This is an archive of past discussions with User:DeFacto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003
I have unblocked this account per a successful appeal at WP:AN. You are unbanned per WP:Standard offer and WP:ROPE. Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block. You are indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages. You may add measurements to articles you create in compliance with the WP:MOS. You are on a 1RR restriction on all areas of Wikipedia. The 1RR restriction absolutely applies to articles you create. You are also indefinitely restricted to 1 account and may not edit while logged out. Each individual restriction may be appealed independently after 1 full year.--v/r - TP07:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beaulieu Palace House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaulieu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Not sure about that. That kind of assumes the petition votes were made by Remainers, rather than a possible but eternally indeterminate mix of Sour Grapes Remainers, Begretters and those who didn't ever vote because they were not registered, never received their postal ballot, were too young, were not available to vote, etc., etc? We will never know, of course. But I just thought my suggestion of more than three times the margin of votes by which the referendum was decided was more neutral. I suppose, at the end of the day, it's just a certain ratio. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me. Sometimes I think many if not most WP editors would now start a fight by saying: well, it is not in the BMM in the photo. Is it? Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I just thought that as all that has changed since the photo was taken is that the museum has been renamed (the same car is still in the same place by the same stairs) that it would make sense to reflect the current name. -- de Facto (talk). 20:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006
Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skye Museum of Island Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilmuir. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Nice photo. "I may be old-fashioned but . . . " it upsets me enough to write to you like this to see a 1969 MGB in its native land described as a "roadster". How old-fashioned do you think I am? Eddaido (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm old-fashioned enough too to prefer British/English terminology over American where they differ, but for this I went by the convention used in the MG MGB article to distinguish it from the GT, and by the Commons category name. But, as ever, feel free to correct me if you feel strongly enough. I'll even rename the image file if you think an alternative name is more appropriate. ;) -- de Facto (talk). 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I think they were called just sports cars. Is that right? And the closed version a GT? I take your point about in the article but wonder if it (the article) should stay like that. What I would really like to do under your photograph is simply leave it as MGB and delete "roadster" but I've done with my whinging, thank you, and will leave any amendment to you as the originator. Hmmm, maybe North Americans bought enough of them to have paid for a (small) voice in the matter. ;) Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Hi Mduvekot, thanks for the message, but none of the current content of that article was written by me. I created the article in July 2008 as a "redirect" to Lotus Evora, which was developed under the project name Project Eagle. The original redirect was replaced by the current article in one edit by User:Spacenerd1 yesterday. Rather than delete the article, can you revert it back to the original redirect? -- de Facto (talk). 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto. This datum was stated twice, so I removed the first section, and added the full citation to the second. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Kablammo. Probably best to state stuff like that in the edit summary to help others understand your train of thought! Thanks for the quick response. I self-reverted back to your version. :) -- de Facto (talk). 19:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this edit to remove unnecessary "Limited" also had an odd effect in adding unintended "limi" text in the infobox. I've fixed it now. Possibly text intended for your web browser's "search" box ended up in the article text instead. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about this, I hadn't spotted your edit after those made by the ip, but have fixed it now so hopefully we're working with the right version. This is Paul (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
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 "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. AusLondonder (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If it's not clear for you, read this arrticle on which the list is based : Terrorism. You're at least the third user doing this, this is quite upsetting. If you disagree with the editors' consensus on this article, please go to the talk page. Givibidou (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Cheers for fixing articles related to The London Taxi Company
Hi. Thanks for doing those re-directs! That was next on my list for fixing after getting the TX5 article sorted. The series of articles needs a bit of a fix up. Master Of Ninja (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, there are still some "adjustments" that need doing. MBH was originally bigger than just Carbodies, and Carbodies continued "business as usual", albeit with a couple of name changes, after becoming a subsidiary of MBH, so I think all the taxi stuff belongs in the Carbodies article and just the outline of MBH's activities in the MBH article. That might mean renaming Carbodies to LTI or The London Taxi Company, or whatever - but we can discuss that later. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I note that according to WP, "You are indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia". A quick check indicates this ban is still in effect. I have therefore reverted your edit on "History of the metric system". If you again edit the article, you may be indefinitely WP:blocked from editing. This is the only warning you will receive. Sbalfour (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again concerning your changes to the actual ownership of the brands/trademarks/company/corporate shell that manufactures and markets Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) vehicles. Please do not remove citations that describe the ownership of JLR. The owner/controlling entity/parent is Tata Motors. This fact may be perhaps still be controversial for purists of these 'British' brands. Nevertheless, the articles about JRL and these brands must be based on actual facts. Unless you have citations that prove otherwise, the following additional references that will be added into the articles.
"Tata Motors-Owned Jaguar Land Rover Is Now UK's Largest Carmaker". NDTV CarAndBike. 22 January 2016. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has witnessed a dramatic turnaround in its fortunes ever since it was taken over by Tata Motors over 7 years ago
"Jaguar Land Rover Is Looking to Buy a Luxury Brand". Bloomberg. 25 September 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Jaguar Land Rover, the luxury unit of Tata Motors Ltd., is scouting for acquisitions of international automakers amid rising competition in the industry, people with knowledge of the matter said.
"Jaguar Land Rover Corporate Website". jaguarlandrover.com. Retrieved 23 January 2018. NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE OFFICIAL JLR WEBSITE IS THE FOLLOWING: Jaguar Land Rover is part of Tata Motors
Thank-you for your post. I completely agree that "the articles about JRL and these brands must be based on actual facts", in fact the clarification of the facts has been the main purpose of my recent edits. Sure it is obvious who the owner of the JLR group is - and that should be clear and prominent in the article about the group. It also follows logically that the group's owner therefore indirectly owns each and every of the individual assets of each of the group's subsidiary companies, and of their respective subsidiaries.
However, in the subsidiary and more parochial articles about specific assets, it is also our duty (see WP:NPOV) to be clear and neutral about which subsidiary is the direct owner of that asset. And clearly under our obligation to WP:V we need to be able to provide reliable sources for everything we add. We should, of course, also be aware of due weight and citation overkill.
Of course readers interested in the ownership hierarchy always have the option of clicking the links to the successive parent organisations if they want to know that, for example, the Jaguar marque is owned by Jaguar Land Rover, which is a subsidiary of Jaguar Land Rover PLC, which is a subsidiary of Tata Motors, which is a subsidiary of Tata Group, which is owned by Tata Sons. Or (I hope not) are you suggesting that each article about each of the assets, British or otherwise, ultimately owned by Tata Sons should be re-written to eliminate details of each of the intervening subsidiary layers and everthing attributed soley to Tata Sons? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but you removed many important sections from the page such as hospitals, streets and monuments by trying to remove the flag icons. Please, try to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaAscot (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@BrendaAscot: sorry but I can't see anything missing - hospitals, roads & monuments are still there as far as I can see. Please explain exactly what is missing. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry! There was some sort of delay by Wikipedia in updating the page after it was last edited by me. It's all right now! Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaAscot (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: so whu did you change more than just removing the as yet uncertain dates? Now I know your reasoning I've restored the agreed wording with just the dates commented out for now.
You know we could have avoided this loop if you had added an edit summary to your original, and even subsequent, edit. Please read WP:FIES (It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.) and always add edit summaries to each of your edits to avoid wasting time like this. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Links from country names in Left-_and right-hand traffic
@Cornellier: I've linked all the geographical places that had flags, but haven't made the decision as to which to not link re WP:OVERLINK or checked the linked articles for for DAB problems. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Not going to edit war, as I don't care that much, but at least five people were poisoned (the Skripals, the ill policeman, and two others with minor injuries). The FBI define a mass murder as a murder of four or more people. Fish+Karate14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: this is a British English article though, and the Oxford Dictionaries define mass as a large number. I think you'll need reliable UK sources using the term "mass poisoning" and something added to the prose setting the context before that category would be appropriate. Also, I think this discussion should be on the article talkpage rather than here. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Erm, you're edit warring over this! Trout. As your removal is contested, you should not remove it again per BRD. Further, as you do not agree with the other two of us, you should seek wider consensus before you remove it again going against this rough consensus. As I don't care (and it's borderline "mass") prima facie, but with obvious, clear "hundreds" may (suiting any geographically nuanced definition of the term), I expect you to come to you senses and I will leave alone! ps trout. Widefox; talk20:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I've changed my mind, you're right about the cat. I'd like to take the fish back, or give them to Fish and karate. Widefox; talk08:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Because I think it is superfluous and ugly. Why not A Morris . . . Why the United Kingdom but not The France (or for that matter) the Australia? See this oneEddaido (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for removing all the carefully referenced and collated information that I added to Vehicle Excise Duty. The content was fully and correctly cited, and was factual, not POV as you incorrectly asserted. Your content removal was not an improvement and has reduced the article quality again. Cnbrb (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Speedy Question Mark: butchery? No, I added three infoboxes and split another - basically providing four missing infoboxws (one for each incarnation of the constructor) and refining the original one to provide the appropriate information for an artilce covering the four different eras. If you want to discuss the content further please take it to the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you please take more care when making edits such as this? I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your use of the phrase "it would be" is not appropriate because the low modality of the word "would" implies that the race was scheduled to go ahead but has since been cancelled. It is not as bad as "it would have been" but I have noticed that the increasingly colloquial use of "it would be" is coming to mean the same thing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: it's a perfectly normal use of the word, and If you didn't keep making the same mistake of using the word "will" I wouldn't need to keep correcting them. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not a mistake on my part. I'm doing it deliberately because you keep using "would" incorrectly.
Secondly, it is not a "perfectly normal use of the word". It is grammatically incorrect. You are trying to change the language of the articles so that the certainty of the event becomes the certainty of the scheduling—but what you are actually doing is suggesting that the scheduling is uncertain.
Are you saying that when you initially set up the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix article, you deliberately used the word "will" a couple of times to try to provoke me into fixing it (in line with WP:CRYSTAL as I have done previously for other articles about future races) so that you could then challenge my use of English?
As I left it, it was effectively saying that if the race took place as expected it would be the fourth round of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. What's wrong with that?
No, I only did it deliberately after you changed the wording to something inappropriate for the article. I've pointed it out to you half a dozen times and you haven't made any effort to change, so it was time for a new tactic.
As I have explained to you, the modality of "would" is not appropriate for the article. Modality is the degree of certainty associated with a word. "Will" has high modality because it has a high degree of certainty. "Might", on the other hand, has low modality because of the potential something else happening. Your use of "would" has too low a modality for the article because it implies that something else is more likely to happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: the deliberate disruption you admitted to above and talk of "a new tactic" sounds like you don't know how to lose to me. Your "explanation" was ill-founded as it was trying to explain a case whiuch didn't exist, not the case that did. The use of "would" as in "the race is due to take place and would be the fourth round of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" does not imply that the race is unlikely to take place, but acknowledges that it happening is not an incontrovertible and absolute certainty. If you don't like my phrasing, please offer an alternative, rather than continually reusing the phrasing that you know to be unacceptable. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I do know how to lose. More importantly, I know language. It is quite literally my job to know language. Haven't you noticed how often I point out the technical elements of grammar in discussions? Or how when I do, those comments usually shape the final wording under discussion?
Now, you can continue to claim that this use of the word "would" is technically correct, but a) there are better ways of expressing the same idea without any of the drawbacks and b) I have multiple degrees in English literature, linguistics and semiotics. Do you really think I've got no idea what I am talking about? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: as you are such an expert, why do you keep reverting back to the unacceptable rather than using your expertise to rephrase it into something that fully complies and which is, in your view, gramatically correct? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: imagine for a moment that we are collaborating to make a good article: what phrasing would you offer that complies with the notion that dates are not definite until the event actually takes place (i.e. don't use the word "will")? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ironically enough, this. It works because it doesn't say that the race will certainly go ahead, but it does say that the race is certainly scheduled. It was this last point that your use of "would" is lacking. So you know the ideal wording for the situation is out there, which makes it such a mystery to me that you insist upon using an inferior wording despite its flaws having already been pointed out to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys:the bigger mystery is why you: a) initially wrote it with two "wills", and b) why each time I fixed it you changed it back to "will" - especially as your favoured version seems now to be my last attempt at a compromise after you changed it back to "will". Has it dawned on you now why it's not good practice to use "will" for future events? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it's not good practice. I'm equally aware that you stubbornly refuse to learn from your own mistakes. You will notice that I stopped changing the wording once you started using the most appropriate phrases. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You known the fact that you stubbornly keep using "will" event though you have known it's not acceptable for a long time and you are well aware of suitable alternatives since a long time due to previous occasions, you don't show much ability to learn from your mistakes yourself. As you admitted yourself in your first comment here, "would" is perfectly appropriate. It doesn't imply anything. "It would have been" is what implies cancellation. Anyway there are other alternatives, but the choice is just a question of taste.Tvx1 00:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: you say you repeatedly created, changed or reverted content to be unacceptable - knowingly and deliberately - because you knew that I would correct it in a way that you disapproved of, despite it being more Wiki-policy compliant and grammatically correct. Now that you have admitted to having been deliberately disruptive, I'd stop digging, if I were you. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
"you say you repeatedly created, changed or reverted content to be unacceptable [...] because you knew that I would correct it in a way that you disapproved of"
I didn't say that at all. I did not change it to antagonise you. I changed it because I have previously pointed out the issues with your edits and you made no effort to change your ways. So I made those edits in the hopes that, with enough repetition, you might learn ftom it.
"despite it being more Wiki-policy compliant and grammatically correct"
Your use of the word "would" was never grammatically correct.
"Now that you have admitted to having been deliberately disruptive, I'd stop digging, if I were you."
You can't claim the moral high ground here since you have deliberately and repeatedly ignored requests to make particular changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: if you know better, then correct it by all means, but please don't: a) write it incorrectly in the first place (as in the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix article, and keep reverting to the incorrect form rather than trying to fix after the error has been highlighted, b) be disruptive to try to teach other editors a lesson. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask that when someone makes a suggestion to you, that you at least acknowledge them and maybe even take their suggestions on board? I'm not asking you to make a radical change—just pointing out that there are other, better approaches to take. If you are arrogant enough to assume you have done nothing wrong and expect people will follow you around correcting your mistakes for you, then you have no right to go around lecturing other people on how to edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: if you think you've ever made a constructive edit suggestion on this subject, rather than repeatedly creating similarly bad content or reverting back my attempts to improve your additions with nonsensical comments, then please give a diff to it - and I don't mean taking credit for my recent change, made in a conciliatory attempt to stop your disruptive and unnecessary reversions, and which still stands. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It still stands because it's the best wording for the article not because I have my heart set on using "will". Why do you not understand this!? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: all I see in the first case is your disruptive reversion (you knew you were reverting to an unacceptable wording), and with a nonsensical and unconstructive comment - I don't see any constructive edit or suggestion thee. In the second case we see my subsequent attempt at a compromise wording. I don't think you can claim any credit there. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course you don't see anything, because that would mean admitting you were in the wrong. After all, you were clearly expecting that I would be unable to produce the evidence you wanted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I knew you wouldn't be able to support what you said as it wasn't an accurate reflection of what actually took place - and I was right - as you didn't. If what you produced was evidence of anything, it was evidence supporting what I have said all along. Let's stop this now, as you are convincing no-one and merely enhancing your reputation as one who doesn't know when to drop the stick. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Am I correct in guessing that you are living in Britain? Your edit history seems to suggest as much. If you are, I was hoping that you could please help me out with a bit of research for an article. This year's Rally GB features a heavily revised route by virtue of an act of parliament. For the first time in decades, the rally is able to include public roads and as the organisers have been able to put together the most exciting route in thirty years, I'm going to push to make the article GA (and ultimately FA).
My question is this: which act of parliament allowed motorsport to take place on public roads? Furthermore, which act did it repeal/replace, and why was that original act introduced? I'm a little confused because even though we use the Westminster system, I'm not sure which jurisdiction(s) would have to pass the legislation as the rally is based in Wales, but occasionally crosses over into England (although I think that has been dropped thus year). This would really help with the context of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi PM, I can help with some clues, perhaps... As I understand it, the primary legislation covering public road use and regulation in Great Britain (the United Kingdom minus Northern Ireland) is the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA). As enacted, section 12 of that act prohibited motor racing on public roads. In 2015 the UK government introduced a law designed to lighten the regulatory burden across all walks of life, the Deregulation Act 2015, which included amendments to the RTA section 12 which now allows for secondary legislation to authorise motorsport on public roads to be enacted (explained by the MSAhere). The power to enact that secondary legislation had already been devolved to the separate local legislatures for England, Scotland and Wales.
England was first to benefit from the law change when, in 2017, with the enactment of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Motor Racing) (England) Regulations 2017, it became possible there to get permission to close for public roads to be used for motor racing events. Then in 2018 the Welsh Assembly passed a similar measure for the roads in Wales - the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Motor Racing) (Wales) Regulations 2018, which came into effect on 2 February 2018.
All the current UK legislation is available online if you fancy doing a bit of OR, but I think most of the important detail was covered in the UK motorsport press and on the MSA website anyway (e.g. Autosport, MSA).
Thanks, DeFacto. It's not quite what I was hoping for, but that's not on you—you've really helped me out there. The issue has more to do with the policy-making than anything else; I might have to go for general details rather than specific ones.
The MSA article helps a lot; it's too easy to rely on Autosport, Speedcafe (which really just re-posts Autosport articles for international events) and wrc.com. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Githek:Mini is a car marque that BMW now own and use on vehicles produced in their factories, including in the one that they own in the UK which operates as BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited. There is no company called Mini, and there never has been. It is a marque that was created by British Leyland in 1969 to rationalise all the Mini models that they had inherited from BMC under. It then passed to Rover Group and subsequently to BMW. Hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Although BMW owned Rover Group, the legal registration of the Mini marque wasn't transferred to them until they split it up in 2000. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Climax CR1
Thank you so much for your images! I'm surprised that you haven't uploaded them yet, seeing as these were dated 2011 and 2015.
The only images at the time I could use were my own which I took back in 2015. They weren't the best as I didn't have any intention of producing quality images and was using a iPhone 5.
I was always meaning of making this page to prevent this vehicle fading into obscurity. The old images I took in the showroom (Which is all demolished now and they're building a large flat complex) was the only time I could go there and was able to obtain a brochure of the car which I used as reference since any information of it was so scarce. To be honest I was quite lucky because after that day there was nobody at that place and simply left the car and dealership semi-abandoned for about 2 years.
I always wonder where the car is now. I went to the Coventry Transport Museum on my birthday this year but couldn't find it.
Hi Corvus tristis, It would have been a good idea to mention discussion involving these article on their respective talkpages too. However, I don't see a consensus at WT:F1 either, I just see an ongoing discussion about it. If I've missed something please let me know, otherwise (per WP:BRD) please revert back to the long-standing status quo, and wait until a new consensus emerges. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
But it has been already emerged through WP:EDITCONSENSUS, nobody objects the 2016-2019 tables format. It is a three-year status quo. If we really still have the consensus that tables should look like in 2014-2015, then I don't see any volunteers to implement the format in the 2016-2019 articles. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Corvus tristis:, that's not how it works. "Edit consensus" only applies to the article in which the edits were made. The articles in question here each have their own "edit consensus", which, up until your changes over recent days, included the sortable tables. That was the stable condition, the condition you should now accept and revert to until a new consensus is established. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Dispute resolution noticeboard
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Corvus tristis (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Daimler 250
@DeFacto: Hi DeFacto, a few days ago I made some edit on the Daimler 250 article page. One of the edit was replacing the infobox image to a more higher quality and standard picture. Eddaido disagreed and reverted the edits and we are trying to reach a consensus. Would you mind joining the discussion on the Talk:Daimler 250? --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Land rover
hi, how these new Range Rovers differs from old ones? what means badged`? Range Rover has always been "own" brand made by Land Rover, if you use Land Rover in infobox the actual page should be renamed also. -->Typ932T·C13:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Howdy. If you can get a consensus for adding W/S/E/NI nationalities & flags to the infoboxes of British bio racers, then indeed add the 'person code' to those infoboxes as well. Otherwise, don't bother adding it, as it serves 'no purpose' without W/S/E/NI. A basement is no good, without a house on top of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi GD, I'm not trying to get and have not sought a consensus for adding W/S/E/NI nationalities & flags to the infoboxes of British bio racers. All I have done is suggest a compromise solution in the dispute about adding the fact that Tom Pryce is Welsh to the person infobox which existed by consensus in his article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There already is a compromise at that & the other British racer bios. W/S/E/NI is in the prose of those articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm removing the ruls section because it is copied from a copyrighted source.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and pingme. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Sorry about that. There's a bug in the page curation tool that notifies the creator of the article in stead of the editor who made an edit that catches the attention of the reviewer. Vexations (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The reason I haven't created a new account is because I have been having a lot of problems with GeoJoe1000. About 18 months ago he went on an abusive rampage when results from a race weren't added to a championship article as quickly as he would have liked. I referred him to the admins, who permanently blocked him. GeoJoe has blamed me for it ever since. He periodically revisits my talk page even now, constantly posting messages about how it's all my fault. He's gone through dozens of socks and IP addresses to do it. If I create a new account, I have to disclose that it's me, which will just give him a new target to fixate on and he will spill over into the articles. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Per community consensus at this discussion, your 1RR restriction is lifted. I note in passing that you have two other restrictions logged at ER that have not been formally overturned; a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block." These are standard conditions for an unblock, but since they have not explicitly been appealed or removed, they remain in force. I mention it here only so that you do not violate it inadvertently (and if you desperately want to use an alternative account, you could appeal it, and I see no reason why your appeal should not be granted). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You have probably looked for sources for the other years' recipients, but if any other winners can be found and added to the page, that would be a great improvement.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.105.29 (talk • contribs) 2019-01-14T20:46:26 (UTC)
A favour
I've put a lot of work in to Elizabeth College (Guernsey) with the intention of it achieving good article status, particularly as there are very few GAs in the Education category about British schools, and I'd be grateful if you take some time to make some comments on the review page if you see any improvements that need to be made to improve the article.
This article has been something of a sandbox since I registered my account on Wikipedia, so although I've done my best to get the article up to scratch, there may be some artefacts and issues lingering from times where I knew less about manuals of style and general guidelines to writing articles. Thanks. Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I was grateful that you enlightened me. I know it's the opposite when similar things occur on the roads, there can be uproar, especially from the professionals, if the a-word rather than the i-word is used. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! An amazing and ever-mutating terminological/legal minefield ... the way the RTA language has changed, the way people (police, insurance companies, Prince Philip etc) need to be so careful what they say. Thanks for being so calm about it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi DeFacto, how's things? Regarding the RPUK article, I've been thinking things through and having a look for additional WP:GNG-compliant sources, and I just don't see them. Of the sources already provided on that page only one deals with RPUK as the primary topic, and it is just a news item saying that they bought FI, not any kind of significant, in depth analysis of the company. Of the remaining four, two give RPUK a one line namecheck in articles that otherwise talk about the racing team, and the other two don't even really do that. As things stand, there is nothing on that page that couldn't be covered by a single sentence added to the RPFI and RPF1 articles, so I really don't see what having the article adds here. The vast majority of the info is actually about the racing teams, not the legal holding company. Where do you see the article contributing over and above a mention that it is a legal instrument used by a few rich people to hold their ownership of a racing team? Pyrope22:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope, I created Racing Point UK as a parent article for both Racing Point Force India and Racing Point F1 Team. Those two team articles are not documenting two different entities, they are documenting two different eras of exactly the same entity. The single entity is a Formula One racing team operated by Racing Point UK; the two eras are the 2018 season for which their team was called "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team", and the 2019 season, and possibly beyond, for which they renamed their team to "Racing Point F1 Team".
The reason for a different article for each team name is, apparently, that WP:F1 decided that was necessary because the FIA treat each name as a different points-collecting unit. So it would appear disingenuous to duplicate details, that are 100% common to the team under either name, into the two separate articles as if we were discussing two different entities - as is currently the case with the almost identical history sections. This common and identical data is clearly suited to being in a parent article. (now reworked to move the common history to the parent article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC))
With respect to RS coverage; sure RSs may conflate the stories of the three different concepts (company, team name 1 and team name 2), but that isn't to say that anything not clearly specific to one or other of the separate team names, does not, as a matter of fact, relate to the single underlying company/team. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
InfodudeUK
My Brexit post is backed up with evidence it's basically a reword of the BBC post copyright free and outlines the possible processes remaining to get to a Brexit date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfodudeUK (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm a journalist for Wired UK magazine and I'm writing a piece about the Brexit Wikipedia page. I see that you've been a really active contributor to the entry and would love to talk to you about it. Are you up for being interviewed for the piece?
Sorry to say, but you're wasting your time trying to convince people that that spelling isn't dead (for the record, I agree with you that is isn't dead yet, having seen the spelling (it might have been gramme but whatever) in the Daily Mail not that long ago). Around a couple of years ago, there was a similar (but much more serious) incident over medieval/mediaeval, connection/connexion, and reflection/reflexion. A bunch of editors insisted that the latter spellings are archaic full stop end of story, and simply refused to listen to any argument otherwise (despite claims to the contrary, the chosen English variety of the article in question does permit those spellings). Some even suggested a topic ban simply for trying to point out that they're not dead. In fact, the incident in question was the reason that the When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred rule became an official rule in the first place! Adam9007 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, thanks for your advice. There was more support for it in the original discussion I joined on the convert template talkpage, but none of the supporters seemed to follow the discussion when it moved to the MOS talkpage, so I'm not going to pursue it any further there on my own, I think that would be futile. I do think it's sad though, that so many are prepared to see Wikipedia "culturally cleansed" in this way. I think cultural diversity is something that should be nurtured and preserved rather than ritually suppressed, as I think it is enriching. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia (I hope that spelling's allowed). Therefore all spellings must be "culture-neutral" . Seriously though, vocabulary I can understand, but spellings? And it's not just spellings of words; it's senses too. Many editors see using (at least now) less common spellings and senses (however valid) of certain words as trying to right great wrongs (which can lead to a block!). Absolutely ridiculous, but what can we do? Sweet Fanny Adams it seems . Adam9007 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Whenever I join a MOS discussion it is always with a sense of foreboding as I perceive them to often be managed in a mafia-like way by a cabal of political operators with nefarious ulterior motives and vested interests. They seem to have developed their own behavioural benchmarks and codes of conduct, and are ruthless in their treatment of the dissidents who object to having cultural diversity suppressed or who object to having third-party ideologies dogmatically rammed into Wikipedia guidelines. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The irony is that it is claimed that Wikipedia is not here to influence the way the English language is written, but enforcing one spelling over another equally valid one does exactly that; by insisting that we only use the more common spellings, we are ensuring that they remain the more common spellings. People do pick up habits from Wikipedia, and our Manual of Style only encourages that. If you use a less common spelling, you will likely be accused of using Wikipedia to influence the way the English language is written, even if the spelling is perfectly valid. It's totally hypocritical. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or journal, but it sure acts like one when it comes to spellings. Adam9007 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you noticed that an IP user has parachuted into the MOS discussion? They added a long list of "rebuttals" of my points as their second ever post to Wikipedia under that IP (and first since 2007), many, if not all, of which relied on logical fallacies (and which were "warmly welcomed" by a couple of the other contributors). Then in their second post to the discussion added a clipped and well out-of-context quote of part of this chit-chat between us, in an apparent attempt to discredit my contribution there. Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
added a clipped and well out-of-context quote of part of this chit-chat between us, in an apparent attempt to discredit my contribution there. There's plenty of that kind of thing (and worse) in the discussion I linked to. You're not the only one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions for MOS and AT
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi Izno, I'm not sure I understand what this means. I assume it's not intended to stifle opposition to proposals on talk pages, but I imagine that where there is a clique of supporters for a particular proposal, that there could easily be a call by them for these "discretionary sanctions" to be applied to anyone attempting to counter untrue, biased or otherwise fallacious arguments given. Are there any protections for "lone voices" acting in good faith or safeguards to prevent "mob rule" dictating an outcome? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It is to inform you that MOS and AT pages are under discretionary sanctions. That is all. You are welcome to review what a discretionary sanction is. --Izno (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: thanks, yes - I have read the guidance on discretionary sanctions. But I'm not sure I understand what this means in relation to, for example, a MOS discussion where a clique of editors, with a common agenda perhaps, support a proposal - but that proposal is opposed by a single editor who believes that the proposal is based on misinformation. Do you think it would be appropriate for the opposer to argue, in the face of the inevitable onslaught from those who have already made their minds up, that the supporting evidence was flawed? I'm asking you because the last sentence in that notice you served me with states: If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It would help if you cast such a discussion in an appropriate light; the continued use of terminology like 'inevitable onslaught' and 'misinformation' and 'common agenda' and 'clique' is one of the reasons I let you know that there are DS active in this area. It is battleground thinking and it does you no favors were it to be the case that an editor in such a discussion were to report your behavior for arbitration enforcement at the relevant noticeboard. If you, on the other hand, sincerely believe that you aren't getting through because indeed the other parties in such a discussion are dismissing you without reasoned consideration, and are doing so with bad faith intent and sentiment, then you could report such parties to that same noticeboard. Duly note, in either case, the reporter's behavior would be examined at that noticeboard. Does that answer your question? --Izno (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: thanks for your interpretation and reasoning on this. It has given me food for thought. I guess the message is to try to use language that is more diplomatic, and perhaps less frank. The whole framework seems very ambiguous though, and a bit of a minefield. Reading it like that though, I'm not sure either if "bullshit" is an appropriate noun to describe a contribution with, or if the use of a nationality in the etymology of an English word as a pejorative, or the use of out-of-context and clipped quotes from other talkpages to attempt to discredit contributions. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It is sometimes good to call a spade a spade, but diplomacy is still required; comment on content [argument], not contributor[(s)]. In general, if you're in a discussion and you're the only one among 10 or 20 who feel a certain way, odds are you're the one missing or ignoring some key fact(s) acting as the decider for the others. Wikipedia does have some issues with groupthink, but it's usually very hard to get Wikipedians to be unanimous, especially on subjects like style. --Izno (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read talk:Quart#Status of the quart in UK statute measure
Please read the text of the Act as I have given at talk:Quart#Status of the quart in UK statute measure. It is quite unambiguous. I acknowledge that I failed to read in sufficient detail the first time round but observe now that the quart was explicitly deleted from statute measure in October 1995. I invite you to self-revert, subject to giving the 1995 date rather than 1985. --Red King (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I suspect you have a watch on it anyway but just in case would have a look at the edit I made to the lead of pint. In the interests of ease of reading, I may have erred on accuracy but I can't see how to reword it without bogged down in legalese. Although reusable pint bottles have virtually disappeared, it is quite credible that they will return (though not the daily milk round), so it needs to be right. --Red King (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. With plastic waste having received bad press recently, demand for milk in reusable glass bottles is apparently increasing and doorstep delivery is still available and used by those who want it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't expect that response! :-)
After giving it a few hours and rereading, I decided that it wasn't actually ok. This is because, through yet more sloppy punctuation, I made it look like pint bottles are mandatory, but they aren't. They are just exempted from having to state the metric volume. So I have changed it again, if you wanted another look. Red King (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
"Scornful"??? Where did that come from? I wrote 'the general except for the particular', you changed it to 'the particular then the general'. You really do need to explain that edit, please. Red King (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I just think in an article about the pint, it should be the focus, and we should be saying what it is rather than what it isn't, and trying to avoid speaking disparagingly of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Moray Motor Museum, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
@Ohconfucius: can you can tell me the reason you disagree? It seems misleading to use a name for their online work that differs from the one the publishers use themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I refer you to The Daily Telegraph. You'll notice that it's a disambiguation page. From it, you can see that there's no monopoly over the name "Telegraph"; what's more, there doesn't seem to be common ownership across the globe. The switchover to new media is a marketing opportunity, and may result in permanent name changes, where for example the "daily" nature of the Daily Telegraph in the online world becomes increasingly meaningless. The coexistence of the print and online versions is likely to be over a very short period, and that changeover arguable hasn't yet been fully recognised in our world. -- Ohc ¡digame!11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not convinced that that is a good reason to refer to the online work by the wrong name in cites. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi DeFacto, could you have a look at my edits today to Imperial units, no doubt they can be improved. I got there from corn laws, where the reference to a price cap of "80/- a quarter" for grain is for quarter defined as eight bushels – each of about 28lb according to the US(!) definition of a bushel that I've copied here. Maybe change it to say "the quarter has had other definitions historically" (and so report only the statutory definition)? but the text at quarter (unit) would need work. See also talk:Imperial units#Quarter where an anon reproduces a bunch of alternative definitions from a dictionary source. --Red King (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello –– I see you're questioning my removal of content. Fair; the articles are all EU-related and are being updated given that it's the last day of the UK's membership of the EU. I will revert your reverts in 2 hours... but it's a really a waste of time reverting my edits. st170e21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@St170e: you should (but only after Brexit has happened) perhaps, try to edit the content to preserve the history, rather than simply removing all content related to the UK. The driving licence for instance, is still valid until the end of 2020 - during the transition period. Please try not to make more work for other volunteers later, in your desire to expunge material. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The section you wanted removed last April started causing technical problems with the page. For that reason and others, I removed it. See my note on the talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Death of Andrew Harper. A total oversight on my part (I had considered/invoked WP:SUSPECT for the individual arrested and later released without charge, even though their identity was widely reported) so I have WP:REVDELd the revisions that contained the name of the individual. Thanks again for flagging this. MIDI (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: please provide diffs for the edits you are referring to, and a full rationale for your choice of the terms "disruptive", "unconstructive" and "vandalism". Thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! The consensus is that this page uses Oxford British English, which means most words ending with 'ise' in British English will actually use the American-style 'ize' spelling. With that in mind I will be reverting a couple of your recent edits. Cheers. -- Pingumeister(talk)13:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The reason I reverted your edits to Metrication opposition are precisely as given in the edit summary: reverted edits by topic-banned editor. You are subject to a permanent topic ban on anything to do with units. I will now revert your reversion again. If you disagree, let's take it to WP:ANI. I have no intention of repeating the hours of silly debate we had over statute measure. --Red King (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Red King: and what did you mean when you wrote: "I have no intention of repeating the hours of silly debate we had over statute measure"? You started that discussion with a false perception of what one was, and I patiently explained it, and spend hours digging out sources to show you, before you finally cottoned-on. In fact, you put it quite well in your last contribution to that discussion where you said: "Spot on. The debate was not fruitless after all!" -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I stand corrected on your expired topic ban and withdraw. I did not see it and am astonished by that outcome: I had always believed that to deploy sock puppets an unpardonable offence. To allow you back with a topic ban seemed extraordinarily generous: it never occurred to me that a further appeal would even arise, let alone be given. Were I in your position, I would have unwatched the topics that got me into trouble, to avoid being drawn back into the maelstrom. Then to see you actually contribute to a debate on lifting community sanctions, denouncing others for your own offence, was really just too much to stomach.
I don't have your tenacity and accepted a resolution to the Statute Measure debate which, despite my continued opinion that it is a nonsense, considered it tolerable enough to accept and walk away. I suggest that we do so again now. There is no value in continuing this discussion. --Red King (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Red King: BTW, can you give the link please to the debate you were referring to when you said: "Then to see you actually contribute to a debate on lifting community sanctions, denouncing others for your own offence, was really just too much to stomach." -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
UK COVID-19 Stats: All Settings?
Here, you said: "The "all settings" figures are now available from 2 March, so the new figures should be included from then. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)"
What do you mean by All Settings? If you can share a source with me, I'll make sure the numbers are added from March 2. --Spaastm (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for my inconvenient post at the UK talkpage (which I've since struck out). Felt you were being bullied there & tried to help, apparently in a misguided way :( GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I've read the thread again; there was consensus and User:John Jones was in the process of getting the agreed format of Keys on the 3 maps.
Jxseph14 on 23:03, 17 May 2020 said, ' I like the multi-maps set up', Archon 2488 on 00:29, 18 May 2020 said 'I also believe these maps add value to the article', DeFacto on 13:20, 18 May 2020, you said,'I agree with the "intuitive" range idea.' of having the same Key on each of the 3 maps and again on 15:41 said: '@John Jones: so far, so goodish...' So all 5 editors had come to an agreement, a consensus that the 3 maps was the way forward. What you did next was to attempt to sabotage that agreement by changing the UK map, and discounting the other 3 country maps. Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cell Danwydd: more bollocks, I did not change any map. It is time for proof (a diff of me changing it would be conclusive, and very easy if I had changed a map) or withdrawl. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Worse than that, you asked another user to change the Infobox map, although there was an agreement in place. I've already given the diff to that diff. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted one of the reversions you made to this page. It's a minor thing but since the sentence reads 'Boris Johnson in reply wrote []... misled not mislead is the correct form of the verb. I'm happy to accept your view regarding the undue weight of the editorial comment. Adh (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I have mentioned your 4 reverts in 24 hours on Edward Colstonhere. Since you were not forewarned about edit-warring this is nothing to worry about really, however I think you should cut it out. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
That was an unnecessary and unjust addition to WP:AN3 I'd say, especially as one of the four diffs you gave wasn't a revert, and you didn't give the mandatory caution that you were counting anyway. Why can't you work collegially rather than confrontationally? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
@El C: a bit harsh, I think. No prior warning, and only three of the four reported diffs could be considered to be reverts. Ho hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's the end of the world if you focus on article talk page discussion instead of continuing to revert. You can make proposals via edit requests. El_C21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: and now it appears, despite me not quibbling, that you have now unblocked me early. Why didn't you add a note of explanation here and give a better summary in the unblock log entry, especially as the block broke my five-plus-year clear run without a negative block action? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No quibbling, you say? If I thought further explanation was needed I would have added one. Since you were already updated about the levels of drama brought by the partial block on my talk page, I thought the unblock note sufficed. What explanation were you expecting? I still stand by the block. That has not changed. You were edit warring, you got reported for edit warring, you were blocked for edit warring. And what do you mean "negative" block action? Is there a different kind of block action? Jeez. El_C10:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: please don't sound impatient with me when I seek clarification. Yes, no quibbles about this block, I took it on the chin, I made no request for an unblock. But, of course I put my side on your talkpage in response to you saying there that I had a "problematic history of edit warring" - I thought that was an unnecessary affront, given that I had only ever been held to account four times in four years for that, and the last time that happened was more than eight years ago!
The 'unblock note' didn't ping me and I wasn't reading your talkpage. Do you really need me to explain why I think you should have dropped a note here, and given a fuller reason in the 'unblock note'?
@El C: well I was rather expecting a gracious explanation of the unprovoked (by me, at least) change of mind on the block, with any relevant diffs included.
Here's another Churchill quote to inspire you: "To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day." ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
DeFacto, I think I've reached my Churchill quotations threshold for the week. Anyway, the partial block was lifted from the fully-protected page in the spirit of deescalation with SashiRolls. It was applied to you, also, to be even-handed, but actually had little to do with you since you were not actually appealing the block. El_C13:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: thanks. It sounds like the moral of that story is that if one kicks up a stink about how unjust an unjust block is, rather than just grinning and bearing it, there will be rewards. To be honest, that does not match my experience, quite the contrary actually. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
DeFacto, the right of appeal is sacred on Wikipedia. You just opted not to avail yourself of it. Which I took as a sign of proportion and perspective. El_C13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 Reading stabbing
Thanks for your levelheadedness at 2020 Reading stabbing and the talk page. I've been around here long enough to have edited many of these sorts of articles (the 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt and Cumbria shootings both spring to mind) and very little is different now—news sources rush to fill out their stories, knowing that clarifications and corrections can be made later. It's easy to follow that mentality here, and some may forget WP:NOTNEWS. Your two first subsections of the talk page demonstrate this perfectly—they both start with the word 'wait'. Thanks for your diligence. MIDI (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@MIDI: thanks for your support on this. The rush to sensationalise these types of story and the tendency to often misrepresent and exaggerate the sources always leaves me disheartened. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Utility roadster v Buggy
I like the "utility roadster" term for these sorts of cars - it is definitely not that common a term, I agree. Buggy, however, also seems a bit off - it implies kit car and off-road ability. The Italians call this bodystyle a torpedo (archaic in English: Torpedo (car)), a name they also apply to the Jeep Wrangler etc. I like that the best but I do not have the power to create new usage. I guess buggy will do for the Mini Moke, but the world really needs a better term to describe this bodystyle. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Love that Healey. I know, I just feel that neither is perfect. Torpedo is my favorite but I don't know if I am authorized to add words to the lexicon. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi DeFacto. In this edit you dismissed the UK Department of Trade and Industry as an "Unreliable source - single-issue pressure group". Considering that it was the arm of government charged with overseeing metrication I think this is a little harsh. With due deference to your status and length of service I'll not revert it, but perhaps you would care to consider the edit again? Regards Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: I see what I did wrong now. I saw 'ukma.org.uk' in the urls, which is an unreliable source, as it's a single-issue pressure group, and carelessly didn't notice that they were hosting copies of Department of Trade and Industry documents. Thanks for giving me the heads-up on that! -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I've had a look at the UKMA site and had a chuckle. The first page I looked at claimed most road signs didn't show a distance, then illustrated it with a 300ˣ marker! Quite a few other glaring inaccuracies and POVs. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Murder of Matiu Ratana, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This redirect does not mention or identify any person who's been accused of any crime. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
But neither the redirect nor its target name the suspect. Wouldn't any libel be committed only by sites that do name the suspect? (If you still disagree with me, I'm okay if you retag it to get another admin's opinion.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn, we don't need to give the name - it's in the news media and in some of the article's references. So calling the incident a murder is as good as calling the suspect a murderer, which contravenes WP:BLPCRIME. The name of the redirect is not supported and cannot be supported. Is there a better SD category that you know of to cover this particular scenario? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that this would have to go through RfD (though again, since you seem quite concerned about this, I'm fine with you getting another admin to look at it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It seems a real shame that two users have imposed their will on the List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain page, insisting that this RfC: Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria applies to ALL pages that list terrorist events. I'm really not convinced this should be the case. I've had to delete dozens of clearly valid terrorist attacks on the page because they don't strictly adhere to the rules that every entry must 'be notable (have its own article' and be stated as terrorism by a consensus of reliable sources. Huge amounts of obvious terrorist attacks on the page, i.e. by the IRA, don't fulfil this bizarre criteria, despite obviously belonging on the page. It's really sad and means that a huge amount of that article has been desecrated. You might remember that the applicability of the RfC to the List of terrorist incidents in London article was debated here: talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Suffragettes. I really don't think that the criteria for the List of terrorist incidents page should be the same as more detailed lists of terrorist incidents in more specific locations. I'm not actually convinced that it is clear that the List of terrorist incidents criteria should apply to these articles at all, it's not been clarified or settled at all, as users have noted that the criteria applies to list of terrorist actions by year, not by location. What do you think of these bizarre rules? Delayed Laugh (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
That seems a rather trifling distinction to make since the field name is only visible in wikitext.
Of course, I have long thought that the "newspaper" or "work" field in {{cite news}} should be renamed "outlet" (I prefer using that template for dynamic web content that is constantly updated; {{cite web}} is IMO better for static web content). Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Case, the BBC News website isn't a newspaper and to mark it as such in the wikitext doesn't make sense to me. Although there is currently no visible difference between the way 'work' and 'newspaper' are rendered, that does not mean that the metadata will not be useful for other purposes. I think we should select the parameter which most closely reflects the nature of the work we are citing. I agree that wrt websites, 'cite news' should be used for the more dynamic newsy type content and that 'cite web' is more appropriate for stable content. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the original idea was that it could be used to cite offline newspapers. Giving the parameter that name seems rather limited, though, especially given that it's called "cite news" (Cf. {{cite magazine}}, which is really more useful to cite the hard copy, although it can just as easily accommodate an online citation). Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Case, to be honest, the citation templates are confusing, inconsistent and unsustainable. It seems crazy that a cite has to be re-typed for each article that it is used in, and that it will likely be entered in a different way each time. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:DeFacto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
