1964 – July 1973
 * date_of_intro = April 17, 1964
 * model_years = 1965–1973


 * Cudak888 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've answered on Cudak's talk page.  Stepho  talk 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giving You the Benefit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CA (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) 09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid
Thank you for your post on Perri Reid. I didnt know there is a title for it, WP:OWN. summerphd definitely thinks s/he owns the page. It is soo frustrating. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Civility
Childish name-calling is counterproductive, rude, and immature. Please remember that we are here to create a collaborative environment. Best, Tiptoety  talk 06:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A Follower's Fandom
You're very welcome!

It's always nice to bump into someone who enjoys my work in within the world of The Sims 2 as well as adding important, and accurate information on the Wiki :)

VoVillia 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovillia (talk • contribs)

BMW 7 Series (E38)
Why are you edit-warring to reinstate unsourced information, which is not sourced elsewhere in the article (or even mentioned)? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W222: Il-hun Yoon
Il-hun Yoon has been removed as a designer, again, by an IP user. I would be happy to revert this, but the one text reference does not mention Il-hun Yoon. A very brief Google search did not yield any WP:RS which mentioned him as a designer for the vehicle. Your edit summary indicated something about pictures. There is a gallery cited, but no descriptive text there to say what is imaged. Several sources which did not appear to be WP:RS did mention him. If you want others to support keeping him in the article (e.g. by reverting back such changes) please put a citation that mentions him in the article. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Chrysler Neon
Are you absolutely certain that your rv was correct? This particular vandal uses several IPs where one will make a bogus edit and the other will revert it, over and over. If you go 500 edits back (to pick an arbitrary point in the past) you will see that the correct production dates are 1995-2005 and not 1993-2005. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. DES (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEANS
It may not be best to say for editors to not do something as it may inspire them to actually do it. Like, I now have the urge to change the date because as in your editsum but I'm not going to as I'm a better person than that; an IP or editor who's only aim is vandalism and trolling, however... Tutelary (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no! I'm sorry User:Dan56:Dan56, I don't remember being alerted about any messages on my talk page and I've been editing here and there for awhile through July. I hope it isn't too late to review the article? I am honored that you cared to ask me and hope I can still be useful somewhat with the Of Human Feelings.––Carmaker1 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect accusations and your rude attitude
In this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)&diff=620200623&oldid=618732536 you stated the following accusation towards me:

"And Cudak888 still fails to sensibly comprehend model vs production years. Many of you need get a clue/improve your math skills,or please refrain from editing here to confuse/mislead others regarding timelines. I thank those who've done correctly otherwise"

Besides the fact that you're being very rude - even after we agreed to disagree back in October 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carmaker1#Mustang_introduction_years - you're also incorrect in your accusation. I never touched the introduction year in the first-gen Mustang article. That was Stepho-wrs's diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_%28first_generation%29&diff=next&oldid=605735202 which post-dated my revisions and confirms that I did not touch the date in the infobox.

Cudak888 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been too busy to fully respond to this claim of yours with linked proof, so I will address this very soon. I may have been "rude", but by actions of yours, you have been very rude in reverting my corrections and until a third-party came in, continued to do so. There is existing proof in diffs, which I will soon bring up for you to observe.——Carmaker1 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look over the diff that follows yours THOROUGHLY before accusing me of reverting your edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_%28first_generation%29&diff=next&oldid=620205307


 * As you can see, it was a significant edit, but primarily to the "conception and styling" section, which had nothing to do with your previous diffs. In fact, I reinforced the involvement of the stylists that you credited by name in your previous diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_%28first_generation%29&diff=prev&oldid=620203726.


 * As I said previously, please be more careful with your accusations.


 * Cudak888 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I am very sure it is based on limited research against my own activity, especially the activity of others instigating such responses from me. What is on my talk page and edit summaries does not even give a full story of anything. I do not have the energy to spend on Wikipedia arguing that point, as I'm a busy engineer and only on brief vacation right now.––Carmaker1 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Toyota XV20 Patent 1994.pdf
Thank you for uploading File:Toyota XV20 Patent 1994.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toyota Patent 1996.pdf
 Thanks for uploading File:Toyota Patent 1996.pdf. 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) 17:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

'wasting' your efforts on the Infiniti G
Sorry. I didn't see that I had broken a line break tag. My bad. I was more concerned with getting rid of the mention of the CVT-8 model, as it was never sold outside Japan. Carguy1701 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Back To The Future Tacoma Concept
Your edit summary said you found multiple of these for sale. Could you point me to this. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 08:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that, as looking at the concept after that edit, I had spotted some replicas last week on US sites for sale. Those are independently commissioned I figure, rather than OEM. I will undo it, as that is grossly incorrect. :)---Carmaker1 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is one of them, that turned up in a Google search I did last week. A US Toyota dealership in Austin, TX is selling this---Carmaker1 (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So it looks like individual dealers are making them up as dealer packages rather than factory offerings.  Stepho  talk 03:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Japanese patents
Links like https://www4.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/eng/ishou/iskt_en/ISKT_EN_GM301_Detailed.action (eg at Toyota Sequoia) take me to the Japanese patent website but give me an error message "Since you use this service comfortably, I am forbidding the following acts. - Direct specification of the literature aiming at collection of simple data - Robot access (periodical automatic data collection by a program)"

instead of the patent details.  Stepho  talk 02:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about that, as the format of the database is quite frustrating to link from. I think it is better that for every addition I make in this area, I must provide a searchable patent number. It is probably not very fair for those trying to verify these sources, being forced to jump through hoops (after error message). The patent number is 1054583.--Carmaker1 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Try exploring and . If they don't do Japanese patents then you might be able to ask the template maintainers to extend their functionality.  Stepho  talk  07:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaliyah articles
I've reverted some of your recent edits to Aaliyah articles. Please cite a reliable source for all your changes and check the sources citing existing material before changing it; this sentence at Aaliyah (album), for example, is verified by the source cited. Dan56 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't warn you with a generic templated "level 2" message. I opened a discussion at the article's talk page and will kindly ask you to direct your efforts there, not to restore your changes and turn this into an edit war. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, always add sources to information likely to be challenged
Carmaker1, I see you are on an editing spree, adding years of design "freezing" in various automotive articles. While I'm not for or against that idea, I would like to remind you that one of the core policies here is WP:V. This edit summary is frankly not acceptable. Most Wikipedia sources are copyright-protected and still are used. If it's something confidential like an industrial record, the info should not be here if others didn't publish it first. Another problem with your edits is that many of them aren't based on published sources but they seem based on your personal knowledge, things you "recall".

I would say finding and adding sources currently should be the most important part of editing Wikipedia. Many people here have the knowledge, not just you, but, according to one of the core policies of this project, that's not enough. I know finding sources is a nuisance, I would add much more information if that policy stopped, but I think is a good barrier against self-proclaimed experts and "Professors/Journalists/PhDs" as I found here in the past. If you aren't happy with WP:V restrictions, I suggest you to instead participate in a more automotive-focused Wiki, where there are not verifiability restrictions. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Alleged disruptive editing- Let's not be too quick off the mark
Hi there,

I notice that you allege this edit group by SouthernGuy8503 was "disruptive editing" and warned him.

These are the user's only edits since 2011, there's no clear pattern of vandalism, and it's not entirely clear that it was intended as vandalism. Note that some stuff has (apparently) been moved around, which might make it look like more has been altered than actually has.

I'm not going to disagree with your reversion, but I wouldn't assume that it was intended as vandalism on the basis of the existing evidence alone. Ubcule (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI report for edit summaries and warnings
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI report for Edit Summaries
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 1292simon (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)