User talk:Eleanor60
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
[edit]
|
Hi Eleanor60! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
January 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm Arxiloxos. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Robert Kardashian, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic edits to Eleanor section
[edit]Hello!
I realize your enthusiasm - and concern - for ensuring that Ms. Halicki's ownership of the Eleanor name and image is made clear to the world, as it should. The 2004 suit was a disastrous and disgusting miscarriage of justice, and I feel very strongly that the 2008 ruling in her favor should be made clear, as a proper summary of the suits are not easily found through a Google search; hence the widespread misunderstandings that exist today.
This also explains the importance of making sure the Wikipedia page is accurate. However, these edits must also be written in a manner worthy of an encyclopedia and not get bogged down in overemphasis. I've tried - along with other Wikipedia editors - to maintain the Eleanor page in this manner, ensuring that the article is fair, balanced, and clarifies any of the discrepancies and misinformation that surrounds these films.I'd appreciate it if you'd work with me and the rest of the editors in maintaining this quality of detail and overall decorum on the Eleanor page and on Wikipedia in general.
Many of us, myself in particular, share the same zest for Mustangs, car chases, and cinematography as the late Mr. Halicki himself. Personally, I would like to make sure that his pioneering work is properly recognized as a professionally-made independent film, as too many people use his tragic water tower accident and the secretive details about Eleanor's preparation as excuses to belittle his attitude towards on-set stunt preparation and safety. Fact is, his stunts were conducted with the same amount of professionalism as any Hollywood film of the time - but Gone in 60 Seconds, by virtue of being the pioneering independent film, received more attention and unjust criticism for doing what would otherwise be norm for the big studios.
It's this professionalism which will help to continue molding the perception of Gone in 60 Seconds in a positive light. Even 40 years later, the film seems to be shrouded in a sort of mysterious murk of lots of lore and not enough information.
I had a choice to make an accurate replica of one of the six '71 Mach 1s from Diamonds are Forever or take a beat-up '72 Mach 1 and tear it apart - just like Toby - to make a perfect replica of Eleanor, right down to the aftermarket hood pins on the flat hood (not to mention the Los Angeles City Ford license plate frames - soon as I find the exact period variants used in the film).
Why? I value Toby's hard work far more than another studio film. That, and I want to see the original film get some proper recognition for once - even if it means building up one of my own cars as Eleanor, driving it around, and telling completely baffled onlookers at car shows to "...watch the Halicki film if you really want to see a car chase."
Please - let's work together to keep Mr. Halicki's legacy alive in a positive, professional light.
Thank you!
Cudak888 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
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 Monfort (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 beacuse some says so it not always true. Just like Lawsuit with Shelby/Sanderson 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 stated he was but in court papers it wasn't so. He owns nothing of eleanor
So I hope Clear this up for you and I will fix the page again... I like you help. thanks Eleanor60
- 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.
You reverted all the edits on all the pages.
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ford_Mustang_variants, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gone_in_60_Seconds_(2000_film), you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at H._B._Halicki, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gone_in_60_Seconds_(1974_film), you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Eleanor_(automobile), you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ford_Mustang, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Carroll_Shelby, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shelby_Mustang, you may be blocked from editing.
Cudak888 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Cudak888 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, I hope I am doing this correctly by writing here. Is there someone that can teach me how to post the truth and correct information? I'll I am trying to do is correct the wrong inaccurate info that's been posted. On: Eleanor Mustang, Gone in 60 seconds (1974 and 2000), H.B. Halicki, Ford Mustang, Carroll Shelby and Varenet Mustangs. I have notice that some of the inaccurate information being posted (on the Pages mentioned above) are found on other website, and that information is not factual. And are harmful to the people/films/cars they are writing against and adding more untruths and inaccuracy. Please I am looking for someone to help me so I can add the correct information. I hope I am signing out and this gets to helpful people to help me. thanks. Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You posted the same message on the conflict of interest noticeboard. That would be enough. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia protocol and issuing Level-1 warnings first for the above cited issues.
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Gone_in_60_Seconds_(1974_film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you.
Hello, I'm Cudak888. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Eleanor_(automobile) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
Hello, I'm Cudak888. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Eleanor_(automobile) because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Cudak888 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [1]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cudak888 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Eleanor60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Eleanor60 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Stale unblock request that does not address reason for block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I was wrong for disruptive editing and revealing non-public personal information about another user. I am sorry. I will never do that again.
I admit I did go on Goggle and typed in the username and read their public information and I did ask the user if that was them. I didn't know public information was blocked on Wikipedia or asking user who they are. I will never do it again.
I admit that I been doing disruptive editing. I will never do it again. I am new, but I know I can contribute accurate information that helps all users of Wikipedia.
For example if I was unblocked, I could clear up the inaccurate information on the "Eleanor Mustang page" or "Gone in 60 Seconds 1974 and or remake 2000", or "H.B. Halicki page" I learned per the Wikipedia guild lines to use a "accurate reference" - example I would use this 2013 Interview/article that Denice Halicki (widow, owner of the Eleanor rights and Producer of the Gone in 60 seconds movie) did with the Editor of Mustang Monthly Magazine[1]
I want to make true productive contributions. I hope you allow me to show Wikipedia that I will follow all the rules and Guild line. Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Eleanor60 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting to be unblocked see below
Eleanor60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am a new to Wikipedia; I think you call me “newcomers”. Since I was block I re-read all the rules and guidelines. I understand there are two reasons I was block. Blocked Reason Number one: “Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia” I clearly understand the Guidelines and I read Wikipedia: How to build encyclopedia and I understand now why I was blocked. But now I will only do any edits or write on Wikipedia by using the guideline under Wikipedia: How to build encyclopedia and I request to be unblocked I am new. Blocked Reason Number two: “Reveling non-public Personal information about another user” As I say I am a newcomer and this editor/person asked me on “Eleanor60 talk” if I was Robert Kardashian? So at the time I did not know you’re not to ask or find out who you’re writing back and forth with. I did not revel any non-public personal information about another user to any one. Anyone can type in this person’s Wikipedia ID on Google and get their public personal information. They use Wikipedia ID all over the internet. I figured they wanted everyone to know them because by using Wikipedia ID. I promise never to ask any one there names or even revel any thing about them and I request to be unblocked I am new. I truly want to help build encyclopedia on Wikipedia. Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 24:43, 22 August 2014 Eleanor60 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Following the comment by Diannaa below, I'm declining this unblock request. In your next unblock request, I advise you should address the issues she raises. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself? Tutelary (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Diannaa:, what do you think? Would you oppose an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not in favour of an unblock. Eleanor60, you repeatedly state that you're new. However, you have actually been active since October 2012, nearly two years. In your time here you have not demonstrated that you have learned anything about how to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia by adding well-sourced encyclopedic information. Your edits have been exclusively related to a car, the Eleanor, used in a couple of movies. Here you admit that you have a conflict of interest; according to your conflict of interest guidelines, you should not be editing on the topic of Eleanor at all. Recent edits include adding unencyclopedic additions about merchandise for sale, adding information about people without citing any sources, and removing existing sources without explanation. None of your edits remain in the encyclopedia; in fact your presence here has generated extra work for other editors who have taken the time clean up after you. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting to be unblocked see below
Eleanor60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Diannaa, you are correct I did signed up Oct 2012 but I have not had any problems in 22 months (almost two years) until Cudak888 was putting inaccurate information about the Copyrighted star car character Eleanor. I was trying to post and explain the "The published Ninth Circuit Court case opinion" about Eleanor being a Copyright Character. Right now Eleanor "Published Opinion" on Copyrighted Movie car Characters case is helping the copyrights on Batmobile infringing case. And you are correct I was trying to correct the inaccurate Copyrights information on the character Eleanor. And I did add Eleanor's die-cast cars are now available. But as I said before I re-read the rules and Wikipedia: How to build encyclopedia, I truly understand that Wikipedia is about correct and accurate information and not about self promoting. If I am unblocked I will not self promote. I will never add items like merchandise for sale and or add information about people without citing a source or remove existing source without explanation. I am sure you folks at Wikipedia could give a person a seconds chance. Eleanor60 (talk) 10:433, 28 August 2014Eleanor60 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as several weeks have passed without a response to Ohnoitsjamie's follow-up question below regarding an agreement to stop editing the article with which you have a seemingly insurmountable conflict of interest Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Will you agree to stop making coi edits, as Diannaa noted above? In other words, would you agree to stop making edits related to Eleanor the car? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)