User talk:Sable232/Archive 5

Question

Just wondering is it normal during a discussion to replace a image that was never discussed in the first. Which happened with the Toyota Hilux and Audi R8 discussion? I personally find it unfair and make things more difficult to reach with consensus with everyone. Nobody has said anything about it and I don't want this dispute to run cold over this. Otherwise I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, I don't know that it's "normal" per se, but it does happen. I looked at what's going on with the Audi R8 page, and U1Quattro's rationale and other comments, and it's clear that he's deliberately antagonizing you. Unfortunately, since you're at the center of these disputes there's little you can do about that.

Your best option is to, when these cases arise, follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page straight away. Be as concise as possible - show the images in question, and give your rationale to use one. Let the discussion run its course, and if someone else proposes yet another image, they should be adding it with their comments, not editing your original inquiry (especially if comments have already been made on the original options). Don't let yourself get baited into ad nauseum discussions of minor points (or into responding to attacks against you), as the more back-and-forth commentary between two editors there is, the less interested anyone else is going to be in getting involved. If another editor tries to bludgeon the discussion, just let it go unanswered unless a response is critical.

Sometimes, you might have to let one of these go, and hope that someone uploads a clearly superior image in the future that will fit the bill without controversy. --Sable232 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well he just threaten to report me for "misconduct" even though I was the one who create the discussion rather then edit warring. What else can I do at this rate? I'm having a hard time to tell if I'm in the right or wrong. --Vauxford (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First, resist the temptation to respond to him directly. Once you've made your case for an image, leave it at that, no matter how much he tries to bait you into responding to his snide remarks towards you. Keep the discussion on the content at hand if at all possible, and don't even bring up another editor's name or other behavior when starting a discussion. I know such situations are frustrating, but it almost never looks good to do this. Second, let him report you. While you've made your share of errors in all this, his behavior is far from commendable and any report he makes will "boomerang" back against him. Changing the image while a discussion was already going on about it is clear bad-faith editing on his part. In all likelihood, the end result of him reporting you would be a two-way interaction ban, if anything at all. The threat is probably a bluff, only meant to intimidate you.

As to whether you're right or wrong, it's understandable to show a preference towards images that you (or a photographer you admire) took. I don't know if you do that to the extent that you're accused of, but that isn't necessarily wrong - many people would do that. You can work at setting such a preference aside when considering what image to use, but in most of these cases, that will be difficult - as I've said elsewhere, we're often comparing a 55/100 image to a 56/100 image and essentially have to choose which shortcomings are more acceptable. In those cases, all you can do is let the discussion run its course and not let it get bogged down with extraneous commentary. It'll have to come down to consensus by the rest of the community on which image best shows a reader what the car looks like, since there are already two opposing opinions. --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

He was using some old things I added on my user page back when I first started Wikipedia. I removed it because my views and behaviour on Wikipedia has matured since but he treating like it like I was acting malicious all because I done it around the time I was disputing with him. Even the images that I defended he got the photographer wrong, which I don't see how because most photos will have the author name on there and a lot of them is taken by me. I don't know, I was just upset when that was happening and I sorta break out a of my expressionless self a little. --Vauxford (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The best thing you can do - and this applies to most editors - is disengage emotionally. I know it's difficult (I've been there) but you have to try. --Sable232 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ramrancher8

If you start a ANI thread, I would be happy to comment. Your report was removed from AIV. StaticVapor message me! 20:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor, thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately that seems typical at AIV - sneaky misinformation vandalism isn't acted on and administrators simply let the reports go stale.

I can't say I have the appetite for dealing with AN/I drama right now, but if I see the editor come up on my watchlist again I'll issue another "final" warning and see if another try at AIV is more fruitful. --Sable232 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about tendentious editing

Hi, I recently made some edits to the Jaguar XJR-15 page based on fact that the information about production numbers was wrong (53 cars cited va 50 actually produced) . These edits were reverted yesterday despite the fact that 3 citations listed on the page mention 50 cars. I have spoken to ex factory employees at Astec that made the carbon fiber tubs for the XJR-15, reviewed factory records at Don Law Racing and have spoken to Peter Stevens who designed the car and went on to pen the McLaren F1 confirming the same. I also mentioned two appearances on Petrolicious and Jay Lenos Garage in Other Media as they are notable media appearances for this car and were viewed over 400k times each for those episodes. As you know, Jay Lenos Garage is a national show on CNBC in the USA and has 2.4 million subscribers on youtube as well. The user U1Quattro has repeatedly removed these citations as he says “lots of cars are on youtube” . The content is created by Jay Leno’s Garage and by Petrolicious however , not by youtube. It is merely placed there for ease of access to all. i think this is simply tendentious editing on the part of U1Quattro and he is now accusing me of “vandalizing the page” . I am an owner of one of these cars and certainly have nothing to gain by “vandalizing a page”. I think he reacted badly when i showed that the two edit reverts he did for production numbers are not supported by the Jaguar XJR-15 references in the page itself. He has edited out the media references once more. Any thoughts on how to proceed ? I think you have experience with this user before and i have tried to discuss this in a talk on his page that you can reference. Thanks in advance for any thoughts , Jas Dhillon JasDhillon67 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made a clarification on the significance of Jay Leno’s Garage and Petrolicious as a basis for an edit on the page just now. Hopefully this will nudge U1Quattro to reason. I have attempted to have a talk with him on his page as well and this is there for review. thanks, jas — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasDhillon67 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

JasDhillon: Thanks for the message. To your first point, another editor has found and added a source for the production number of 50, so that appears to be resolved. Make note that when adding information like that, and especially when changing it from one figure to another, that you add a reliable source. Explaining first-hand accounts from people who worked on it aren't considered acceptable - see Wikipedia:No original research for more information on that.

To your second point, I replied on the article talk page. --Sable232 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert?

Do you think this edit is a good contribution [1] or should be reverted? I can't do it because of my topic ban. --Vauxford (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as the images are concerned, both are about equal in quality. However, because of the deliberate error introduced into the infobox under "Body style" I reverted the edit. --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Permission to format

Hi, Sable232. May I please indent your reply on the Duluth talk page? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

SusanLesch - My intention by bulleting it was to have it be a unique entry, so replies to my comment specifically could be indented underneath yet another editor's direct comments to the original question could be more readily kept separate to allow for easier navigation through the discussion. But, if you feel it should be formatted differently, go ahead. --Sable232 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sable232. I only added one colon. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I switched back to a bulleted list. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mercury Sable

Moin. May I ask why? Might miss something, but the first-gen Sable is very much a car of the '80s. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

G-41614, the cars-by-decade categories are considered non-diffusing subcategories of the "Cars introduced in (year)" categories per the categorization guideline. In this case, "1980s cars" shouldn't appear because it is a subcategory of "Cars introduced in 1986." There have been a smattering of discussions on whether or not they should be non-diffusing (I can see the point on both sides) but no consensus has arisen.

The edit I reverted was done by a long-term abuse IP-hopper who has been editing disruptively for several months. --Sable232 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, missed it (in this case, cat "intro in '86"), for whatever reason. Thank you very much, --G-41614 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ford Explorer

Sable232, we have recently been in an edit war regarding the first two generations of the Explorer. I found two references calling it a Compact SUV. 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk)

Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera

Haven't read WP:CARTRIVIA recently, but isn't there a chance that the one in Fargo ought to be included? They even mention it by model name repeatedly, which is not the norm for cars in movies. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a difficult one. By the letter of the guideline, the appearance would have had to have impacted the car in some way. Maybe the Ciera has a cachet or notoriety because of the movie, but there would have to be a source for that. I'd lean towards not including it, but this one is in a grey area. --Sable232 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Likely not much impact, as the movie appeared the same year the Ciera was finally discontinued (nice coincidence). But a pretty prominent role. I lean towards including it, but not strongly enough to do it myself. :)  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Subcategories

can you PLEASE stop mucking about with my important edits? They are needed and do NOT go against anything, just lighten up and change the rules back to how they were PLEASE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.184.255 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@2.125.184.255: I neither made the rule nor can change it, and don't have a particularly strong opinion on it. Wikipedia's categorization guidelines drive this. You have as much ability as I do to open a discussion on the matter and make your case for why it should change. --Sable232 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Olds Alero

Hello, I've seen you reverted my edit in the Olds Alero page. Is there any problem?

I think we should add the succesors of the Alero (G6 in USA, Evanda elsewhere), even though the brand had been discontinued without a direct successor in house.

Regards. Alatriste2003 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Alatriste2003, asserting that one car model was replaced by one from another brand is considered original research because it's an assumption and can't be verified. In nearly all cases, when a brand is discontinued, its last models have no successors unless the manufacturer explicitly stated that they were introducing a replacement from another brand. --Sable232 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:GAZ-33

Another admin might speedy this, but could you explain why this IP is an obvious sockpuppet? I can see the sockmaster Zerolandteam385 worked on truck articles too; is there anything more? Fences&Windows 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, the IP had previously edited the panel truck article in a similar manner as the master and several of the confirmed socks. That article seems to be a favorite target of this user and has proved to be a decent litmus test for finding the socks. The IP resolves to the same area as all of Zerolandteam385's other IP socks. --Sable232 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds convincing to me. Deleted and IP blocked for two weeks. Fences&Windows 22:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Blank space edits

These are so weird, I have been noticing them all over the place. Never any real harm but also never ever useful. What do you think they were trying to accomplish? Just creating accounts with some history for some future nefarious purpose?  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, I'm almost certain that it's a bad-faith editor trying to get accounts autoconfirmed. The sockpuppetry all but proves the first, and one of the sockpuppets noted there created several hoax redirects (tagged and deleted now), so it must be intentional disruption of some sort. Maybe a competence issue, but I can't think of any good-faith reason for that kind of editing. --Sable232 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes - certainly smells of bad faith. Thanks for putting in the time for reporting.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A new editor?

We don't know each other, but I don't think it matters. Out of the blue I received an e-mail: "I'd like to get involved with the Truck WikiProject but need some hand-holding to get started with". (The projet is dead). Part of my reply was: "Someone will post a standard "if you need help" blurb on your talk page in time".

I think they have potential.

This person clearly chose the wrong person for help, I thought you might be or know the right one. Just a thought, I don't need an answer. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Manitoba Highway 5A.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manitoba Highway 5A.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Rallycars World Rally Championship event victories

1977 and 1978 FIA Cup for Rally Drivers belonged to some European Rally Championship Events and FIA Special Events (and all wrc events). Were these two World Championships events? I think not. 83.146.161.93 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why you removed those listings from the table. I suggest you inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally as it's most likely that editors there will be able to assist you.

https://www.ewrc-results.com/cars/96-lancia-stratos/?s=0&sct=1&w=1#sct
https://www.ewrc-results.com/cars/98-fiat-131-abarth/?s=0&sct=1&w=1#sct
Could not find the statistics of Ford Escort Mark II. 83.146.161.93 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

C4 Corvette

Did you remove MY pictures I placed in the C4 Page? If so WHY? Those were my original pictures and you had no reason to remove them. Perhaps next time you should contact the contributor before you remove something. Those were pictures taken by me in my drive way of my C4. Next time before you edit something I add contact me. NickWilson1964 08/28/2021

Those images were clearly photos taken with an iPhone of images displayed on a computer screen, so they were most certainly not "original pictures." --Sable232 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Studebaker Conestoga

Now I see that you have flagged and removed My Picture of My 1954 Studebaker Conestoga. Yes the picture appeared in Station Wagon Forums and guess what I posted it there ten years ago after I took the picture of my Studebaker. What is your deal? NickWilson1964 08/28/2021NickWilson1964 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It, just like the Corvette images, was obviously a copy of an existing image, photographed from a computer display. Anyone could claim to own the images and have posted them elsewhere before. If they really are your photographs, you will need to upload the original images, and not screenshots or pictures of screens - which don't have sufficient resolution/quality to be usable on Wikipedia anyway. --Sable232 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Oldsmobile 98 lead image

Image that's currently on the arricle as of this writing

Image I chose for the article

Hey, I've seen you reverted my change to the Oldsmobile 98 article. I tried finding an image that was better quality (also a picture that was taken more recently) and more presenting to the article. Do you think you can explain what was wrong with the image I chose?

I also put the two pictures here for comparison purposes.

24.177.246.177 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The replacement image has a more distracting background, with many other vehicles including one directly behind it. It also doesn't have quite the proper "3/4 view" - it's biased too much towards the front of the car and taken from a bit too high of a perspective. The other image is far from ideal, but I think it works better given that the angle is pretty good. But, feel free to open a discussion on the article talk page for broader input. --Sable232 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Power Stroke

Maybe if you took an English class (or two) and read the MOS, you'd be able to recognize a legitimate edit. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's disruptive. What happened to "BE BOLD" and "BE KIND"? Editors like you make the rest of us look bad; you think any change is bad Thanks for reminding of a saying I learned in veterinary equine anatomy: The world has a lot more horses' rear ends than it has horses. 2603:8080:B203:79BD:F8BF:457A:5E10:F54E (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And maybe if you didn't defy reliable sources, delete conversion templates, and inexplicably use "PS" in place of the name of the engine, your edits might be worth merely fixing rather than reverting entirely because there's too much wrong to salvage. --Sable232 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Chevrolet Silverado

I saw your message related to my change (and your subsequent revert) of the tow capacity within this article under '2021 changes'. These changes were legitimate and a simple Google search would have shown the Chevrolet Silverado did not have class-leading towing capacity in 2021. As the current article is incorrect, I have reverted it to my original text that provides accuracy to readers. Additionally, the article that was associated with the previous statement was removed because it too is no longer valid or accurate (at your request, I have updated the edit summary).107.191.133.142 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If Truck Trend's figure of 36,000 lbs towing capacity is wrong, then prove it. Truck Trend (Motor Trend) is a reliable source and you can't toss it aside because you don't like it. If "a simple Google search" shows something, why don't you provide the source you supposedly found instead of expecting someone else to clean up after you? --Sable232 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The rating of 36,000 pounds is not wrong - that is the rating that GM provided as the capacity for that vehicle. HOWEVER, both RAM and Ford released MY2021 vehicles within that class that have a greater tow capacity (37,100 pounds for RAM and 37,000 pounds for Ford). The original unedited article stated that the GM pickup truck had best-in-class towing - that may have been accurate at the time, but is no longer accurate. Since this is the case, that statement was removed from the Wikipedia article and any addition of a source proving this for RAM or Ford would only be relevant to those articles, not this one. And since it's clear you're not backing up your statements either, here are some articles: Article 1, Article 2, and Article 3. 107.191.133.142 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

How am I not backing up my statements? The only thing I've asserted is that the towing capacity is 36,000 pounds, and I restored the source that you removed - twice - which confirmed that.

I reverted your original edit because you deleted referenced information with no explanation. Please start using edit summaries instead of expecting other editors to somehow understand your intent. --Sable232 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinrea

The settings were to gain attention in the projects, not to get your attention to change the settings! Eddaido (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What?

The assessment parameters are just that - for article assessment. If you feel there is a need to call attention to the article in some other respect, most (if not all) WikiProject banners support the |attention=yes parameter which would be far more effective at getting someone's attention than mis-assessing the article would. --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What indeed. Would you please add your attention parameter and I will try to remember that next time I need it.

Do you truly claim you made an assessment? Eddaido (talk)

I have added the attention parameter, although you would do well to make note on the talk page of what specifically needs attention.

I don't know what you mean. I looked at the article, it was beyond a stub but clearly not by much so Start-class was a simple assessment. --Sable232 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Carmaker1_and_verifiability

On December 19,2018 you filed an ANI complaint against Carmaker1. There is a current proposal at ANI for a topic ban or indef ban, if you'd like to weigh in now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger of Plymouth Savoy into Plymouth Belvedere

I would appreciate you voting either for or against my proposal re the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.

Thank You. GTHO (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Minneapolis

Sable232, we could have a repeat performance of the activity you reported, but I'm not sure. Are you willing to report it again? I'm shy of that process, having read too many warnings. Please see what you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Susan - Hmm. Since this is being done by only a single editor now, I don't think there's anything actionable by an administrator yet.

I'd be inclined to restore the previous lead paragraphs and try to get Marshens to engage on the talk page - they haven't given any rationale for their changes, and this is a Featured Article. You've been far more involved with the article than I have, so I'll defer to your judgement on if the current lead and infobox image is an improvement or a detriment. --Sable232 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice was right. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see that - hopefully things work out going forward. --Sable232 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have questions remaining about Marshens, Danyess, and the IP 70.59.67.20. The IP 97.90.28.191 made an odd comment in support. All of these accounts evidently just want to diddle with the lead. Their subtle changes are not improvements. Do you think I should report this? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there's enough evidence for that yet. I'd almost think that there is a thread on Reddit or some other forum where people are being canvassed to edit the article, but if that were the case I'd expect a higher level of activity. I'd keep reverting for now since the editing is still fairly sporadic, and see if any of them will give a reasonable rationale for their changes. --Sable232 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

An ongoing discussion involves multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work. No idea why they decided to edit Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Woops, I see you already knew about this. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

List of automobile manufacturers

The Radical RXC is a line of track-only race cars and street-legal road cars built by British manufacturer Radical Sportscars, so I don't even know why you removed it from the article. Second of all Kit cars are also a automibile with 4 wheels and are also street-legal so can you stop please. Thank you.

"An American Revolution" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect An American Revolution and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#An American Revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is fine for me. 78.174.182.186 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Ford Maverick Car image change.

You stated that my change wasn't productive or contributing on the Ford Maverick (1970–1977). You stated the picture was of lesser quality. The picture I replaced on the home page of Ford Maverick (1970–1977) is of a 1973 Ford Maverick Grabber. It is more representative than the current one of that era of Mavericks. First it was the leading picture of the home page for many years, Second, the 73' Maverick Grabber is more iconic and indicative than the sedan in the current picture. Why? Third, the 1973 Maverick Grabber picture I changed it to is an all original example with Medium Bright blue metallic paint with white graphics and correct Ford optioned wheels. The current home page 74' maverick isn't an original color or wheels and even has a FOR SALE sign in the window. Since Wikipedia is about facts and learning shouldn't a more original and more representative for the automobile be used rather than someones rendition of what their vision on the car should be?

60Ranchero (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Images are selected based upon the quality of the image. The Grabber being "iconic" is subjective and not a workable criterion. The image of the blue '73 was taken from too close to the vehicle, giving it a poor angle, and the car is covered in raindrops. There is a sheet of paper in the window, so I don't know how that's any better than the for-sale sign in the window of the '74. The wheels can barely be seen, which is little better than the '74 having the wrong ones.

That said, you're right that a vehicle in non-standard condition isn't ideal. Everything considered, the image of the white 1972 Sprint would be the highest-quality image on the page and therefore the best one to serve as the lead image, in accordance with our image quality guidelines. Further discussion on this is best done at the article talk page so other editors can more readily provide input. --Sable232 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Well the Grabber being iconic is in no way subjective, it's what made the Maverick a favorite, its color schemes led to it far outselling the mustang with its advertisements, but it's especially not subjective when the Maverick image used is "subjective" in the sense of it's somebodies personal rendition of the car. Their take if you will. At least with the grabber the wheel that is seen is original to the car. The rain drops are just that rain drops, the car is outside, where it rains, much like the rusting falling apart fence in the background of the 74' sedan picture. The paper in the window is a Ford trademarked information page commonly used at car shows showing the cars information for the judges to consider, you can see the trademark blue oval on it vs. the for sale sign in which I can clearly read the persons phone number at the bottom... If you think the sprint is of better quality then you (Or allow myself) should change it to the sprint with the LDO wheel package.

60Ranchero (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skyhawk image from Mr Choppers labeled Estate

In the description of the image it is labeled Skyhawk Estate. Check before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regushee (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Regushee: I did check the image description. I also checked what Buick sales literature I could find and the only Skyhawk wagons I see are Custom and Limited, with no mention of a Skyhawk Estate anywhere. I don't know why the image description on Commons says "Estate" - Mr.choppers would have to speak to that. Maybe he saw something I missed. --Sable232 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Cadillac STS page (STS-V)

That was rude what you have written in the summary. I didn't read the source in years and thought it was a 13.3 run. But if it was 13.2 you could have just said you fixed a typo, but you took it to the next step and in a rather perojative way. Until I hear an apology from you, I will never be editing Wikipedia articles again. You don't know if someone has a reading disability, they could have dyslexia. I don't, but we all make mistakes and there's humans behind the screen and we have feelings. 71.94.157.155 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Given your recent history of personal attacks, changing sourced information to something not corroborated by the source, and the spate of obvious vandalism you were blocked for, it is exceptionally difficult to assume a good-faith mistake as opposed to intentional disruption. In this specific case, you changed incorrect data to something also incorrect, contradicted by the cited source. It is bad practice to change information like that based on personal memory as opposed to looking at the source itself. --Sable232 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

76.89.219.234

After 76.89.219.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked, Special:Contributions/Baller918_C8 is restoring many of the anon's edits. Determined... Cheers Adakiko (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I left a note on Daniel Case's talk page, the blocking anon, but I think he's offline. Adakiko (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: Thanks for the note - coincidentally, I had just seen these myself and had just now filed an SPI report for this. --Sable232 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Case acknowledged my message and I see has indeffed Baller918 C8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You correctly identified this sockpuppet ring[2], see:[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Thanks for letting me know. I knew something was amiss with that situation, although I'm surprised at just how deep it goes. I'll have to keep an eye out for future socks. --Sable232 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe they've returned. I added a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work. Thought you'd want to know! Woodroar (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect MNBug (talk · contribs) fits this profile too but I would appreciate others taking a look and submitting. -Eóin (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I got a notification I was mentioned in this comment here. I don’t know what this is about? I have not done anything wrong. MNBug (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eóin: I noticed this account and have been keeping an eye out to see if it is the same user. It isn't clear yet one way or the other.

(In the future, use either {{noping}} or link directly to the user's contributions page to prevent the user from being notified. If the user is a sockpuppet, knowing that someone is on to them will make them harder to detect; if the user is a good-faith editor, suspicions of sockpuppetry are a bit bite-y. --Sable232 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted. One to watch out for, Special:Contributions/Stenvig2. Started editing shortly after the previous one was banned and was immediately an advanced editor who edits Minnesota topics, politics, and conservative politicians. They also edit the infobox spacing and rewrite the introduction of almost every article they touch with no improvement. Not all of the edits are bad -Eóin (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Eóin: Thanks. The sockmaster has been getting more sophisticated in trying to evade detection, but I'm reasonably confident in this case. I've opened an SPI. --Sable232 (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One to watch: Special:Contributions/Castiles. I don't want to bite but they started editing shortly after the last block, focus on Minnesotan politicians, and mostly edit the ledes of articles. They've edited some of the sock's past favorite articles as well. -Eóin (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This one looks reasonably clear so I've filed an SPI and requested CheckUser. --Sable232 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Eóin: Confirmed and blocked, with two other accounts discovered as well. Thanks for being watchful. --Sable232 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles

Hi there. I last used a named account here, User:Eastery6 in 2005 and was a very infrequent editor. Got locked out that old account as I didn't set email. I have to apologise for the hoaxes from User:82.42.151.164 back in 2005, it was using information cut-and-pasted from people's fansites during 2004-2005 (the information turned out to be misinformation by people and also a hoax). I don't think WP:HOAX existed back then and probably wasn't aware of it.

I'm still going to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles if it's OK with y'all.

I'm no longer editing from 82.42.151.164 anyway now, that was years ago.

But as such... I'm now editing again. Wider variety of topics than years ago when I was a single-purpose account.

--Easteary861 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pontiac timeline 1950s to 1980s

Hi there, saw you redacted my edit and removed many of the option packages I added. I understand why they were removed, however, in regards to the Pontiac Can Am, that model was combined into the Pontiac Grand Am in the original edit for 1978-1980. The Can Am was only sold in 1977, and technically wasn't a part of the Grand Am line. You said that separate models should not be included in the timeline, so in that case, should the Can Am be listed as a separate model for 1977 as in my edit, or should it be removed from being combined with the Grand Am for 1978, as it technically was not sold for that year? SuperMarioA9H5 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option is it could be added to the Pontiac LeMans line, as it technically shared more in common with that car than the Grand Am. SuperMarioA9H5 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - it shouldn't be there, and I overlooked that originally. I've fixed it. --Sable232 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2023‎ (UTC)

General Motors Platform

Instead of edit warring over it, you could have tried to figure out the consequences of your edits. You created 1800 links to disambiguation pages. You should not "fix" poor language by creating so many links and such hard cuts in articles. Please check the consequences of your edits. The Banner talk 15:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of those links are transcluded from Template:General Motors platforms.

I was wrong about them being dab pages and not set indices; I don't encounter set indices that often so it didn't come to mind at first. You could easily have simply switched {{disambiguation}} for {{sia}} rather than disrupting the articles; instead, you chose to fix one issue by introducing several others. Don't tell me to "figure out the consequences of (my) edits" when you deliberately took the most aggressive course of action you could rather than stating from the beginning that the problem was that they're set indices and not dab pages. --Sable232 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

About some admin's car

I have no clue what Daniel Case's car is. Can you give me a fact? His userpage just says "car" when referring to it. Example:

I've always loved exploring my adopted home state via car.

— Daniel Case

But what car? It could be anything from a Dacia Sandero to even a Rolls-Royce Phantom. I don't have even one clue and the main problem is that his talk page is protected. 85.97.82.227 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I also have no clue what Daniel Case drives. I don't see why it's at all pertinent to anything on Wikipedia, and to attempt to find out would be outing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Holden LFX

Yes they were locally designed, developed, manufactured, and produced by Holden in Australia for the Commodore DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Renault Trafic. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tube·of·Light 10:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tube of Light: It looks like Democfest has already explained this, but the 158.140.167.x IPs are used for block evasion by a disruptive editor. Given the volume of edits, noting that in every revert is impractical. Normally I only state it in the first instance just so someone looking at my contributions page and seeing the reversions of the same IP range's edits will have a better idea of what I'm doing. --Sable232 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Canadian 2003 Ford Mustang Brochure

Hello, Sable232 Have you ever been uploaded Canadian 2003 Ford Mustang Brochure to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of that brochure and I don't know why I'd scan and upload it there if I did. --Sable232 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser

As usual, you're wrong. There's no vandalism on my part. The reliable source you mention isn't so reliable. At least, the poster of the source isn't reliable, whoever that is. I don't believe that source said that the Vista Cruiser was made in all those plants. Maybe it said Oldsmobiles in general from this time period were made in those plants. But that's not the same thing. And there is no link to see the source. Also problematic. I have seen this phenomenon of misquoting purported sources before. I have 2 VIN #'s (1965 & 1966) showing that Fremont made the Gen 1 Vista Cruiser. The plants I removed did not build Oldsmobile A-bodies in those specific time periods. If you can show differently, then let's see your proof. I'm willing to look. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@JustTheFacts33: Deleting information with no explanation in the edit summary is vandalism, regardless of your intent. As always, you're disrupting Wikipedia, and it's starting to look deliberate now.

While I question how reliable the Gunnell source truly is and I don't trust the editor who added that information, I also have no reason to trust you. Your endless disruption, tendentious editing, bad attitude, and reliance on unverifiable original research make every edit you make questionable. You have no business criticizing the use of offline print sources when you refuse to use reliable sources at all. While online access is beneficial, there is nothing "problematic" about citing a physical book. --Sable232 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I never said citing a physical book is problematic. I said citing a book that nobody has access to is problematic because nobody can see if it's being cited correctly as in this case. My sources are only reliable because otherwise I wouldn't use them. If I didn't believe something was correct, I wouldn't use it. As far as attitude, the only bad attitude I see is yours. You are the one who keeps trying to pick fights, not me. And if striving for accuracy and correcting mistakes where found is disruptive, then guilty as charged. But I feel that accuracy and correctness are virtues. Sorry if you don't. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop lying. That's exactly what you said: And there is no link to the source. Also problematic. You expressly stated that a source only available in print is "problematic" and hours later try to deny you said it. Unless a book is out of print and has few existing copies, it isn't one that "nobody has access to." You can probably find it in a library, and if not, you can buy it online - I checked. My sources are only reliable because otherwise I wouldn't use them. And yet you never cite these sources so anyone else can check them. The arrogance and hypocrisy is astounding.

You've been "picking fights" with every editor that's challenged your disruptive editing. Do you really think none of us notice your behavior elsewhere? Do you really think you can gaslight people into believing they're the only one you have a problem with when the evidence to the contrary is out there for everyone to see? --Sable232 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You are the one lying and misrepresenting. Perhaps I should've been clearer but I don't expect my words to be misinterpreted and used to prove lies. I guess I should expect that when dealing with people like you however. You tried to imply that I said using a book as a source is problematic. There is nothing wrong with using a book as a source. The problem is when there is no link, there is no way to verify that that is really what the book said. I have seen people quote publications that do have links available and what they say the publication said is not at all what was stated in the publication. When there is no link, one cannot verify what the publication said although can suspect what it said. Is that clear enough for you to grasp?

I can disagree with others without having a problem with them. Can you say the same? It's just you and mr.choppers that seem to have a problem with me and frankly, I think you two are the same person using 2 different identities. Do you think that you should be able to constantly start fights with me and I should just sit back and take it without any response or reaction? Now that is beyond just arrogance. That is bullying. And that is what the two of you have been doing to me for a while now. I am only defending myself against you. You seem to think that I (and perhaps others as well) need your approval to make a move here but yet, you sit high atop your throne looking down on all the rest of us mere mortals and peasants free to do as you please and dole out approvals to those who you deign to favor with your seal of royal approval. Sorry but I do not and will not abide by someone who thinks falsely that they are the king of the castle. As I told you before, you are not the boss here and you are not in charge here. Your attitude doesn't impress me. And frankly, neither does your knowledge from what I have seen. I have every right to defend myself against you. If you don't like it, then stop going after me and picking fights with me. How about that?

And by the way, I already explained that plant information is sourced from vehicle VIN numbers. How many times do I have to explain it to you for you to understand? We've already been through this before. If you want to check through VIN numbers, then look them up online yourself and check them. I'm not stopping you. Anyone can look up VIN numbers online and anyone can decode them. Anyone. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ford North America timeline 1946 to 1979

Template:Ford North America timeline 1946 to 1979 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ford trucks of the United States & Canada 1990 to present

Template:Ford trucks of the United States & Canada 1990 to present has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Zerolandteam?

Cheers mate, I suppose I've stumbled across our old friend; please do me a favour and have a look… Special:Contributions/Prettywomanwalkdownstreet. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't see any of the telltale signs with that account, but Zerolandteam has been quiet for a while and started getting better at hiding the sock accounts with the most recent bunch. I don't have anything to take to SPI beyond that, so we'll probably have to just keep a close eye on them. --Sable232 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Turns out you were right - the account is a ZLT385 sockpuppet, along with seventy-one others: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385/Archive#11 July 2023 (The report is still on the main SPI page but will presumably be archived soon). They're getting better at eluding detection so it's going to take even more vigilance. --Sable232 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Canadian "1997-1998 Ford Car & Light Truck Guide" brochure

Hello, Sable232 Have you ever been uploaded Canadian "1997-1998 Ford Car & Light Truck Guide" brochure to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Shelby F-150

Why there's no Shelby F-150 page? There's plenty of models of the F-150 verison. Don't ask me to start a page on because I don't usually do creating pages. Mckenziedavid (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The section of special models on the F-Series article is for factory-built packages available on production trucks. The 2009 Super Snake was not built by Ford and was only a concept. --Sable232 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No I'm not talking about no Ford F-series I'm talking about like the Shelby Mustang has it own page about it own thing Mckenziedavid (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't notable enough for its own article, or maybe it's as simple as someone not having written it, I don't know. --Sable232 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

How is a cited source considered "reliable" if their info hasn't been verified?

moved to talk:Ford LTD (Americas)#3260.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, Sable, im sorry, if you consider it vandalism, I'm so sorry, thinking it was an off-road vehicle and not an SUV, sorry for this error.

PD: I don't want to problems with you, about this error. 81.61.205.107 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sable232 user is maliciously abusing "undo" function. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

bZ4X

I hate to interrupt your good work, and I don't know what LTA means, but actually the §Oceania section of the Toyota bZ4X article had been de-garbled and un-word-saladded by a couple of other editors since, and it has a couple of good refs; can we keep it, once the dust has settled? — Jon (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: "LTA" stands for Long Term Abuse - used as shorthand for prolific disruptive editors who won't go away. This particular one has been known to add false or misleading information, so I removed the addition in its entirety. If you verified the information's veracity, then it's okay to re-add it. --Sable232 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on Gatik draft

Hello, this is Miranda from the Gatik draft that you left feedback on back in early August. I was curious if you had the time to reevaluate the draft, as I've since updated the draft based on your feedback, pulling back on a lot of the partnerships that were listed. If you have the time to review, I would deeply appreciate it. Thank you so much! Miranda at Gatik (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on Mazda Draft

Hi, it's me ILPC. I want to thank you for reverting my draft from List of Mazda vehicles, that means a lot to me, I was wondering if I will join WikiProject Automobiles. The draft was super disruptive no matther what. If you need to review it, I will know. PS, you will thank me for helping. ILovePixarCars2028 (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why the revert on a sandbox page??

Hello, why's that revert on page meant as a sandbox? --Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That page is not a "sandbox." It is the documentation subpage for that template which provides information on how the template is used. --Sable232 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Re:Toyota Hilux

Good day there Sable, though I noticed you reverted the block evader's (Alex Neman) edits but the picture itself was taken by someone else (taken and uploaded on Commons by different user named Ethan Llamas) after I looked on the details of it. – I'm considering bringing it back as that image is becoming relevant and needed since some markets including Australia are getting this version of the Hilux GR Sport already. Regards. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@VictorTorres2002: If you feel the image is worthwhile and of adequate quality, go ahead and re-add it. Not all of Alex Neman's edits are disruptive, but most are, and because of the long-term abuse I revert nearly every edit on sight (the hope is that, with his edits consistently being removed, he might just stop someday). --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll go ahead re-add it now since I found that image of the person who took it in very good quality and it passes the WP:CARPIX standards. Thanks Sable. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Image Disruption"

I find it rather infuriating when you claim that the edits I make are "disruptive" when it's stated clearly in WP:CARPIX that the background color should not be uncomfortably close to the color of the vehicle itself. The primary color of that background is very close to the color of the Voyager, therefore, the replacement images are better suited as both the background, and the vans, are completely different colors. It really feels like you (as well as other admins) are just looking to pick a fight with me, and frankly, it's exhausting. If it's not one thing, it's another. Antares600 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The one you replaced it with is heavily in shadow, poorly positioned, and has buildings reflected off of it. The lack of contrast in the previous image pales in comparison to those issues, and if you can't recognize that you shouldn't be changing images in articles at all. --Sable232 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocking due to confusion and nonsense

I said he was wrong, please don't block me. It was a confusion, i didn't disrupt. 81.61.205.107 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize for the mistake, it seems fatal to me that you blocked me for a very clear mistake.

Please don't block me, because there are some things I've confused, I'm sorry.

It was a mistake.

Have a nice day, Sable232. 81.61.205.107 (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and cannot block you, and the IP you're currently using has not been blocked.

You have a history of unconstructive edits and you often apologize to those who've left notices and warnings on your talk page, yet you keep making those edits. --Sable232 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)