User talk:Dainase

Your edits to Jaguar and BMC
"Jaguar to join up with B.M.C. £18m deal to strengthen front against Detroit.

Under a jointly agreed £18,200,000 deal announced last night the Jaguar group of companies and the British Motor Corporation are to merge. In financial terms it is a takeover of Sir William Lyons's Coventry company by Sir George Harriman's Longbridge giant, the result of which will be a new group comprising Jaguar, BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher. . . ." see: Jaguars to join up with B.M.C. from our motoring correspondent. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 1; Issue 56681. This reference was provided. It is a common ploy to call a takeover (purchase) a merger to placate supporters of the target business. Mind if I change your edits back? Eddaido (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I cannot agree with this. The facts are that Lyons and Harriman agreed to merge the two companies and stated this at the press conference and in subsequent written comments.  What a journalist may have interpreted from the announcement is merely their conjecture and is not relevant to what took place.


 * You can sign your messages by adding four tildes at the end. This is a tilde ~ and its key is just below the escape key. When you Save your contribution the four tildes miraculously turn into a signature for you together with the date and time that you saved it.


 * Prefixing your response with a colon insets a reply making it easier for others to read quickly.


 * Clearly you will object if I change your edits to how they were. But this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin. You refer to a biography of William Lyons which is unlikely to provide a true and fair view of the transaction which was, quite simply, forced upon Lyons. I have a copy (2nd edition printed August 1985) of Jaguar the definitive history of a great British car by Andrew Whyte (foreword by Sir William Lyons).


 * In this book with WL's stamp of approval the "merger" takes place in the non-existent space between chapters 13 and 14. 13 ends with a list of executives and Jaguar subsidiaries at the time. 14 begins with the early post "merger" days.


 * Might it have been that the foreword was withheld until a chapter covering the subject of our discussion was removed? Your thoughts? Thanks,Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Eddaido,


 * You are quite right that an encyclopedia should contain facts, which in this case were that the two companies agreed to a merger. With both companies listed any announcement had to be factually correct - this is not 'spin' as you call it but a legal requirement. You should also be aware that the term was used elsewhere, such as Lyons letter to BMC's accountants where he clearly states the discussions taking place as a merger, and in a post agreement letter to suppliers, where the same term is again used. To ignore all this in favour of the opinion of a journalist, writing in this case from some considerable distance, would be factually incorrect.


 * Essentially, to replace the documented agreement between the two heads of the companies with the opnion of a journalist would be against the first principle of an encyclopedia, which you rightly identified earlier.


 * Kind regards,


 * DainaseDainase (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your friendly greeting. Now, about "What a journalist may have interpreted from the announcement is merely their conjecture and is not relevant to what took place." (I quote you from above) The "journalist" being quoted is not of the usual kind and is focussed entirely and wholly on what is happening, not on the choice of words for the chairmen's statement. He/she is reporting reality not reporting appearances. If that kind got muddled between reality and spin they'd be fired. He/she has that job to get people to buy their paper to find out what is really happening in the financial world. Would this be called in-depth reporting?


 * 1. Can you account for the subject of our discussion being, it appears, so completely expunged from a book (that is all about him and his business) which has been given Lyons' approval? See above — (foreword by Sir William Lyons I regard as a seal of approval on an "authorised" history)


 * 2. I can see you are passionate in your assertions. Would you please provide proper references for your statements (where I can see the truth of these assertions for myself and so can everyone else) because then I can better understand what you believe is being said by Harriman and Lyons.


 * 3. There is one more thing. Would you please very briefly describe on this page your understanding of the meaning of merger as used at the beginning of your last message above. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Eddaido,


 * Thank you for your reply.


 * I cannot give any help to your comment of what you believe to be missing content in a book by Andrew Whyte. Sadly, neither can the author as he sadly passed away in the late Eighties. I should point out however that Sir William died in February 1985 and your edition was published 6 months later.  Even if Sir William had asked for this to be removed – which I find doubtful at best – there was ample time for this alleged missing content to be added in this or any future edition.  I would recommend to you the JDHT official biography of Sir William Lyons by Philip Porter and Paul Skilleter, from where the references regarding the merger of Jaguar and BMC are sourced and which was first published in 2001.


 * To once again repeat your assertion that an encyclopaedia should be a factual account, a journalist is free to interpret a press release, quote or any other scenario and express their opinion as they see fit. If their editor sees fit to do so then their article will appear in print; that does not make it ipso facto.  There is a simple point that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to merge the two companies and stated so in writing. Disregarding this point, made in writing by the two leaders of their respective companies at the time would  be at odds with your belief that Wikipedia should be factual and as such it would be better to state the known points as they are. If a reader wishes to draw an opinion from the information provided then that – like the journalist – is purely for them to do so.


 * Kind regards,


 * Dainase (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And thank you for your response. Have you noticed it is not a reply? Please would you have at least a go at answering my questions. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eddaido,

I have broken down my reply given previously and set it against the questions in turn for you so that you can now see it more clearly.

1.	Can you account for the subject of our discussion being, it appears, so completely expunged from a book (that is all about him and his business) which has been given Lyons' approval? See above — (foreword by Sir William Lyons I regard as a seal of approval on an "authorised" history)

I cannot give any help to your comment of what you believe to be missing content in the book by Andrew Whyte.

2.	I can see you are passionate in your assertions. Would you please provide proper references for your statements (where I can see the truth of these assertions for myself and so can everyone else) because then I can better understand what you believe is being said by Harriman and Lyons.

I would recommend to you the JDHT official biography of Sir William Lyons by Philip Porter and Paul Skilleter, from where the references regarding the merger of Jaguar and BMC are sourced and which was first published in 2001.

3.	There is one more thing. Would you please very briefly describe on this page your understanding of the meaning of merger as used at the beginning of your last message above.

'''A simple encyclopaedic definition of a merger is a combination of two companies to form a new company – in this case BMC and Jaguar Cars merging to form BMH. Feel free to review this at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp'''

Now, perhaps you would care in return to answer the following points:


 * 1) You have stated that as the book Jaguar: The Definitive History by Andrew Whyte contains a Foreward by Sir William Lyons it is therefore 'authorised'.  Can you clarify if this is your opinion or if it is stated as such, by who and on what page.
 * 2) What evidence do you have that Sir William Lyons ensured that a section of the book mentioned above was removed? If you have none can you clarify this is your opnion and not a point of fact.
 * 3) The second of the book mentioned above was published some time following the death of Sir William Lyons. If content had been removed what is to stop it being re-inserted in this edition?
 * 4) There have been two further editions published since then. Do these have the content you allege to be missing?

Kind regards,

Dainase (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for defining your thoughts more precisely.
 * Is it not strange that in a history of the company and its owner the events surrounding the company's sale are omitted? The Lyons stamp of approval would sell many many more copies
 * Just the fact that the subject is not covered where expected
 * I don't know
 * No idea. Do they?


 * I do not see anything sinister in this but has it for one moment crossed your mind that all your (preferred) references are all from Jaguar associates? I suppose they dislike the thought of conceding how weak Jaguar was at the time.


 * Now let me give you the authorities for my recording correctly that the merger (as in your terms it was) was actually a forced sale by Lyons, holder of the majority of the voting shares, and a purchase / takeover / acquisition by BMC. Please keep in mind the definitions given on your chosen page "investopedia". It will take some time to assemble these references. I am afraid you will need to wait maybe 24 hours.
 * Eddaido (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, here are some statements for you to consider together with links to their sources:


 * A full article of the day to set the scene: "The British Motor Corporation bid for Jaguar" “BMC has a reputation for buying up companies on the cheap. The Pressed Steel acquisition is a recent example. The proposed terms for Jaguar are another.” Motor Marriage by John Bull, The Spectator 14 July 1966


 * “Meanwhile, BMC had acquired Jaguar, but . . . “ The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain 1870-1992 edited by Geoffrey Holme


 * “ . . . as BMC absorbed Jaguar to create . . .” The Social Context of Economic Change in Britain: Between Policy and Performance By Terrence Casey


 * “When BMC bought Jaguar and Leyland bought Rover in 1966 . . .” High Financier: The Lives and Time of Siegmund Warburg By Niall Ferguson


 * “In 1966, BMC acquired the Jaguar Group.” Fish Can't See Water: How National Culture Can Make or Break Your Corporate ... By Kai Hammerich, Richard D. Lewis


 * “Variables: . . . takeovers . . . 7: Jaguar by BMC in 1966, “ Lund Economic Studies, Issues 40-41; International Integration, Market Structure and Prices; A case study of the Mass Produced Passenger Car Industry and Market by Yves Boardet, Stockholm, Studentlitteratur. 1987


 * “Edwards and Lucas estimated that they had 18 months for these changes to take effect. But a further expansion in BMC’s corporate status occurred in July 1966 when what was promoted as a merger between the Corporation and Jaguar to create British Motor Holdings was announced. In truth it was a takeover of “ Alec Issigonis: The Man Who Made the Mini; Jonathan Wood; DB Publishing, 2005


 * “Rover probably feared a rerun of what had happened to Jowett in the early 1950s when Ford had bought out Briggs, who had made the Jowett bodies; Jaguar had come to a similar conclusion and yielded to a BMC takeover offer during 1966” Rover 75 and MG ZT: The Complete Story By James Taylor


 * “BMC acquired Jaguar in 1966” British Sports Cars of the 1950s and 60s By James Taylor


 * What do you think about that? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eddaido

Is it correct to say that you are choosing to ignore documented information - a legal announcement of the merger as one of them - for your own interpretation and opinion which you provide no evidence for your belief and so instead rely on comments by other authors to support your point?

Kind regards,

Dainase (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you recall I showed you how to inset your responses with colons?


 * I'm not sure we do see eye to eye on that last claim of yours. An encyclopedia must focus on reality rather than describe an arrangement with a word of such broad meaning (as you have chosen to define it). I expect you'll recall the duck test. Let's see if we can arrive at some text that will acknowledge your concern yet allow the presentation of a non-partisan view of the arrangement between Lyons and Harriman while employing their particular choice of words. Then it satisfies you and other partisans of the Jaguar and Daimler chosen view, and probably their Heritage Trust too, as well as satisfying me and the rest of the world. Does that sound good? Eddaido (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Eddaido,
 * I have taken a moment to look through your reply and have some comments to make.


 * Firstly, as to your list of nine published sources where it a quote supports your assertion, can you explain why the first is not correct?
 * You state the article, Motor Marriage by John Bull, The Spectator 14 July 1966 says the following:
 * “BMC has a reputation for buying up companies on the cheap. The Pressed Steel acquisition is a recent example. The proposed terms for Jaguar are another.”
 * I was a little curious as this does not of course say whether the deal was a merger or otherwise. In fact, the article does quite clearly state, “Only one aspect of the proposed merger will cause much argument”


 * It is of course interesting that other sources supporting your view are provided, which I have look at in turn. But you should also consider that there are plenty of other sources – which I am sure you realise – that state the two companies merged written both by automotive historians and other third parties.  Some examples:


 * "In 1966 Jaguar amalgamated with the Austin-Morris interests (i.e., the British Motor Corporation) to form British Motor Holdings Ltd."
 * Encyclopedia Britannica


 * "The solution to both problems came in 1966 when BMC and Jaguar merged to form Btitish Motor Holdings"
 * ''The Car Book, Kindersley Dorling

''


 * "11 July 1966. Jaguar announces that it will merge with the British Motor Corporation to form British Motor Holdings"
 * Jaguar E-Type: The Complete Story by Jonathan Wood


 * "Jaguar merges with British Motor Corporation"
 * Jaguar Land Rover: A History, The Telegraph Finance Section


 * "in 1967 BMC became British Motor Holdings after merging with Jaguar"
 * Leo Wilkinson, The Telegraph 2013


 * "BMC joined forces with Jaguar to create British Motor Holdings"
 * Preston Tucker and Others: Tales of Brilliant Automotive Innovators and Innovations and by Arvid Linde


 * "In 1966 Jaguar merged with British Motor Corportation"
 * Jaguars by Michael Green


 * "In 1966 Jaguar merged with British Motor Corporation to form British Motor Holdings"
 * Brand Management: Text and Cases by Harsh V. Verma


 * "Although Jaguar and BMC had merged to form British Motor Holdings (BMH) in 1966, Jaguar insisted on retaining managerial independence within the group."
 * Innovation and Management Control: Labour Relations at BL Cars by Graham Winch


 * "in 1966 Sir William decided--perhaps unwisely&mdashø merge Jaguar Cars, Ltd., with the British Motor Corporation"
 * Company profile, Funding Universe


 * "1966 BMC merges with Jaguar to form British Motor Holdings."
 * Timeline: A Century of car-making, BBC 


 * "The Jaguar Group of companies (including Jaguar Cars Inc. of the United States) merged with British Motor Corporation on the 11 July 1966
 * Jaguar by John Gunnell


 * "In 1966 Sir William Lyons agreed with Sir Geirge Harriman that his Jaguar Group would merge with the British Motor Corporation"
 * The Jaguar by Andrew Whtye I believe this is may be the book by Andrew Whyte you have referred to previously?


 * "Jaguar, maker of sleek, high powered sports cars and sedans, has announced it will merge with the British Motor Corp., Britian's biggest auto producer"
 * Milwaukee Sentinel, 23 July 1966


 * "1967: BMC merged with Jaguar to form British Motor Holdings"
 * Restoring Sprites and Midgets by Graham Bristow


 * "Since the BMC-Jaguar merger, in December. 1966 (when BMH was formed)"
 * Interview with Sir George Harriman, 13 February 1968 by Geoffrey Charles, The Guardian (My apologies as I have not got the link to this)


 * As you can see from the above, it is far from a small number of 'partisans of the Jaguar and Daimler chosen view' that also state the two companies merge - or do you consider that the likes of the BBC, Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Telegraph are also 'partisan'? You may consider the inclusion of a link from a book about restoring MGs to be of little value - it is of equal weight to a publication about the Rover 75.


 * I will once again refer you to your original, and very succinctly put, point:


 * "this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin"


 * And on this I absolutely agree with you.


 * You must bear in mind that any announcement made regarding publicly listed companies is not 'PR spin' It was (and is) subject to legal review and approval. Basically, telling fibs is not allowed; if the content of an announcement was uncomfortable for a party then so be it. Such announcements are for the notice of shareholders, not for the whim and pleasure of the company and its senior staff and the seriousness of making misleading announcements are severe.


 * I also must question your assertion that the statement of the two companies as a merger by people who have spent considerable time and effort undertaken in researching the history of the companies as 'partisan'. People such as Andrew Whyte, Paul Skilleter, Philip Porter and many others such as the company historian Anders Ditlev Clausager. Bear in mind that the merger took place nearly 50 years ago; what possible embarrassment or discomfort would such people be experiencing, or that of any companies involved? It was a considerable time ago, those involved have long since died and, for Jaguar, the company has since been nationalised, publicly listed, acquired and then acquired again. It is not a question of being 'partisan', but merely reflecting the known, and documented knowledge of the time; that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to, and announced, a merger of the two companies to form BMH. Which is supported by the definition of a merger I gave earlier. And thus satisfies your suggested duck test. If you can provide evidence from the companies that state the merger to be otherwise this would be welcome, but you have not provided such.


 * So at this point I see only the following; that I have a position where I believe this encyclopaedia should state the known facts, and that you believe it should state the stance of other commentators.


 * So it here that we arrive at your suggestion of text to accommodate the two views. I would suggest that the content remains as is, with the insertion that other third parties have expressed a view that Jaguar was purchased, with a reference to the Detroit news article, as follows:


 * "A merger with the British Motor Corporation followed in 1966, the resulting enlarged company now being renamed as British Motor Holdings (BMH) although some third parties have expressed that this was an acquisition...".


 * Kind regards,


 * Dainase (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Colons Dainase, colons. I'm afraid I have little respect (for the statements under discussion) for almost all your references. Here are my thoughts:


 * Encyclopedia Britannica I believe Wikipedia has a better reputation for reliability


 * The Car Book, Kindersley Dorling Of uncertain reliability


 * Jaguar E-Type: The Complete Story by Jonathan Wood JAGUAR


 * Jaguar Land Rover: A History, The Telegraph Finance Section JAGUAR and in any case even Telegraph journalists confess to sourcing their products from Wikipedia which is why I need to sort out your concerns


 * Leo Wilkinson, The Telegraph 2013 See immediately above JAGUAR


 * Preston Tucker and Others: Tales of Brilliant Automotive Innovators and Innovations and by Arvid Linde Author has probably never even heard of Pressed Steel. BMC (now and Pressed Steel) financially swallowed Jaguar and renamed itself BMH. You are looking at your preferred spin again Tucker's an astonishing and ultimately very sad story. I remember reading about it avidly at the time and watching newsreels, more recently a movie (x2). It was to be a very special car


 * Jaguars by Michael Green JAGUAR


 * Brand Management: Text and Cases by Harsh V. Verma This is strong stuff: "a customer may love his Jaguar car or Nikon camera", "Jaguar: yuppie urban educated" Well, its not exactly a financial treatise is it.


 * Innovation and Management Control: Labour Relations at BL Cars by Graham Winch He has repeated the Jaguar spin which in any case is inconsequential to him


 * Company profile, Funding Universe "Jaguar Cars, Ltd., is one of the most famous luxury automobile manufacturers in the world. With its sleek lines, . . . " Impartial? JAGUAR


 * Timeline: A Century of car-making, BBC  See note about Telegraph journalists above, BBC now even less reliable


 * Jaguar by John Gunnell JAGUAR


 * The Jaguar by Andrew Whtye I believe this is may be the book by Andrew Whyte you have referred to previously? No it is not. I believe this might be a cheap soft cover publication, a "Shire Book" but I don't know. Interesting Andrew Whyte has at last found room for mentioning it. Is there in that Shire publication any other reference to this very important event (for Jaguar)? JAGUAR


 * Milwaukee Sentinel, 23 July 1966 So far as it goes this is an accurate headline. A couple of things: would there be any shareholders or other interested parties in Milwaukee aside from a (fractious) dealer or two and Milwaukee is a very long way from Coventry. Journalists again and under the Milwaukee circumstances there's no need for in-depth reporting so I think its OK


 * Restoring Sprites and Midgets by Graham Bristow Interesting but Graham Bristow might have been thinking about MGs and Healeys rather than British Motor Corporation / Holdings


 * Interview with Sir George Harriman, 13 February 1968 by Geoffrey Charles, The Guardian (My apologies as I have not got the link to this) No Problem. Harriman has his prey in his larder, no value in upsetting W Lyons.

As you can see from the above, it is far from a small number of 'partisans of the Jaguar and Daimler chosen view' ''there are seven JAGUARs there! indicating highly partisan publications'' that also state the two companies merge - or do you consider that the likes of the BBC, Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Telegraph are also 'partisan'? No, they were probably merely unconcerned by such minor matters when writing those items.

You may consider the inclusion of a link from a book about restoring MGs to be of little value - it is of equal weight to a publication about the Rover 75. I will once again refer you to your original, and very succinctly put, point: "this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin" And on this I absolutely agree with you.

You must bear in mind that any announcement made regarding publicly listed companies is not 'PR spin' It was (and is) subject to legal review and approval. Basically, telling fibs is not allowed; if the content of an announcement was uncomfortable for a party then so be it. Such announcements are for the notice of shareholders, not for the whim and pleasure of the company and its senior staff and the seriousness of making misleading announcements are severe. Hahahahaha ha

I also must question your assertion that the statement of the two companies as a merger by people who have spent considerable time and effort undertaken in researching the history of the companies as 'partisan'. People such as Andrew Whyte, Paul Skilleter, Philip Porter and many others such as the company historian Anders Ditlev Clausager. Bear in mind that the merger took place nearly 50 years ago; what possible embarrassment or discomfort would such people be experiencing, or that of any companies involved? It was a considerable time ago, those involved have long since died and, for Jaguar, the company has since been nationalised, publicly listed, acquired and then acquired again. It is not a question of being 'partisan', but merely reflecting the known, and documented knowledge of the time; that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to, and announced, a merger of the two companies to form BMH. Which is supported by the definition of a merger I gave earlier. And thus satisfies your suggested duck test. If you can provide evidence from the companies that state the merger to be otherwise this would be welcome, but you have not provided such. ''I don't need to - see the duck test, Its a takeover of a relatively small company on disadvantageous terms by a big powerful company that could and did set its own terms. You have mistaken an emollient name (merger) for the reality of the transaction.''

So at this point I see only the following; that I have a position where I believe this encyclopaedia should state the known facts, and that you believe it should state the stance of other commentators. Yes, I understand your position and how you are being, have been misled.

So it here that we arrive at your suggestion of text to accommodate the two views. I would suggest that the content remains as is, with the insertion that other third parties have expressed a view that Jaguar was purchased, with a reference to the Detroit news article, as follows:

"A merger with the British Motor Corporation followed in 1966, the resulting enlarged company now being renamed as British Motor Holdings (BMH) although some third parties have expressed that this was an acquisition...". ''This is just a general Detroit daily local newspaper isn't it, no special interest in dealings in Warwickshire? Not really much different from Milwaukee then''

''Briefly, I do not agree to that statement being inserted in the Jaguar Cars article. Please may I have access to the full text of the item in the Detroit News you have quoted''

You might like to take a look at these links WP:SOURCE and WP:Reliable and Third-party sources Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Eddaido,
 * I note your points about some of the quotes given above from being from certain publications. With this in mind would the following be more suitable?


 * "The process of mergers amongst the British owned car firms began with the formation of the British Motor Corporation (BMC) from Austin and Morris in 1952 (Turner, 1971). BMC merged with Jaguar Group in 1966 to form British Motor Holdings (BMH), which merged with Leyland Motor Corporation in 1968 to form British Leyland Motor Corporation BLMC).
 * P.20, The impact of Government policies on UK manufacturing since 1945, by Professor Stephen Broadberry and Dr Tim Leunig, London School of Economics for the Government Office for Science
 * "Jaguar agreed to join with BMC to form British Motor Holdings (BMH), though a condition of the merger was that Jaguar would continue to be run autonomously"
 * ''The Decline of the British Motor Industry (Routledge Revivals): The Effects of Government Policy 1945 - 1979 by Pete Dunnet
 * "Others, such as the merger between BMC and Jaguar to form BMH and several within the commercial vehicle sector, can be thought of as defensive mergers. In Jaguar's case they were worried about their supply of bodiesfollowing the BMC acquisition of Pressed Steel."
 * Mergers and Economic Performance by Keith Cowling, Paul Stoneman, John Cubbin, John Cable, Simon Domberger and Patricia Dutton
 * "His appointment as the head of British Leyland signalled the failure of the centralisation policy, introduced when the Leyland Motor Company had taken oover British Motor Holdings (BMH, formed by the 1967 merger between BMC and Jaguar) in 1968"
 * Business History and Business Culture edited by Andrew Godley and Oliver Westall
 * "In 1952 Austin and Morris combined to form the British Motor Corporation (BMC) which in turn merged with Jaguar Group in 1966 to form British motor Holdings (BMH)"
 * The Productivity Race: British Manufacturing in International Perspective by S N Broadberry
 * "By 1966 there were just three volume producers remaining; Rootes, which would soon fall under Chrysler's control, BMC (which following a merger with Jaguar in 1968 became British Motor Holdings)"
 * European Automobile Industry: Multi-Level Governance, Policy and Politics by William Maloney and Andrew McLaughlin


 * I have to say I thought the quote from Mergers and Economic Performance was an interesting take on the subject.


 * Kind regards,


 * Dainase (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can't see any change in your ideas there. You are telling me that if you were the Porsche dealer for Tooting Bec and the chairman of Porsche stopped by for petrol one day and thought your place was pretty as a picture and made you an offer you couldn't refuse you would advise the appropriate editor of your local financial newspaper that you had merged your company with Porsche. Is that right? - in both senses.


 * Back to the matter under discussion. Jaguar / Lyons was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, either way he had lost proper control of his business so he sold out. Its their / your wounded pride makes you claim it was any different.


 * In an encyclopedia we must have the truth of the matter. Eddaido (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Rover 75

Dear Ericthebluebanana

I have noticed that you have undone an edit to the pages covering the Rover 75 and MG ZT. These regard the insertion of a link to a an external website, which you originally inserted in 2012. Under Wikipedia guidelines such links are regarded as promotional and therefore cannot be included. Please see WP:PROMOTION.

Dainase (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dainase

Hope I am replying in the right place here?

Thanks for your message. Not sure exactly why you are applying one rule to one club but not to others? The Owners Club still has it's entry ("The cars are still popular and actively supported by an active and growing Owners Club[15]") in the body of the article, although I note that you have removed the link to the V8 club, the two-sixties. Our club and the OC are both registered companies (the former I know, the latter as far as I know) and as such, either both should be allowed to be mentioned or neither. Can you explain your logic and your authority in removing these links? (btw, our original link was compromised by www.mgr-forums.com, a spin off from the OC formed by a disgruntled member. If this had not happened then no changes would have been made)

regards

Dave (aka Ericthebluebanana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericthebluebanana (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)