User talk:Warren Whyte/Archive 1

Superchips
Superchips is now back as an article. Warren (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know exactly where this page should go, but it should not be in the main article space. I agree with your nomination for reinstatement, however - well known and long standing ECU supplier. Regards, GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY  21:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is misplaced as Gilo1969 says. Follow the steps to list a new deletion review. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Strangely, Wikipedia prompted me to this prefix page which I had not come across before. I shall review Malcomxl5's suggestion.Warren Whyte (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should make your discussion at WP:DRV.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now started a talk paragraph with the article remover User talk:Wizardman, which I see is the first step I should take, not as per Corvus Cornix suggestion.Warren Whyte (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviving the Superchips page. I created the previous page that was removed, but I was absent for a while and missed the discussions, and I'm a relative novice so didn't know how to defend my corner! When I have some time I'll see what I can add to it. Dommar (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Various electric vehicle arguments
While I don't always agree with you entirely, sometimes I think you are the only editor with any sense at all.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments; I hope my pragmatic approach will have broad appeal, and will no doubt not be appreciated by certain fanatics of hot hatches or eco cars! Warren (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliance
If you'll look closely at the Brilliance Auto page, I believe you'll see that all the cited information you added was retained. The only thing removed was the phrase "[Brilliance sold its Zhonghua branch] to its ultimate shareholder Huachen Automotive Group Holdings Company Limited who continue to sell the Brilliance branded vehicles". While I believe that is a true statement, the citation provided for it (Reuters.com stock overview) does not support that assertion. I encourage you to find a citation that does support it, as I remember coming across more-or-less the same information in a Brilliance annual report. Fleetham (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, but the history of the page suggests you removed a little more than just the line you mention above, and if you had a problem with just that element you could have removed it or edited it without having to delete the whole edit. It would be most helpful to understand why you edit a certain way if you include an edit summary. Warren (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I was planning to quickly make another edit afterwards and didn't think anyone would be reading the edit summary. I'll act differently in the future. Fleetham (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I reinstated the section. There is no doubt about the veracity of the statement. References are required for statements which are likely to be challenged, which is not the case here as Fleetham himself states above.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the effort Mr C., but I reverted your edit per WP:INTEGRITY Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari FF
I just wanted to qualify my argument for the FF to be included on the hot hatch list. A shooting brake design is a hatchback in essence and the car, while a grandtouring hatchback is still a hatchback and is referenced as such on the Ferrari FF page. I would expect that such a high performance hatchback should be included on the hot hatch list. Cheers. FlyingOtter (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood the concept of a hot hatch; being a conversion of a "normal" family hatchback into something a little bit sporty. If there was a 1600cc FF for sale, as well as the V12, you would probably have a very good point to include it, but alas not in this case.Warren (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Roewe
I've replied to your comment on the Talk:Rower page. Please let me know how you feel about my suggestion; your feedback is important! Fleetham (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliant Scimitar
Great split, I would have done it myself if I could. BTW, you've always been a level-headed person in my dealings with you; could you please visit Kei car amd its talkpage? I have an ongoing revert war with a single purpose account (FFGR79) whose single goal seems to be the inclusion of one picture in as many projects as possible: see their German contributions here. Thanks,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Warren Whyte, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)