User talk:Warren Whyte/Archive 4

83.157.24.224
"Assume good faith" + Some "administrators" use some arguments arbitrarily for some articles, but not for some others, for personal reasons.

Hello Warren. Do you know anything about "assume good faith" ? It means that if you don't have any serious proofs that some statements are false, then you must NOT erase the other contributors' texts. I don't have time to discuss now, but you and many other "administrators" don't treat equally the articles on Wikipedia. Urbanoc, for example, removed one photo on the Renault article, stating that they were "too numerous". But the photos are 5 times more numerous (!!) in the Volkswagen article, and it is not a problem in this case... It is the same for many statements that are not sourced in the Volkswagen article, and in many general articles about cars with some "compliments" about Volkswagen, but then it is not a problem that there is no source...

So, some "administrators" use some arguments arbitrarily for some articles, but not for some others, for personal reasons. I add some sources as soon as I can, so please, don't erase the true information, before I can find some web links.

Capture finished second in Europe in 2013, but beginning sales from June, and only in a few countries. Then July and August have poor sales for any cars. I know the real figures for any cars, and I know that the monthly sales of Capture were already the highest in 2013.

Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if you find other editors are editing your additions, then that is part of the process, and take on board their comments. There is nothing is WP that says your edits "must not be erased". Many editors have their articles erased, never minded the odd sentence or image! Also, just because something might be true does't make it relevant, and that's where editors will help refine contributions. p.s. I'm not an administrator, just a contributing editor like you - I've just bothered to register so other editors know a little about me. Warren (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Warren. Thank you for your excessive behaviour and bad faith, because now I have more proofs about that.


 * You must not change the title and the text of what people post as message on your page. It is non-ethical and a very strange behaviour to change the truth into a false information, even if it is normal for you. Proof here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWarren_Whyte&diff=636082280&oldid=636069510 So I put the initial title again. It is normal.
 * Also, you traced and erased all my edits. It is an insane behaviour and an obvious harassment.
 * You are totally unfair and arbitrary, as you protect this astonishing statement, with NO source : "In the early '90s, the newly introduced Peugeot 405 proved uncompetitive with domestic and import models in the same market segment...". But you harass to put some sources to prove that Renault invented the first compact MPV in 1996, the Scenic, whereas anybody who has a few knoledges about cars industry knows that it is true. You have a total non-ethical bad faith. You don't ask any source for an astonishing denigrating content, but you erase my text that most of people know to be true, with the false excuse that I added no source.

As I am a journalist, you even brought enough facts to write an article about how some people bahave use Wikipedia. So, thank you again. Some foreign journalists friends also noticed the same behaviour against the same companies on their Wikipedia. So, you can contimue to harass me and to be bad faith : the more proofs I have the better it is.83.157.24.224 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no idea who you are, as you haven't bothered to register, not that really matters, but if you leave a message on my talk page with incorrect WP formatting, then I certainly will edit it. This is not an article talk page, but mine. You seem to also be mixing up other edits with mine, so I recommend you actually read your talk page, and try and build consensus for major alterations on the relevant article talk pages rather than complain on my talk page. You really seem to have a bit of a problem with other editors editing your edits. If this remains a problem for you, can I recommend you consider writing for a magazine or book where you can write what you want without fear of collaborative editing. Warren (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

About Fiat Powertrain Technologies
Warren, I undid your revision to Fiat Powertrain Technologies because it made the article a bit of a mixup; the page currently is still about the FPT S.p.A. how it was originally born in 2005. In 2011 FPT S.p.A.'s passenger and industrial powertrain businesses were split; the former (including VM) went to Fiat Group Automobiles, the latter to CNH Industrial becoming FPT Industrial S.p.A.. All the stuff listed in Fiat Powertrain Technologies (MultiJet, Twinair engine etc.) does not belong in any way to CNH Industrial, it's passenger car technology. I'm still trying to figure out whatever happened to FPT's passenger vehicle operations; i believe they were absorbed by FGA. — Cloverleaf II (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the edits are incomplete. As far as I can tell, the passenger car elements of FPT were brought into FCA Powertrain (that is at least what they recruit to). You are right to point out the technologies are still Fiat's and not CNH... Though your edit summary is incorrect as the lead makes tries to make clear! Warren (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference dates
Thank you for your update to Chevrolet Volt. Please remember to keep the new reference dates in the same format as the other references in the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Attribution templates
Back in December 2012 you made an edit to an an article called George Bell (British Army officer) in which you removed the attribution notification on the article. This attribution is necessary to meet Plagiarism guideline.

I understand why you did it. The link to Wikisource was incorrect (all the DNB articles are now available on Wikisource although they still have no dab pages), when you found an alternative location for the source, but instead of removing the attrition by substituting you should either have used an in line citation like this:

which produces:

Or left the attribution in place and changed it to The only significant difference is the use of  in place of. The details of how to do this can be found in the DNB documentation (template:DNB/doc). There are many other templates that add attribution, fill in some fields, use the   field etc. You will find them at category:attribution templates. The templates often come in threes as in the case of the DNB templates:
 * cite DNB — similar to cite encyclopedia but fills in some fields and has the  parameter
 * DNB — cite DNB with an additional attrition field
 * DNB poster — see the box on the right hand side of the window.

-- PBS (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove it, but did at a * in perhaps what could be considered a formatting error. Warren (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

SAME rules over articles - Patrols to correct the VW needed
Hello. I hope that you are well. As the "awards" § is in 2nd position in the VW article, there is no fair reason to put it in the last position in the Renault article -except an unfair purpose to hide it so far, as you know-. In addition, it is not fair to remove some text from the Renault awards section. Finally, you could "patrol" to remove all the false propaganda from the VW article for example, instead of applying some unfair different rules to the Renault article ! As an example, for once, I decided to correct one false information among dozens, look : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volkswagen&diff=648192394&oldid=648095466 I wonder how much time my true information could stay in this article, before being replaced by the false propaganda... 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly you have a dislike for VW, but in this case I'll be more than happy to move the awards section down there to. As for Renault, it's hardly hidden - it's clearly visible in the table of contents. Warren (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, as you know. I just take the VW article as an example, and all what is authorized for VW should then be authorized for the other companies, that's all. I am not like you, fortunately. You have clearly a dislike against some companies that you attack again and again like Renault, or Citroen or Peugeot, by removing some true information, but only when they are positive ones, by removing some photos, by putting some less pretty ones, by not asking some sources to some false and denigrating contents in these same articles etc. The VW article and some others are full of propaganda, and I even don't remove them. On Wikipedia, I just add some true information, I did not spend my time to remove some false ones. I should yet. Remove all the false information in the VW, Ford, GM, Toyota, Hyundai and Kia articles, instead of always attacking the articles... arbitrarily. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop this. If you bothered to check, I removed a lot of detritus from the VW article, and added in a third party ref rather than a press release. I have added and removed and edited content from a wide range of articles over the years, so your paranoia about Renault is unfounded, and getting boring. Warren (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Austin Motor Company
Hi Warren. I've updated the above template but i have lost control of row height! Can you fix it? Please! and anything else that needs fixing. Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the date header, but I note you have moved some models around incorrectly (be it dates or what they were succeeded by). I am tempted to revert, but I'll leave that to you to decide - it's probably easier to revert and re-edit rather than try to pick through tedious WP table formatting. Warren (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. What are the mistakes that have crept in? Tell me and I'll fix them. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm now busy on the Austins before say 1915 and the above template. Would you mind not touching them for a day or two to avoid clashes? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Go for it! Warren (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Warren, please don't alter things like you are, we can all do that sort of thing to other people's work, it is very very easy. If you want to actually add some accurate facts replacing your old mistakes then that would be different. It is so easy to do what you have been doing, please hold off till I am done. Its just like you intend to irritate. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you mixed me up with someone else? I've not touched the template as you've asked, so no idea why you've left the stroppy message. Surely adding an info box to Austin 15 hp isn't a problem?! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not unless their name is Warren Whyte. I don't think there is anything wrong with your edits (or anything right) it is simply irritating unless you were to advance the article by actually adding something useful. How about I tell you when I've done my dash on Austins before 1915 and then you have a go? Eddaido (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 
 * 


 * Same content, just a bit of formatting and adding a wikilink to two, and a reminder that this was the British Austin... You really need to remind yourself that WP is a collaborative project, and my apologies for irritating you! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, likewise I'm sure. There is form, see Daimler above. And now for a bit of collaborative communication. I've gone quiet on the 25-30 because: a the design (not necessarily exact design) seems to have been kept through to 1915 in various bores to give various sizes of engine and b. I felt unsure I was accurately interpreting the source and c. I heard whisper of a reliable modern source and got to talk to it and last of all the new source's written opinion is on its way and other things permitting I should be able to get back onto the 25-30 towards the end of the month with renewed confidence. I was first distracted by Harvey du Cros junior who I have previously "met". It also happens that more than half a century ago I spent quite a lot of time working for Dunlop and literally met some of the younger people that feature in the WP article and I found the Dunlop early history was inaccurately presented. Its now less inaccurate and I have Harvey du Cros junior firmly pinned down. He was first Austin "main dealer" (?) Clement-Gladiator man and British agent for Mercedes and in business in quite a big way for himself as well as watcher over his father's investments (as in Austin, that's Dad). Anyway it gives you more time for research too doesn't it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)