User talk:Warren Whyte/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

North American International Auto Show

Hello, I couldn't understand the reasoning behind some of your recent edits to this page. You removed a Porsche that had a reference and added one that didn't. The new Porsche Cayman was introduced at the LA Auto Show in 2012.

As for removing some of the models, we have added any model that had its own press release from the car maker (or news item from another source), whether it's all new, a new generation, a new version, or just a refresh. I haven't heard otherwise, but it could be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles if it hasn't already. Also, not sure why you removed some but not all of the global Chevrolet models mentioned at the bottom, since they don't take up much space on the page.

As for adding "facelift" to some of the models, I'm not entirely opposed to this, to point out that they're not all-new versions, but I might prefer "refresh" as many people interpret "facelift" literally, as a front-end change only.

Hopefully we can come to some conclusion, as I don't want to come across like I own the article. --Vossanova ^o< 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - you raise a number of fair points. The Cayman ref that I forgot to include in my edit suggested it was launched at Detroit, but I see this was an error. The Cayenne Turbo S is only a minor derivative of the existing model so does not merit being listed as a new model - same I suppose to the Audi RS models but these are sometimes significantly upgraded models.

Just because a specific trim or engine is released in an existing model with a press release does not automatically merit a listing. If it is specifically innovative then I'm sure it would be worth retaining. The global Chevrolets you mention I trimmed to exclude the models that have been launched in other markets some time ago, but happy to be corrected if new to the US or Canada and are being launched to those markets. For other motor shows, the term Facelift (automotive) is often used to identify a mid-cycle refresh. By all means move this to the project page if you feel some of these issues need further/wider discussion. Warren (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter Bor

Thanks for your edits! Let me know if you want any help on urban design / planning-related topics or bios. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No there's no policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volkswagen_1-litre_car&curid=880398&diff=539558366&oldid=539554447 But I'll let you damage the article for now. I expect you to discuss though, there is a policy for that. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

Not your article is it? Why not spend some time getting it up to date rather than argue an obscure internet rumour that has no reliable sources? Warren (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Please see Talk:REVAi#An_accident. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have responded there. Warren (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Date format in references.

Thank you for the additions you have made in various motor show articles. However, could you use the same date style that the other references use. Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Citation style says that both 6 March 2013 and 2013-03-06 are allowed but that references should be consistent in their use of only one of the styles. Also, try to add the author (if known) and the date the source article was published (if known). Look through the history of the articles you have changed recently and compare the changes I made just after you additions. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, it is sometimes to easy to be a bit lazy with the refs, especially when the existing ones are so badly entered. I have to say I hate the 2013-03-06 format, and it is a shame the ref tool doesn't remind editors which format is in use for a particular article.Warren (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto for recent changes to Geneva Motor Show.  Stepho  talk  05:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Plant Oxford and Pressed Steel Company

Hi Warren, I noticed a while ago you made some adjustments to this article. I suspect there is a very basic mistake made there. I think Plant Oxford is just a large part of the old Pressed Steel Fisher plant, Morris's is/was the other side of the road. Something quite different. They were linked by a special enclosed overhead bridge.

Are you a regular visitor to Oxford so that you might be familiar with the site(s)? I think it should be sorted out, I left a note about it on the talk page a couple of months back but no one has reacted to what I wrote. What do you think? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I do drive past the site about once a quarter, and Plant Oxford is now a mere small portion of the ex-Rover site. I had meant to return to this article to work further on it but got distracted and forgot! There is some interesting history at AR Online. Your assumption of being part Morris and part Pressed Steel I believe is quite right. Some interesting images at Austin Memories. Warren (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Warren Whyte; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hi Warren Whyte, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Geneva Motor Show

I removed some actual models launched because this is not a world debuts, in this article that you edit are many mistakes, this cars make their world debuts at other autoshows. I think all minor derivatives and tuner cars must be necessarily in every autoshows article, with this cars article more precisely, encyclopaedic and more informative. References for each debut is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your response doesn't make sense when compared to your edits. So a European debut is not important, yet a modified car is? The need for refs will help you sort out what is notable and what is not. Warren (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. All special editions and tuner cars important as well as all new models if this is the world debuts. European debuts are less importatnt than any kinds of world debuts. Please don't remove modified cars because no such rule on Wikipedia that prohibits include this cars in auto shows reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nissan

See my talk page for answer -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fiat

-hi well the present situation at Fiat is the result of the 5 last years management policy and we have 3 other actual references and one for the controversy at the junk bonds status and zombie company is the specific term appropriate for this case. seems perfectly appropriate for a company with 20 B in debt .! --86.145.156.114 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are mis-using refs to support a point of view, and you are removing repairs to your poor addition, including correcting grammar and capital letters etc. Try editing properly, rather than deleting without consideration. Warren (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

okay thank you , the article seems acurate now with the appropriate references. I am trying to ad this in the column , its not showing up can you adapt and list this very important information in the columns with the other points.

| debt = €32.960 billion (end 2013) | revenue = €59.559 billion (2011) | operating_income = €3.336 billion (2011) | net_income = €1.334 billion (2011) | assets = €80.031 billion (end 2011) | equity = €12.260 billion (end 2011) | debt = €32.960 billion (end 2013) NEEDS TO REFLECT THE REALITY WITH THE DEBT CONCERNS. THANKS --86.145.156.114 (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't make up headers in a company infobox. See Template:Infobox company to see how these work. I am confused as to how an annual report from 2010 can give 2011 financial performance. You really do need to find better sources of info. Warren (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Austin Motor Cars

Hi Warren, where did you find mention of an Austin Twenty "pickup"?Eddaido (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A few mentions on the internet including: [1] and [2]. Warren (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so that listing you made should be removed! Need I explain? And the taxi example below is the example I'm talking about, yes, that's me pointing out the error of his ways! As he does from time to time give images to Wikimedia I'm not going to write to point out he has omitted to change the 20/6. Do I need to explain about pick up trucks and hearses and things? Funny isn't it, thinking about it there are Rolls-Royce hearses (conversions) but I've never noticed a Bentley hearse. They seem to like Daimlers and (Austin) Princesses for that business and the Twenty is the exact direct ancestor of the Princess.
Soon after the war when vehciles were in short supply there was a steady backyard business in taking the back of the body off large mechanically sound cars and replacing it with a tray to make what is described by Bonham's in their ad as a pickup. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This began because I found an Austin taxi, a 12/4 labelled a 20/6 Austin Twenty with taxi body and I was trying to find anything at all to match up with its engine displacement as reported to DVLA (without luck)—its probably a cuckoo (I mean it is probably not any kind of Austin engine). Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing. I am only aware of the Austin 12 Taxi, though who knows what coach builders were up to! This guy was covering all bases: [3]. Warren (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing my almost rabid slash and burn behaviour of the last few days (you are either very polite or very busy in the day job, probably both) I have just discovered that you changed the name of the article about the between the wars Austin taxis just a couple of weeks back. I just found this, now. I apologise because I think I should have mentioned it to you to get your input before I rushed on. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. Please let me know if there is anything at all to be discussed, best regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No immediate issues with your changes bar the new article name. Would suggest clearer links to the post-war Austin taxis would help, though still think Austin 12 Taxi still works. Warren (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Topper Test I thought I was going to get the FX3 and FX4 into that same article when I changed the name. If there is to be only a reference to them (as you say - a much better one than there is now) perhaps this article should just cover the 12 and be titled accordingly. It does seem there was a genuine compliant Austin taxicab in London before WWI, we should make at least an acknowledgment of that don't you think? Anyway what do you think of Austin 12 London Taxicab for a name? Austin 12 for the chassis, taxi for the taximeter, London cab because it was a cab built to fit with the Met's regulations. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel the London bit is superflouous for the title, though I note the proper name was Taxicab (or taxi-cab) so agree that would make sense. So would Austin 12 Taxicab be a reasonable new name? Warren (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

FL1

See this thing here—an Austin hire car
its been categorised as a taxi by the uploader and (so far as I know) anywhere but London it could be. Looks just like a 1946 Austin Sixteen on steroids doesn't it?
It does not fit with the Met's (I believe stringently enforced) regulations about taxicabs that may trade in London. That is why I think London should be in the name because it is designed to comply with the London regs.
About taxi-cab I see the current online OED puts the hyphenated form first but even in 1907 the unhyphenated version was used. Over to you which you choose. Eddaido (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with Taxicab. Back to the London thing - it may have been designed for London, but it wasn't sold, or known, as the London Taxicab as far as I can see. Warren (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. But isn't (those) taxicabs and London more than a little like gondolas and Venice. Without one you do not need / have the other? One because of the little canals (wow, could that be canaletti?) the other because of the regulations. Haven't the vehicles always been too expensive for other places to have them in quantity? Don't the minicabs(?) exist in London for just that reason? — and as a foreigner I'm blessed if I can work out how or why the two things exist side by side. Surely London is implicit in the concept and just unspoken in the name where we must add it so that a WP reader understands at once that it is a London taxi being talked about. I'm weakening, but certainly not capitulating. Eddaido (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I just hit it then. There can be no dispute, we are discussing the name of a London taxi, famous by that name all over the world. Eddaido (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Austin Six orphan oddity

The six-cylinder Austin "12" discussed above was/is the property of Roy Ellis, the chairman of the Public Carriage Office until 2006 anyway I have put its picture (x2) in Wikimedia with its story but no mention of the owner. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

:Orange_County_Auto_Show

You added a copyright issue tag to Talk:Orange_County_Auto_Show. I presume you mean the article, Orange_County_Auto_Show, not the (empty) Talk page, but I am not seeing the problem. I may be missing something, Can you help me out?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I found it. :) The contributor may have seen the flag on the article's talk page and removed it - it was formerly in the body of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry for not getting back to you, I was having a WP holiday! Warren (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The ghastly Allegro

When I looked at the source note you added it appeared to apply to three of the four adverse observations listed, so I put it to the end of the sentence so it can (implicitly) serve for all three. I hope you don't mind. I removed the rust proneness bit because that was the one bit that I couldn't find mentioned in the Daily Mail source. Also I don't think proneness is a very encyclopaedic word. In fact I'm not sure it's a word at all. And although BL cars from the period did rust badly, I'm not sure they were strikingly worse in that respect than other British (and for that matter Italian) cars. Looking at what has survived for long enough to turn up at the Old-timer shows these days, (and from what I remember) I think maybe the Allegro rusted away less rapidly than the contemporary Marina or the Austin-Morris 1100/1300 which preceded it. Anyhow, if you have reason to improve on what I did, feel free.... Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

FIne with me. I never really liked the Allegro, but I had a relative who worked in the clay shop in the design centre in the 1970s, and he was so impressed with the structure of the roof the Allegro, he bought one for his daughter's first car!

Edit war: Opel article

It would be great, if you could take a look at this article because there are different opinions, e.g. do you have to write the registered name or the common name? How to begin an introduction? I hope you can help us. Thanks in advance.--Dencent (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User 174.21.209.206 writes some Opel products in the Infobox, such as Astra, Zafira and Corsa. Wouldn't it be easier to write just Automobiles or instead of Vehicle design, Vehicle engineering etc. just Automotive industry? This is what most articles do on Wikipedia or are there no fixed rules?--Dencent (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally most automotive company articles keep it generic as the list would be rather extensive and not very helpful and I agree that keeping it to generic product types is far more useful, though if you look at the WP guidance on company info boxes (see Template:Infobox company), listing products is permitted... Warren (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, could you also take a look at the Opel Performance Center article, because of editor 174.21.176.132 especially the legal form.--Dencent (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor 174.21.209.206 continues his work, but this time with the Boeing article.

"The Boeing Company (/ˈboʊ.ɪŋ/ BOH-ing) (NYSE: BA) is a United States-based multinational that, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures and sells fixed-wing aircraft, rotor-craft, rockets and satellites and provides leasing and product support services."

I often read several car websites in English on the Internet and I noticed unusual sentences which are very similar to the style of 65.102.187.47 or 174.21.209.206.

"And since GM’s Germany-based subsidiary is also in the process of updating its engine range, expect the freshened 2014 Meriva to be offered with GM-Opel’s new 1.6 liter CDTI oil burner, replacing the Meriva’s aging 1.7 liter unit."

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/09/spied-facelifted-2014-opel-meriva/

"President of General Motors Europe Dr. Karl Thomas-Neumann has announced that GM’s Germany-based Opel subsidiary will invest €130 million in its engine and component production plant in Kaiserslautern, Germany."--Dencent (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/09/opel-announces-e130-million-investment-in-kaiserslautern-facility/

A Faustian bargain

CNN & Der Spiegel are not what I'd consider the most authoritative sources for things automotive; if C&D, or Autocar, did, I'd be more convinced. Wise calls it Mephistopheles. I have no problem with a note in the lede saying "commonly known as "FIAT M", however. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Autocar Goodwood report, and a cracking period photo apparently from Autocar 1924 (so who knows if the caption is original or not). Octane also refer to it as a Fiat several times... In the meantime, your suggestion for the lead is appropriate. Warren (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm informed even the builder had no issue with attaching "FIAT", so who am I to argue? Rv, but do spellcheck it to the Italian variant? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Warren Whyte. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Content on 'Allard'

I own Allard Motor Cars Ltd and have solely amended the content on this page several times to record the legal ownership of our Trademark, as well as to correct factual errors, what gives you the right to allege that any such amendements are being used for marketing purposes, perhaps you can explain what qualifies you to make such an assertion, what leads you to belive this and why you feel you are in possession of the facts pertaining to this marque and mark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.242.94 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A number of different editors have attempted to help you by directing you to various Wikipedia policies, which you have ignored, so don't be surprised when your self-promotional contributions are edited! Warren (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ford Figo

hey i wud like to know what has happen if i have made some changes and make the page of figo proper with more outputs. is that your page that u have to maintain every time, is that if u put something will only come on that page,all users have their rights to contribute and if the page is made like a brochure than whats ur problem. u said sorry that does not mean that u wud only edit,if u dont like u wud remvove it.so plz dont put ur nose in eveything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imintellectual (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Like most editors here, I very much welcome contributions. However your comment above suggests you haven't quite grasped what Wikipedia is, and What Wikipedia is not. In addition to some very advertising style content (see WP:PEACOCK), you duplicated some content already in the article. By all means have another go - but try not to re-write a press release! See also Wikipedia:Third-party sources for ideas of how you can add references to support some claims. Warren (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

see man i am very annoyed of ur behaviour that u remove every others made something contribute, why? r u jealous of someone just replying this is not a brochure what the hell if someone has added something more contents the contents given by u doesn't always r eligible and my hardest request plz always remain busy and don't disrupt and another man's hard work. u remain i ur own only.and contact me if any other thing u want to know and i am highly frustrated with ur behaviour towards page wht whats the reason, wikipedia doesn't tell anything if we add some more content but why u have problem. i have look to the whole history and seen that u always remove content which is not yours and thus is not gud. i highly recommend u dont always keep other persons frustrating.sincerely don't make that page edit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imintellectual (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you looked carefully, I left in some of your additions, and even added a wikilink. I just removed the brochure listing. Please do have another look at the wikipedia references I suggested. Warren (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

plz let it be how it is i can support all my claims and plz u have any recomendation tell me but does not disrupt the content in it. let it be how it is.u always don't allow any one to make changes in this page and that i have seen in history also and u always prefer your content is gud. u can look at other automobile pages that how amazing they describe all contents and this page is not developed bcoz of "u". if u have any recomendation send it to me i wud see and edit but plz for god sake dont do this for this page.and one last que do u ever have drive this car. and if not plz get away. whats the problem if it looks like brochure it only gives info which u wikipedia gives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imintellectual (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

u give me suggestion and support ur claims that what did i have duplicated have u ever in ur life seen any other car page other than this? at wikipedia if not then see to it. all pages must have proper info and that only i have provided. what have i duplicated? tell me?this page has not develop bcoz of u and only u.Imintellectual (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already suggested you read a few wikipedia policies (I even included links above). You will then realise what I was trying to help you with. Copyright violations are also not permitted, so you haven't even written the text that you think is so wonderful, you just cut and pasted it from another website! Warren (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr warren i have read all policies and stuff and i know them well put you r not taking my point seriously i dont have any problem with u and allow all your opinions but i just generosly want to contribute to this page so plz allow mw to make changes in it and let other than u should make changes u only make every attemot to change and let oyher also make itI am going to make a comlete resurfacing of the that pagr if u allow me u make changes in that but let it remain stay for some 2 to 3 days and also let others see it also.we wud genrously make it better.Niw if u allow me to i wud make a comlete resurface of page and wud entertain all editors query and let it remain untouch for 2 to 3 days so every thing becames clear.And aslo one more thing that i am saying long time back what happens if it looks like a broucher sriously it wud only give a gud amount of info to all its users and i promise wud not copy paste anything but wud make a new and good page that. Plz let me make changes in it and dont disrupt it for some days as to get its review properly if u allow me u wud do that. Olz rply to me on my page or here asap. And olz if i make some change let it remain for some time tjough itlook like a broucher.plz11:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imintellectual (talk • contribs)

rply asap

Sorry disturbing u and yes rply me asap so ican make edits and yes also mention have u ever make ride of that car or ever consultant that dealers and all...feel free to reply on my page or here asap i am taking this initiative bcoz i have this car brand new but when i was gointo buy i could not fet adequate info on wikiperdia so i took initative to change this page and make it better so plz dont be a nail in my view and ur all advice is taken cwre and wud make it betrer so plz let me do what i want to do and help it out to sort somethings i wud surely entatain all your suggeations but plz let me make that page better so help me out.and let me do my work properly and rpmy with ur view that u wud allow me that wud not make any change after i doU always font allow any one esle to make changes to that page and always entartain ur biews so olz do t do that and rply positebly here or at my page so that i can make edits asap.Imintellectual (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Daimler Company

Hi Warren Whyte, I've just been looking at some edits you made last month and I need to challenge some of them:

1. (→‎People: deleted duplicate entry for Ernest Martyn Critchley Instone). You don't seem to have noticed that there was no duplication! One person two separate periods of service with the same company and both of considerable interest to the same story - I mean his involvement was significant in the early business.

2. (→‎Impact on British life and culture, 1896-1910: no reference from English Heritage to support the First Carport shown here, with others dating from 1903 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/iha-buildings-infrastructure-motor-car/buildings-i) I'm unable to learn anything from that reference you give (its just a search page) but here is the source of my statement:http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1000565. I have, since writing the preceding, discovered an article about motor houses etc (but not Car Ports) of Edwardian Britain in that popular Edwardian mag Country Life (source = just another medical waiting room - our local library is to scan and send me copies of) pages 88-92, issue of 10 April 2013.

3. (→‎Daimler Company, owned by BMH (1966-1968): moved trademark to relevant section, and simplifies paragraph headers) This company is a terrible puzzle to USA readers = the reason for the heading you have removed. The report on the trademark decision is directly related to the other item now without a heading still in the position you have removed it from.

4. (→‎Current status: copy edit) The statement you make is simply incorrect.

Your readings of my items you edited do seem to me to have been casual or is that unfair comment? Eddaido (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and letting me respond:

1. Ernest Martyn Critchley Instone was listed twice and made a confusing list look incorrect. I inadvertently didn't put back the different service time, but don't see why his two year gap in Paris couldn't be on the same line.

A confusing list - well perhaps the whole thing could be better explained and I would be very pleased if you would arrange that. He was significant to the Daimler business his time in Paris also and Instone with Stratton used Daimler to start a then significant retail operation now http://www.stratstone.com which I see claims to be the UK's leading Premium automotive retailer.

2. English Heritage states that the first carport dated from 1903, so 7 years before the photographed one. The website you mention (Geograph.co.uk) is not referenced, and English Heritage is the statutory government body so would suggest is the better and more reliable source. Sorry for the broken link - try this one.

Geograph is what I found and took pleasure in reporting because the place (where the building is) is of importance anyway. I do not believe there is any reference to a Car Port in 1903. Please can you give me the exact URL. I'll email the Country Life article to you now though its no use to either of us. A car port round here is a canopy on four legs - possibly as a shed roof without walls against another building, do we mean the same thing?

3. The recent trademark issue didn't read well in what was a historical narrative, and the USA section broke it up. Question of style I guess.

Well Isn't it a matter of getting the message across? I think you have, perhaps again, just wiped out the context. See next item

4. I was only going by the article that the wikilink relates to. If that's wrong then I stand corrected. Warren (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Still on the same subject. US advisers said in 1967 stop maintaining the name in USA (Daimler-Benz grinning in the background) and new owners Tata made an unfairly assessed try to get it back - that is what it was. You have put it back to front.
BSA was a nationally significant enterprise (and beneath it Daimler) and I think they were brandnames whose products were used by the great bulk of British citizens or in the case of Daimler very well-known to them. The story of just this one Daimler part of the enterprise is necessarily complex. I tried to sort out the misinformation piecemeal and some editors complain without actually troubling to understand what is being explained. Whinge whinge whinge. Can you have a go at straightening out those things detailed above in the light of my explanations above? I think you were up too close and not aware of the ties into surrounding text. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Daimler

Hi Warren, what do you think I should do about the issues I raised above? Eddaido (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've nothing much to add. We've got a minor set of differences in how the information may be presented, and I'm happy for the article to evolve. Warren (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ford Fiesta

Hello! Your submission of Ford Fiesta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz GL Class

please add GL Class assembly plant in Indonesia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.28.150 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to do yourself if you have a reference! Warren (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Daimler

Hi Warren, looking forward to seeing the above issues sorted. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Arash

If Farbio different company! should there be another article? .. or another section to explain? Regards Chienlit (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Farbio could have an article, but it was a company that didn't last for long as it merged with Ginetta. It does mention this change of ownership in the GTS section, but I have also clarified this in the lead to avoid confusion. I presume this is why the company had to change its name to Arash! Warren (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Response by GENR12 below in response to my comments at New York International Auto Show.

1) No wikilinks = Because content and wikilinks has been deleted by Bahooka.

2) and because you refuse to use references = I never refuse to use references. You can go to the references and see almost all of this cars, not only one that have reference. For example:

• Chevrolet Suburban Show Truck = If you go to http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1001465_1999-new-york-show-trucks you can see not only Chevrolet Suburban in this reference, but and many another cars from this year auto show.

There is hundreds and thousands of debuted cars for each large auto show, it's simply impossible add reference for EACH of them.

3) The article does not benefit from a long list of text - it needs to be useful, notable and linked to the rest of the encyclopaedia = I try to do what i can, but there are thousands debuts in large auto shows for many yeras (for example New York Auto Show - since 1900), it's unreal add reference to each of them. And there is a list of debuts and introductions, not a standard encyclopaedic text.

4) you are making mistakes between international and local introductions, if indeed it was a launch at all = Of course some mistakes are inevitable, but it can be сorrected. No need to delete all thigs including content thats right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times before. Because you list a long list of derivatives (and minor special editions), you confuse the "notable" with the "trivial" and the references often help. And your lack of wikilinks shows you can't be bothered to edit carefully, but you prefer quantity over quality which doesn't help in the long term. Warren (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Porsche

Thanks a lot on your recent edits on Porsche-related articles. As I am in need of someone level-headed to discuss how best to split Porsche article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG, I'd appreciate your view on it. FYI, I am having a discussion on "what article to give 'Porsche' title to" with User:S Marshall on his talk page. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yiba, I've posted my response on the article talk page so that it can be seen by more editors, but to summarise, the RfC was pretty conclusive in its conclusion that Porsche article should be Porsche AG and the holding company could move to Porsche SE as that holding company. Warren (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion notice

I've initiated a move discussion at Talk:Porsche (disambiguation)#Requested moves. Your comments are welcome there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Porsche". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Porsche, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Speedy deletion nomination of George Oldham (architect)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on George Oldham (architect) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sionk (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

2015 Formula One season

Hi, Why did you accept an unsourced, speculative edit like you did recently on 2015 Formula One season? It's these speculation-based edits that caused the article to be put under pending changes restriction in the first place. It would be really helpful if you only accept well-sourced edits. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Difficult call - as the story has been reported in well respected, and verifiable, sources such as the BBC [4] and Daily Telegraph [5]. As I don't wish to enter into a wikipedia style debate on fact vs verifiability, I will leave you to it. Warren (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Saiman Miah

Dear Whyte, I invite you to express your opinion about the article for deletion. --Rossi101 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Rossi101

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Oldham (architect) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• designer and member of the Council of the [[Royal Institute of British Architects]] {RIBA).
• (magazine)|Building]] |date=18 April 2013 |accessdate=11 November 2014|subscription=yes}} }}</ref> He was later given a reprimand but, not being ARB registered, could no longer describe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)