User talk:JustTheFacts33

Nomination of List of General Motors factories (detailed) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of General Motors factories (detailed) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Motors factories (detailed) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

JustTheFacts33, this is not how things work on Wikipedia. You're obviously aware of the discussion, and that's what it is, a discussion. One doesn't go making changes while the discussion is ongoing; the point of the discussion is to arrive at a consensus on what change(s) to make, and then make them.

On a related note, you seem to be putting a great deal of time into finding this information. Nobody is trying to remove that information from Wikipedia entirely, as you seem to perceive. The issue is that a list article is supposed to be concise and easy to read, and not the place for intricate detail. The information you've been adding, assuming you can cite it to a reliable source, has a place in the articles for each individual factory. But, as others have mentioned to you, VIN plates are not reliable sources. I have seen some factory information cited to issues of Ward's Automotive Yearbook; you may be able to find that in a library.

One final point - now that you have created an account, it's good practice to edit only using your account, and not with your IP. --Sable232 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not how things work". So now you're against me using your suggestion, too? You seem impossible to please. I really don't know what your problem is. Is it only OK when it's something you do yourself and everyone else is always wrong or is it just me that's always wrong? I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't seem to be working so I will have to shift. Firstly, you do not own wikipedia. Second, you are not even an admin as far as I can tell. Therefore, you need to take it down a notch and back off. Nobody here owes you any obedience as you seem to feel based on your actions. You need to understand that you are not in control here. You are not the boss. You don't even seem to be an expert as far as I can tell. And that conversation you referred to was over as nobody had anything additional to say. Additionally, VIN numbers ARE reliable sources. Not only that, they are the MOST reliable source of what a particular factory builds. Each vehicle gets the number as it's completed at the factory that builds it. And each number includes a code saying what factory built that vehicle. It is illegal to alter or otherwise tamper with a VIN number. All of this makes VIN numbers sacrosanct. It also makes VIN numbers an original, first hand source. Any other source is second hand or third hand or fourth hand, etc. and is therefore less reliable by its nature. All of this is fact, not my opinion. If someone doesn't understand this, I can try to explain it again but someone not understanding this in no way diminishes or changes it being fact. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have exhausted the patience of several other editors as well. I'm trying to assume good faith on your part but you're making that increasingly difficult. At some point, you will need to understand that you're the one going against the grain. Your understanding of how Wikipedia functions is apparently limited despite how long you've edited here. See Help:Contents, and the WP:Help desk if need be.

It also makes VIN numbers an original, first hand source. Yes. That's a primary source - and, worse, one that requires other information to corroborate. The VIN has a a single letter or digit, which requires interpretation with another source to relate to any particular plant. It's also a source that cannot be easily found again by someone else. Wikipedia endeavors to use primary sources sparingly, and relies on secondary sources - e.g. Ward's, Automotive News, the Detroit Free Press, etc. Your statement above about sourcing is directly contrary to how Wikipedia operates. Please learn and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and try to work within them. --Sable232 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have exhausted your patience? You and a few others have exhausted mine. It isn't my fault if some can't understand certain things nor is it my fault if some choose to harass others for no good reason. You act like you're doing me a favor by tolerating me in your domain. I've got news for you: wikipedia is not your domain. I have just as much right to be here as you or anyone else and I don't need your permission to be here nor do I need your charity to be allowed to be here. As I said before, you are not the boss here and you need to understand that and take it to heart. Further, going against the grain is not inherently wrong. If not for going against the grain as you put it, we would all still believe that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth. Surely, you don't think believing those incorrect beliefs would be better than believing what everyone now knows to be true.

Your link does not say that a primary source cannot be used. And, no other information is needed to corroborate anything. All you need to do is decode the information. There is no interpretation or corroboration involved. You also say that a source to explain the plant code cannot be easily found again by someone else. That is simply not true. There are many sites that explain VIN numbers. Just do a Google search. The same way I found it, anyone could find it. They are all freely accessible to anyone and everyone. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed not any particular person's domain, but that lands on you, too. You have to cooperate, collaborate, and communicate. Just continuing to do the exact same edits over and over is not how it works. If people do not share your fascination for these exhaustive lists of plants, figure out a way to condense them or to do it in another way. I have shown you how to create collapsed lists, which makes them take less space in the infoboxes. Sadly, your attitude is 100% "my way or the highway". Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the section below from User talk:108.6.237.202, but it seems you at least made some attempt at discussion here. I will just concur with what Sable232 and Mr.choppers wrote. "My way or the highway" is not a productive mindset here, nor is a "you're not the boss of me" attitude. If you're going to "ignore all rules", you should at least have the consensus of fellow editors to do so. In other words, if you can't play nice with others, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place for you. --Vossanova ^o< 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of car factories (2)

Please re-read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Lists of factories. You seem to be ignoring the concerns the other editors and myself have regarding your edits (see also cleanup messages at the top of both lists). You should not consider these lists to be your personal project - see WP:OWN regarding article ownership. If you continue to avoid discussion and add content without regard to Wikipedia guidelines, we may need to protect the pages or revert edits. --Vossanova ^o< 17:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody supports the inclusion of that excessive detail in those articles except you. Stop. Keep it up and you will likely be blocked - both this account and your IP. --Sable232 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone supporting your edits. I don't see anyone authorizing your edits. I don't see you seeking approval for your edits. Your whole position is based on a lie; namely that you have any approval from anyone beyond yourself for your edits here. That is a lie because you do not have any such approval or any such consensus behind you. You are just acting like you do to puff yourself up and make yourself look important and official. But it's all just a facade. There isn't anything real behind it. Nothing. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just... wow. Sable232 may have made a broad assumption (there could be supporters of your edits, but from what I've seen so far most don't). But your reply goes right up against WP:NPA (no personal attacks), or at least WP:CIV (civility). Either listen to fellow WP editors and come to an agreement, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles or the list talk pages, or else this will go to mediation or a possible user block as mentioned above. --Vossanova ^o< 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I call it like I see it. Sable232 is misrepresenting the truth. Why are you so eager to give him a pass for that? And why do you think I am required to ignore that? The fact is that sable232 is taking it upon himself to define what changes to make and how to make them and acting as if everyone approved of it when nobody did. Why do you think I shouldn't point that out? I didn't use any foul language or anything like that. I was totally civil despite my calling out of sable232. But yet you think sable232 is somehow exempt from criticism? What makes him so special? JustTheFacts33 (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Oshawa Truck Assembly, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23: I hope you will contact me. I have never had any dealings with you at all to my knowledge. Yet, for some reason, out of nowhere, you block me. If someone filed a grievance with you about me as I suspect, why don't you contact me first to get my side of the story? There are always 2 sides to every story. Don't you think that would be the fair thing to do? Don't I deserve a fair hearing? I hope you will respond. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I am not clear as to what edit I made that qualified as being disruptive. You blocked me on April 30. I did not have any edits that day that were even contentious. Which edit is the problem here? Can you elaborate please? (JustTheFacts33 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@Jayron32: Hello. I hope you can help me. On April 30, Bbb23 blocked me for what was termed as disruptive editing. I do not think that my edits were disruptive. I have tried to contact Bbb23 to elaborate further on which edit was so disruptive to warrant such a block so that I can know exactly what we are talking about. I don't think that should be an unreasonable request. However, Bbb23 won't even respond to my ping. It has been over 24 hours since the ping was sent out. Maybe Bbb23 has disabled ping notifications or maybe there is some other reason they are not answering me, I don't know. As I understand it, admins are supposed to offer explanations for blocking when asked so I don't think I am out of line for asking for more details. I certainly asked politely. Is there anything you can do here? Thank you for your help. --JustTheFacts33 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no insight on the matter. I have left a message for Bbb23. --Jayron 32 13:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thank you. Hopefully, Bbb23 will respond. --JustTheFacts33 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JTF33, your edits are some of the most disruptive I've seen in a while that fall short of out-and-out vandalism. I blocked you for disruption, extensive WP:LOUTSOCKing, and, although I didn't include it in your block log inability to collaborate with other editors. The warnings and conversations on this page and your IP's Talk page are ample evidence of the problems you have editing here. You argue with everyone. You're always right. They are always wrong. And you twist/misrepresent what's going on at every opportunity. For example, you received a warning for edit-warring on April 20 from Ponyo, which triggered the discussion at User talk:Ponyo#List of General Motors factories between your IP and Ponyo. In that discussion, not unsurprisingly, you accuse another editor of vandalism and being the source of the problem. Ponyo notes that not only were you edit-warring but you were doing it with both your IP and your named account. You responded, again not unsurprisingly, that the use of your IP was inadvertent, you didn't notice you had been logged out. Maybe, maybe not, but you have been using that IP to edit for years. You created an account on March 23 and since then, have made just under 300 edits with the named account. During that same time you have made just about the same number of edits with your IP. Finally, the fact that you ask "politely" for me to tell you what disruptive edits you've made shows that you have zero insight into your behavior. I do not intend to get into an argument with you about what I've said here. I've spent far too much time on this already. If you wish to be unblocked, you should make a request, and another administrator will review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JustTheFacts33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unwarranted Block JustTheFacts33 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. I believe that the block initiated by Bbb23 was unwarranted. Bbb23 accuses me of disruptive editing. I believe that to be an incorrect assessment. My actions are being misinterpreted and taken out of context to paint a false picture of both my intentions and my actions. There are several issues here so please allow me to explain them. First, I never had any dealings or communications of any kind with Bbb23 prior to that user blocking me. If this user felt there was a problem, why did they not try to contact me prior to blocking and see if I could allay their concerns or offer any explanations? Nor did Bbb23 make any attempt to warn me away from any particular action they were concerned about. Bbb23 did not attempt any conflict resolution. The only thing they did was simply, out of nowhere, to block me. Next, when I tried to contact Bbb23 for an explanation, they seemed to ignore me until I asked another admin to contact Bbb23 on my behalf which this 2nd admin graciously did. Only then, when the case became known to a 3rd party, did Bbb23 finally respond because now others would know if they did not respond to my request which blocking admins are supposed to do as per Wikipedia rules. However, I must tell you, I was and frankly still am extremely taken aback at the level of hostility that I detected in Bbb23's response. As I said, I never had any dealings with this user so I really don't understand where all this hostility is coming from. The only thing I can think of is that someone has been badmouthing me in Bbb23's ear and created negative opinions about me in this user instead of Bbb23 maintaining a neutral viewpoint. I will show you what I mean. When I asked the 2nd admin (Jayron32) for help in contacting Bbb23, one thing I said was that "I certainly asked politely" for an explanation of why I was blocked, which is true. I was trying to convey to Jayron32 that I did not ask for an explanation as to why I was blocked in a nasty or inappropriate way. But when Bbb23 responded, this is what they said: "Finally, the fact that you ask "politely" for me to tell you what disruptive edits you've made shows that you have zero insight into your behavior." Politely in quotes indicating sarcasm or that I somehow was not being polite and only acting like I was which could not be farther from the truth. Additionally, Bbb23 seems to feel that I don't have a right to ask for an explanation as to why I was blocked and uses the fact that I had the audacity to even ask the question to tar and feather me even more. This is despite the fact that it says "Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them" in "Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks". What I was trying to gain insight about was Bbb23's thinking and what specific edits they thought were disruptive. Bbb23 also states "I've spent far too much time on this already", as if I'm bothering him and wasting his time by even asking for an explanation.

I had asked Bbb23 to explain which edits were "disruptive" but no specific examples were ever given so I'm already somewhat hamstrung in appealing this block here but I will try to respond as best I can to what points were made. Bbb23 states that I argue with everyone. This is a misrepresentation. If a point in dispute is being debated back and forth, that is debate not argument. Am I not allowed to state my position and to defend it? There is no rule that says someone can't make their case in a dispute as long as civility is maintained. Bbb23 states "You're always right. They are always wrong." Who here or anywhere else thinks they are always wrong? Who here puts forth and supports a position that they believe is wrong from the outset? I think you will agree with me that the answer to both questions is nobody. So you see that regular, ordinary things that apply to anyone and everyone are being turned into negative things to portray me in a negative light. Bbb23 also talks about my editing with both my IP and my named account. I had previously explained that it was inadvertent because I was automatically logged out rather than me logging out myself and therefore did not notice it right away or at all. When I did notice, I wanted to keep all the related edits together so I stayed logged out. However, Bbb23 chooses to see malicious intent here too despite there not being any. I will also add that despite there being edits under both my IP and named account, I never made any effort to hide that they were the same person. If there were malicious intent, surely I would've tried to actively hide that they were the same person or deny it. I do not recall doing either. Bbb23 also claims there is an "inability to collaborate with other editors". I do not agree with that characterization either. For example, on the Talk page of the LaFerrari page, a lively yet civil discussion took place regarding the name of the car and the page. The debate is evidence of the collaboration and even though I still think my position is correct, when the debate ended, I let it be and left the page alone. I abided by the consensus despite disagreeing with it. When other users asked for references or clarification, I did my best to provide them. Bbb23 tries to make it appear like I have a problem with everyone. This is simply not true. As I stated previously to an unfriendly user, I can disagree with others without having a problem with them. It is only when someone shows that they seem to have a real problem with me that I start to have a problem with them. And out of the millions of wikipedia editors, I can think of only 2 users that fall under that heading. That is a negligible percentage. I could say more about those 2 but I'd prefer not to unless absolutely necessary.

Finally, I would like to say that I never had any but the best of intentions here. I never sought problems with anyone nor did I seek to damage wikipedia in any way. Rather, I saw that I could contribute to improving wikipedia by correcting mistakes and improving articles to the benefit of all readers. And I believe that the edits I made all improved wikipedia and made it better than before the edits were made. That was always my sole aim. And I know I can continue to do so if you will allow me the chance. If you have any questions or concerns, please ask me rather than making assumptions that might be incorrect.

Thank you for your time. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Unblock Request

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to read this request.

I believe that the block initiated by Bbb23 was unwarranted. Bbb23 accuses me of disruptive editing. I believe that to be an incorrect assessment. My actions have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to paint a false picture of both my intentions and my actions.

I had asked Bbb23 to explain which edits were "disruptive" but no specific examples of edits that were disruptive were ever given so I'm somewhat hamstrung in appealing this block but I will try to respond as best I can to the points that Bbb23 made.

Bbb23 states that I argue with everyone. This is a misrepresentation. If a point in dispute is being debated back and forth, that is debate not argument. Am I not allowed to state my position and to defend it? There is no rule that says someone can't make their case in a dispute as long as civility is maintained.

Bbb23 states "You're always right. They are always wrong." Who here or anywhere else thinks that they themselves are always wrong? Who here puts forth and supports a position that they believe is wrong from the outset? I think you will agree with me that the answer to both questions is nobody. So, you see that regular, ordinary things that apply to anyone and everyone are being turned into negative things to portray me in a negative light.

Bbb23 also talks about my editing with both my IP and my named account. I had previously explained that it was inadvertent because I was automatically logged out rather than me logging out myself and therefore did not notice it right away or at all. When I did notice, I wanted to keep all the related edits together so I stayed logged out. However, Bbb23 chooses to see malicious intent here too despite there never being any malicious intent. I will also add that despite there being edits under both my IP and named account, I never made any effort to hide that they were the same person. If there were malicious intent, surely I would've tried to actively hide that they were the same person or deny it. I do not recall doing either.

Bbb23 also claims there is an "inability to collaborate with other editors". I do not agree with that characterization either. For example, on the Talk page of the LaFerrari page, a lively yet civil discussion took place regarding the name of the car and the page. The debate is evidence of the collaboration and even though I still think my position is correct, when the debate ended, I let it be and left the page alone. I abided by the consensus despite disagreeing with it. When other users asked for references or clarification, I did my best to provide them.

Bbb23 tries to make it appear like I have a problem with everyone. This is simply not true. As I stated previously to an unfriendly user, I can disagree with others without having a problem with them. It is only when someone shows that they seem to have a real problem with me that I then start to have a problem with them. And out of the millions of wikipedia editors, I can think of only 2 users that fall under that heading. That is a negligible percentage.

Finally, I would like to say that I never had any but the best of intentions here. I never sought problems with anyone nor did I seek to damage wikipedia in any way. Rather, I saw that I could contribute to improving wikipedia by correcting mistakes and improving articles to the benefit of all readers. And I believe that the edits I made all improved wikipedia and made it better than before the edits were made. That was always my sole aim. And I know I can continue to do so if you will allow me the chance. If you have any questions or concerns, please ask me rather than making assumptions that might be incorrect.

Thank you for your time.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JustTheFacts33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unwarranted Block JustTheFacts33 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Still too long a request. Please write no more than two short paragraphs, and write them within the block request formatting(just as you wrote "unwarranted block", place your intial statement there). 331dot (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@331dot: Can you please give me some advice? How can I respond to multiple points made by the blocking admin in just 2 short paragraphs? I understand people have limited time but this seems like a Catch-22. If I don't explain my position, my request surely won't be granted. But, if I do explain sufficiently, then I'm chastised for making the request too long. I'm not trying to cause any problems; I'm just trying to find a way out of this predicament. Any advice? Thanks. --[[JustTheFacts33 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)]][reply]