User talk:Jaredclce

Welcome!

Hello, Jaredclce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Reify-tech (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Aston Martin page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving/splitting Porsche

Hello. I have reverted your attempt to turn Porsche into a redirect, both because you're trying to do a "cut and paste move", which is not allowed since you will then lose the page history, and because there's a discussion underway on Talk:Porsche (disambiguation), with currently more people opposing than supporting. So stop what you're doing. Thomas.W ^talk 16:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a general consensus achieved, with only one opposition. Jaredclce (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no consensus for it. It's only been going on for two days, and a discussion like that needs a week, before "counting". And you're still not allowed to do a cut-and-paste move like that. Thomas.W ^talk 16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, that was for the concept of moving Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche, as suggested due to one user's insistence on the matter. Since that is not happening (see the oppositions), I'd suggest you refer to the Porsche talk page and see the discussion there, as that discussion is relevant to what I did, and a general consensus was achieved. I apologize for my cut and paste move. Jaredclce (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are opposing moving Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche -- not the splitting of the Porsche article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG! As I said in my last post, see the Porsche Talk page, as that is where the matter is being discussed! The matter on the disambiguation page is completely different! Jaredclce (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for double responding, I just wanted to highlight a couple of main points, as the article on the disambiguation page is irrelevant. Only the article on the talk page for Porsche is relevant to what I did, and there was a general consensus there. Jaredclce (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What you need to do is ask an administrator (preferably one who has been involved in the discussions) for help in doing it. If you're splitting the article the best way to do it is to rename/move Porsche to Porsche AG, since I assume that's where most of the content of the article is heading, and then create a new Porsche SE, followed by moving whatever is headed that way from the old to the new article. That way you keep the page history, which must be kept for legal reasons (which is why cut and paste moves aren't allowed). But you can't do that yourself, especially now that you've already created a new article named "Porsche AG", the moves must be done by an administrator. Thomas.W ^talk 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work if I took what I put on Porsche AG and put it back on Porsche, and redirect Porsche AG there again? I mean it achieves the same result essentially, while (I believe) keeping the page history for Porsche. Jaredclce (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Porsche AG, Porsche SE, etc all already existed, if that makes any difference. Jaredclce (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't solve the main problem, which is that you can't rename/move Porsche to Porsche AG since that name is already taken. The current "Porsche AG" must be deleted first, and that can only be done by an admin, so no matter how you do it you need the assistance of an admin. So put it all on hold until you've located an admin who's willing to do it, then explain what you've done and what you wanted to achieve to him/her and let the admin fix it. Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FCA

You wrote, "FCA isn't controlled by Exor (that would require >50% share), but rather they are the largest shareholder".

This is a misconception of how companies are controlled. Control isn't necessarily by percentage owned; this is an overly simplistic view. Control ultimately comes down to voting rights. In the case of FCA, Exor has the vast majority of the voting rights. With respect to Exor, it is also how they control CNH, and will control a spun-off Ferrari. All of this gets written into the companies by-laws... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.21 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but their voting rights are still less than 50%...46.6% to be exact, as of the latest data (see here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/exor-fiat-idUSL6N0S50UL20141010). So they have the majority in comparison to any other stockholding entity in FCA, but they still do not having voting power as a "majority" (>50% voting power), which makes what I said continue to be valid (that they do not control FCA), with the exception that instead of the word "share," I meant to write "voting power," and they continue to be the largest shareholder and have the largest controlling stake by voting power, but not a majority... Jaredclce (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche split anniversary

I just realized it's been exactly one year since we split up the Porsche articles. Surprisingly, there has been absolutely no opposition to the splits other than Yiba's initial complaint, and no apparent confusion about what the articles are about either. It's good to see that all our hard work over a 6-month period was not in vain. Thanks again for you help and support during the long discussions. I hope things are well with you. - BilCat (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that there was no opposition just a couple of days ago as well. I had completely forgotten about it until I saw it then when I pulled up the page, I thought somebody would try to revert the edit and try to undo what we had done. It's almost incredible that nobody did! Excellent work, job well done to both of us! Thank you for your help too, and I hope that you are well as well. Jaredclce (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]