User talk:Cudak888

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Autolite 4300 carburetor.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 06:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Autolite 4300 carburetor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:1978 Ford Mustang II Mach 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1978 Ford Mustang II Mach 1.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mustang article

You recently contributed to the article. If you have an opinion I'd like to hear it on that talk page. thanks.MartinezMD (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning

If you spam my page again with such an empty accusatory threat and intentionally avoid leaving a signature, I will have thorough action taken against you. You have no grounds to accuse me of vandalism nor defaming User:Stepho-wrs, in almost leading me to possibly accuse him of unfounded threats of banning me. You and MartinezMD need to study the use of model years to have better comprehension of how they are utilized in regards to real-time dates of production or sales launch. Model years can depict same CY, same MY in the case of the 1994 Mustang introduction in January 1994. The same production year, CY, and MY can apply in the case of the 1998 Toyota Land Cruiser(January 1998 SOP, spring 1998 launch). Most of the time they do not or instead may have "half-model years"(1998.5). You both fail to grasp that for some reason, but it doesn't entail you to leave volatile threats on my page. Do not comment on my very page ever again (if) after responding to this very comment or there will be consequences.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My warning was based on the edit war and heated argument in the talk section. There is no reason for disposing of civility in your quest to clarify the manner in which Wikipedia references the model year of a car. I see no reason to refuse mediation of the subject; after all, who's to say the verdict will not be in your favor? At worst, main years will remain VIN-based, at best, your suggestions will be made default for the US vehicle templates. The boilerplate warning I left is what Wikipedia requests users to use - anything further would have not been in Wikipedia convention. You will see also in the edits that I added a signature after forgetting to sign it the first time around, as it is is clearly stamped 19:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)," the stamp of my final edit. Cudak888 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Time for a chill pill guys. A look over both of your histories shows that both of want to improve WP and neither is deliberately trying to sabotage it. The problem is due to misunderstanding, not malice. I was instrumental in shaping the automobile conventions for calendar years and model years, so can offer advice on what the conventions say we should do. I also recognise that Cudak may well teach me something along the way (although I already know about model half years and the occasional CY=MY).

So far, the only real changes I see that are strictly needed for the Mustang article are for the production and model fields in the infobox. Production dates in the infobox are always in calendar years (preferably with start/end months) and model_years in the infobox are obviously always in US style model years - this allows both Americans and non-Americans to understand what year things happened in. It's a predominantly American vehicle, so section titles and most of the text can stay as model years. If we still have energy, we may (or may not) scatter a few instances of "In 1978, for the 1979 model year, ..." around but that is much lower on the list. Does this sound reasonable?  Stepho  talk  05:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stepho,

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 think, Stepho. Cudak888 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Automobiles project has endorsed the use of {{Infobox automobile}}. That template (which has been kept up-to-date with the project's decisions) says that the production field should show the month and year of the start+end of production and that the full date should not be used. So the following is the best usage

| production = April 1964 – July 1973

| model_years = 1965–1973

Technically it should be the start and end of production but if this date is not known then we usually just use the known start/end sales dates instead. The use of sales dates hasn't been formally written down but common sense generally prevails. I would accept either April 1964 (actual start of sales) or March 1964 (estimated start of production) since neither is technically correct and both are close enough to what we really want. But of course that's just a personal opinion, not written law :) For your suggestion of a third field for sales dates, I'd be reluctant to add yet another field because the infobox tends to gather new fields and become barnacle encrusted unless we keep it in check. But you're certainly free to bring it up at template_talk:Infobox automobile or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles and see what other editors think.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Eleanor Mustang

Hello Cubak888 I am so glad that you a fan. I am not sure if I am doing this right. If I am not please tell me how to contact you.

Please note: I work with Ms Halicki the changes that you made are inaccurate change. I know first hand of the Licensing deals with HPC/Disney for the remake and other Licensing like Classic Recreation (terminated) Greenlight TOYS (Original and Remake Eleanor die cast coming out this year 2014.

And I was involved in all the court lawsuits. I know Shelby lawsuits and the settlement that Halicki owns the Eleanor copyright image and Trademark name , Unique / Sanderson lawsuits and they all settled with Ms Halicki for infringing her Eleanor Rights! Plus the judgement on ED Monfort/Ronaele (Roneale - Eleanor spelled backwords) Lawsuits. Ms Halicki owns all the Eleanor Rights copyright image and Trademark name.

So when I make changes on Eleanor Mustang I am making them accurate - The mecum Action sold an Eleanor Mustang - we don't know its a true Movie Eleanor just because some says so it not always true. In fact we just licensed Eleanor 1:64 1967 Eleanor Mustang for limited edition for Mecum, that will be coming out this year.

Just like Lawsuit with Shelby it wasn't Chip Foose that made and or design Eleanor per the Cinema Vehicle deposition. I understand some people said Foose designed Eleanor in some magazine but in court papers it wasn't so.

So please help me and I will fix the page again... thanks Eleanor60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleanor60 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Ideally, given the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, the information about the lawsuit should be, of course, revised to reflect accurate events. However, simplicity is preferable; the exact details and events relating to the case should be noted with reference tags to a website with more information. It is, after all, an encyclopedia; a quick reference where pertinent - though succinct - information to a subject should be found under one heading. Referencing the toy companies and the smallest details about the lawsuit almost obligates one to write an entire page on the case (which may not be a bad idea - you may want to try creating a new Wikipedia page for it.

That said, given your background with the case, have you given consideration to developing - in conjunction with Ms. Halicki - an additional page on the Gone in 60 Seconds website; a summary of the case to set the record straight - not only for the purposes of reference, but for concerned fans and enthusiasts who want the true story?

That site could be used as reference to any of the references on Wikipedia, thereby allowing for the short summary on Wikipedia and a single irrefutable source for the case information. I would not suggest reaffirming that Ms. Halicki won the lawsuit any more than necessary - overstatement of the truth may bring about the usual doubters. The Ninth Circuit had the sense to settle that for all time and nobody can question that.

As for the reference to Foose's design of the car, I'll remove it. It brings up an interesting question though - who was subcontracted for the design? Does any site get the reference correct? My strongest knowledge is of the original film and the two original Eleanors (FYI - the wrecked car that Denise still has holds a very interesting secret), but not the '67. If the original film seems to be shrouded in misinformation, anything relating to the remake is doubly so.

Cudak888 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cudak888 for emailing me back. I did correct the Eleanor Mustang page. we are going to be New Web site wwww.gonein60seconds.com and Maybe as you suggested make a Legal page. Thanks for the help again we just want correct information on Eleanor Page since Halicki owns Eleanor copyright Iamge and Trademark Name. I just knew at this so give me time.

Thanks

Eleanor60 (talk23:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I sign out corretcly?

Roger that.

Speaking of that site, has there been any thought given to adding merchandise relating to the original film? Honestly, the fan base of the original film may be smaller, but it's a lot stronger knit than the fan base for the remake.

Honestly, I wish that Denise would consider producing a sequel to the original in Toby's honor - not by selling the rights to a Hollywood firm, but by producing an independent film, in the same fashion as Toby did his. In-house script, complete creative control, and set in the 1970s. The fact that Sony picked up "Space Station 76" is just one of the hints that a '70s revival may not be too far off - next logical step from the current '60s craze. A script is no problem either - I've already drafted something that could have easily taken place about 3 months following the ending of the first film, and still involve Eleanor (not 614 HSO though, but RMH 100).

Your signature came out fine. You can put colons in front of your paragraphs to denote a reply as I've done on mine; add one additional colon per reply.

P.S.: Your name isn't Rob, by any chance, is it?

Cudak888 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cuda888, No my name isn't Rob. Who is Rob? What is yours? I have taken all you ideas (please re-read above) and I have responded very kindly to you. As I was hoping you would help me correct the wrong inaccurate info that's been posted. On: Eleanor Mustang. I have notice that some of the inaccurate information being posted Eleanor page are found on other website and that information is inaccurate. And are harmful to the people/films/cars they are writing against and adding more untruths and inaccuracy.

Now you added that Steve Sanford designed the Remake Eleanor Kit which is inaccuracy. I just want to post correct information. I just found this today page, so I wrote to you. I am knew. Why are you trying to banned me?

Remember, just because another website states in inaccuracy the Steve Sanford design the Remake Eleanor body kit. Doesn't make it correct. Why can you help me?

So I am asking for help from Wikipedia to teach me to post the Truth Correct information & photos and how to load up documents so that everyone get the truth and not just inaccurate information from another website that no one monitors. Why can you help me?

thanks.  Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If Sanford or Foose - the two main names directly referenced by multiple reputable sources - did not have anything to do with the design of the car, who did? And can you provide verification? That's part of how Wikipedia works, and you haven't fulfilled that.

So far, all you have told me are words to the effect of "'Person X' did not design the body kit," but you haven't told me who did, nor have any of your edits said who designed it - but you're willing to wipe the edits of anyone who states otherwise. By Wikipedia standards, the credibility of your information and the manner in which you maintain it is questionable.

I have opened the dispute because that is the way Wikipedia handles things when a user believes another user is reverting good edits, adding advertisements (with a clear COI) and non-substantiated information (especially when SHOUTING IN UPPERCAPS which is not ENCYCLOPEDIC) in a copy/pasted manner on relevant and irrelevant pages.

The mediators are so we can come to an agreement on this dispute. I am not trying to ban you - especially if you really do have valid, credible information that contradicts the popular sources - but right now, you aren't putting that credible information forward. This dispute puts us both under scrutiny.

As for the Rob comment - I thought you were Rob Kardashian.

Cudak888 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi cudak888, I am new as I said. If I used upper cap, and I am not allowed too. Thanks for the Info, i won't use it. I will get all the credible and provide verification on all the information in post. I thought i used it here:

The popularity of the Remake 2000 Gone in 60 Seconds Movie star car character Eleanor, as a custom 1967 Mustang. A number of car shops started to produce the Copyrighted Character "Eleanor" image & trademark name and Denice Halicki again had to resort to legal action to protect the trademark and the copyrighted Eleanor's image. In 2008, Halicki won a case against Carroll Shelby, who had been selling "Eleanor" using Eleanor's Trademark name and Copyrighted image.

I gave References. So why did you pull this paragraph and then file something to banned me?

per you text above, If you feel as you said you did about H.B. Halicki and his 1974 Movie and you want the best for Denice Halicki.

I am not sure why you are not helping me. Give me the guidelines, how to load up photos and documents to show the truth. Not everything on Wikipedia has a reference and reference on other website are no true and accurate.

Hopefully we can move on and post only accurate information. I will put true and correct reference on my post so you can check it out. Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the same copy-pasted paragraph that you've been putting on every page in sight. It does not contain any references to who designed the car. You have not answered my questions (but have obviously understood my criticisms) and have not provided any further information about the case you claim to know so much about.

I don't think we have anything further to discuss unless you can provide new information.

Cudak888 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning message

Hi, Cudak888. Please do not issue warnings for (potentially unintentional) violations of policy happening before you issue the first warning, as you did at User talk:Elanor60, and please do not issue warnings where you may have a conflict of interest(posting to noticeboards.) Thanks, Lixxx235-Complaints 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Which warning should be used first then? The warning process page (and everything related to these warnings) are so complicated as to make what should be a simple process utterly obscure. Please explain to me how I come to have a COI in this dispute as well.

Cudak888 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lixxx235, I am new, thanks for the info on Cudak888 issuing warning and on posting to noticeboards. What do I do since Cudak888 is trying to banned me from correctly inaccurate information that is being posted and then posting accurate information on Wikipedia. I have posted a help to Wikipedia. Thanks, any info would help. Eleanor60 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014

As I said above, I am not trying to ban you. Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22

Cudak888 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ford Mustang (first generation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Foster. 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) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DJI Ronin (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RPSkokie was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DJI Ronin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RPSkokie (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cudak888! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RPSkokie (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2022 (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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)