Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 13 March 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition of base locations

Hi there, I've seen you add the locations of each teams base to the 2011 Formula One season article. As this was a fairly major addition to the table, I started a discussion on the talk page here, where you're welcome to explain your reasoning on the addition. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The content of Speed limit enforcement

Because I really think some other opinions are needed, I have raised thi matter at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Speed limit enforcement HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. -- de Facto (talk). 09:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand. Maybe it's cultural differences. But what the hell was wrong with the title? The issue IS YOUR ADDITIONS!!!!! No-one else has made any lately. Do you go out of your way to act strangely?HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue is your deletions. Please try to avoid the unnecessary personalised comments. -- de Facto (talk). 10:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor fields in Infobox racing car

Hi DeFacto. FYI, I have started a discussion at WP:F1 about the preferred format for the Predecessor and Successor fields you added to {{Infobox racing car}}. DH85868993 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi DH85868993, thanks for letting me know. -- de Facto (talk). 06:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ASDA

Hi DeFacto,

I am getting rather tired of your obstructionism regarding the ASDA survey and if you continue in your present mode, I shall have no option but to go to the WP:ANI. I have undone your reversion. urther discussion is in the article space. Martinvl (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I reject your threat as in bad-faith and intimitatory. As you know, that section is currently subject to discussion on the article's talk page, and you made an inflammatory edit to the section whilst those discussions are still in progress, wiping out much of the content that was the subject of the discussion, and introduced new OR, a non-neutral tone and some dubious sources. I reverted your edit and explained the reasons on the talk page. Please concentrate on the discussion and attempting to reach consensus there (we were getting closer) - rather than unilaterly on pushing your personal POV into the article, and please do not incite an edit war. -- de Facto (talk). 09:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl's edit is an excellent compromise. The only new material being posted in the discussion is crap from you about my points all being refuted. How that is "getting closer" to consensus is beyond me. Move forward on this, please. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

An excellent compromise? It replaced RS comment with OR non-NPOV comment. Perhaps your praise of that reflects your prejudices and hence, mybe, the underlying problem here. As each of your irrational objections were being trashed, we are (were) moving closer to a consensus. The way forward is by discussion - not by edit warring and intimidation. -- de Facto (talk). 10:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read my last comment at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom. Martinvl (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving my post

Posts in Misplaced Pages don't have to be in chronological order. Better that they be placed to make logical sense.

A read of my post where I have put it shows that it is a direct response to the one immediately above it. There's a time gap because it's been night time here. I've been asleep. Please don't move it again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The position you put your post in is logically wrong. Your post was a reply to the same post that an earlier post was also a reply to; why do you think your reply should jump the queue and be above the earlier one? Your post should follow the earlier reply (and subsequent replies to that reply) as stated in Misplaced Pages:Indentation. Sticking to the convention ensures threads are more readable. I note that you also deleted my reply to your post. -- de Facto (talk). 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can put MY post wherever I bloody well like, so long as it doesn't interfere with others, which is exactly what you are doing to mine. I know I have more experience in life, more common sense, and more understanding of Misplaced Pages conventions than many here, and sometimes I do have to be patient with those less capable, but you really take the cake. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It did interfere with others. Mine was also a reply to that post, and I made it first. Yours should follow it - or do believe that stuff you post takes precedence over stuff I post? -- de Facto (talk). 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of indentation. I was responding to someone else's post, not yours. I have very little interest in your posts. They are generally nonsense. You MUST let other editors decide how they want THEIR posts to appear. Take it to arbitration if you like. Smeone may look at the rest of the garbage you post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said it was a matter of indentation? Have you read that article? It describes a logical layout strategy for threaded discussions such as the one in Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom was before your recent corruption of it. -- de Facto (talk). 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Communicating with you is impossible. You do not think logically. You equate an absence of posts from me as a concession that I am wrong, rather than an attempt on my part to ease back on a conversation going nowhere. It's not worth trying to get you to understand. Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How about explaining why you think that your reply to a post should be rammed into the discussion ahead of my reply to the same post. I assume you do have an explanation. -- de Facto (talk). 06:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Milepost and kilometre

I am not going to repsond to your responses in these two articles - I am merely going to ask you to tone down your anti-metric crusade. Not only have you have over-stepped the mark on a few occasions, but I have categoric proof that you have been WP:HOUNDing me. If you do not calm down, you will leave me with no option but to report your on-going disruptive actions on the ANI noticeboard. I beleive that this has happened to you in the past. Martinvl (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding? Following the links to driver location signs I came across some examples of blatant misrepresentation of what they are and the the significance that they represent. My only 'crusade' is the one in pursuance of accuracy and verifiability. Your actions, accusations and threats are unnacceptable. Justify your edits to these DLS related articles please, or restore mine, and stop this aggressive behaviour. -- de Facto (talk). 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As the talk page shows, User:DeFacto has a long history of disruptive editing, POV-pushing and so on. Rather than accuse others, you might want to reconsider your own approach to editing. JQ (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitir, a disgraceful misresresentation. You could equally have said that it shows what some editors will resort to when their prejudices and POV-pushing activities are challenged. Mud may stick, which is why some throw it. The throwing of it can say more about the thrower than the target though. -- de Facto (talk). 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Formula 1 season

I've un-reverted your edits to the 2011 season page. Link to season races do not need to be included in the calendar table - the appear elsewhere on the page, most notably in the season report and in the results and standings tables. Compare that to all the other season pages, which do not link to race reports in the calendar table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've copied this message to Talk:2011 Formula One season#Reversion of links to season's GPs, and will respond to it there. -- de Facto (talk). 08:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the changes you are proposing are completely unnecessary. As I said, links to the season articles appear on four separate occasions outside the calendar table. It is not "clear" that your suggestion "makes the page better" at all. In fact, you're the only person lobbying for it. There is no need to copy-and-paste this message to the talk page, because I have already said it there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Prisonermonkeys, there is no need to discuss the article here too - I can read it there. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 12:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow down with the reverting

You're skating very close to breaking 3RR if you haven't already on Metrication in the United Kingdom. You might want to visit the talkpage a bit more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs) 15:15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we all are! Thanks for the warning, but I'm done there now. -- de Facto (talk). 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello DeFacto! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear DeFacto: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Misplaced Pages dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Alpha Quadrant, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why will you not use the No original research noticeboard?

I notice that you removed this section from your talk page and placed it on File talk:Killed on British Roads.png. I have now restored it to this page which is where I wish to have this discussion given that its subject is the style of your editing, not the possible issue of OR or indeed RS in the article under discussion. I placed it here because I wished to alert others to the fact that you are refusing my request to put our issue to 3rd party review. I can only assume that you are not doing this because you don't believe that they will agree with you. PeterEastern (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate again as it doen't belong here, and moved your response to the more appropriate place. It wasn't a discussion of my "style" it was a discussion of the article content. As for your weird and irrational comments and accusations above, I'll try and find time to answer them later. -- de Facto (talk). 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear I *am*, or rather was trying to discuss your style in this section. However, since you have again removed a comment I left on you talk page to illustrate what I see the problem to be that is now clearly impossible. As such I can not continue working with you. Fyi, your last 14 edits have all been to do with this single issue, please do something else for a few days and see if we get any other comments which might help resolve this situation from other people and take care to avoid any criticism of harassment... and yes, I am feeling harassed by you at present and find it unacceptable. PeterEastern (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You have insisted that this discussion takes place on the article talk page. For the record I am including a summary of your comments here that relate to your editing any our relationship rather than to the subject.

1. DeFacto: "The only stuff that I have removed from my talkpage, from you, is stuff that I moved here - because it belongs here. Discussion of article content belongs on the article's talkpage so that other editors can see it."
2. DeFacto: "If you can't defend your edits without making unjust and, frankly ridiculous, accusations about my behaviour, then perhaps it's because they are indefensible"
3. DeFacto: "Your repeated attempts to smear my views and misrepresentation of the situation by the quoting of a cherry-picked and out-of-context comment from an uninvolved editor does your case no favours. Please stick to defending (I assume you believe it can be defended) your insistence of keeping the unsupported content in the chart."

For the record, I believe the quote that caused you offense was this one: "edit-warring with lots of editors across a wide range of articles, in every case pushing a pro-car POV." is relevant, particularly the suggestion that you "should reconsider your approach to editing Misplaced Pages". (This comment was left on you talk page in April 2010). As I have noted elsewhere your edit-warring appears to be continuing. Here is another more recent comment. "As the talk page shows, User:DeFacto has a long history of disruptive editing, POV-pushing and so on. Rather than accuse others, you might want to reconsider your own approach to editing (October 2011)" In my view you are again edit-warring with me with a 'pro-car' agenda and taking part in disruptive editing which is why I believe the comment belongs here.

For the avoidance of doubt, the above comment, including the quotes, are mine and I expect them to stay on this page and not be moved elsewhere.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter, why have you repeated my perfectly logical remarks, and why are you digging your hole of incivility and harrassment deeper? The repetition of unfounded remarks such as you have done there, particularly as an attempt to influence the outcome of an unrelated dispute, would probably be treated very seriously by the "powers that be" if they got to hear about them. Try and answer the questions at the article's talkpage rather than throwing mud about here - please. -- de Facto (talk). 19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter, you wrote: "Fyi, your last 14 edits have all been to do with this single issue,...". Yes, and many of them as a result of you persistently putting stuff here that belonged on the article's page, or because you refuse to answer the criticisms there. You also wrote: "...please do something else for a few days and see if we get any other comments which might help resolve this situation from other people...". I've left it long enough. There have been no comments in the last 7 months, it's time to clean up that article now. Let's see your reasons (there) for not doing so. You followed that with: "...and take care to avoid any criticism of harassment... and yes, I am feeling harassed by you at present and find it unacceptable." Requesting justification for inclusion of dubious material in an article isn't harassment. OTOH, going to a user's talkpage to post malicious hearsay about events in the past, in an attempt to incite support for a lost cause might be considered as such. -- de Facto (talk). 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter, you wrote: "I wished to alert others to the fact that you are refusing my request to put our issue to 3rd party review." Can you show us where I refused? Well, of course you can't, because I haven't refused. It's an odd request though. Why do you want me to, as opposed to doing it yourself? And why do you want me to do it before giving you a chance to defend my criticisms of the article in question? You also wrote: "I can only assume that you are not doing this because you don't believe that they will agree with you", well given the false premise it's a nonsense conclusion. Until you give a defence it's be difficult to formulate the request wouldn't it. In fact it'd probably be more appropriate to report you on ANI for reverting and failure to support those reversions and for impolite or uncivil communication. -- de Facto (talk). 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Team field in F1 driver infoboxes

Hi DeFacto. I have started a discussion at WP:F1 about the recent changes you made to the "Team" field in some of the F1 driver infoboxes. I invite you to participate in the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear DeFacto: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear DeFacto: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

M23

You might want to join into this discussion to preclude the dead hand of RJL banning miles & coords. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that whoever started it should have had the courtesy to mention it on the article's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gallon - OR Noticeboard

I have requested the view of others regarding the use of "primary" and "secondary" on the OR noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Gallon). Martinvl (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ireland" or "The Republic"?

AS a courtesy, I am letting you know that I raised the question of your changes of "The Republic" to "Ireland" at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Second mention of Republic of Ireland. I have no strong feelings one way or the other - I will accept whatever the forum suggest. Martinvl (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why have you raised it - I didn't know it was controversial? We haven't even discussed it anywhere! Do you write "Repubic of France" or "French Republic" or even "The Republic" each time youe are writing about France? -- de Facto (talk). 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't know that it was contraversial? Where have you been for the last twenty years and more? I am not too sure what is acceptable to both sides of the sectarian divide/border and what has been agreed betwen them, which is why I asked them. I suggest that you visit Republic of Ireland and Irish Republic to find out the differences. Martinvl (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody replied and the preferred form is "Ireland", not "The Republic". Martinvl (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't know that the use of the term "Ireland" was controversial in the article - it had never been raised as such. I edited it in there because I thought you had just been sloppy using the old (and controversial) terms. I didn't make a fuss about it though, as Ireland (ROI, IR or Éire) has always been known as Ireland as far as I know, and certainly for as long as I've been here. -- de Facto (talk). 18:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear DeFacto: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom with outside discussion at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#MedCab mediation offer

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

C3 Picasso

Thanks for noticing and correcting my mistake, show a little caution though as i'm still editing the page. Thanks for taking an interest in the article though, it definitely needs more contributors! Jenova20 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No probs. -- de Facto (talk). 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea what i add to the infobox when different measurements and weights are available?

Do i go with the biggest numbers or smallest?

Thanks Jenova20 14:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the template documentation at Template:Infobox automobile - it describes what to do for some of the cases. And,... don't forget to reference each value you add so that readers can verify them for themselves too. -- de Facto (talk). 15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks DeFacto Jenova20 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Previous names field

I really think the stanard constructor name needs to be used in this field if we're going to have it at all. Take Mercedes GP. According to that infobox, the current full team name is Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team. Therefore the team's most recent previous name is surely Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team, as per the first line of the article? But doing that would defy the logic of having it in the infobox - I'm guessing the point is to offer a link to the team's previous article. Therefore Mercedes should link to Brawn, Marussia should link to Virgin, Caterham to Lotus and Lotus to Renault. As with everything, I'm sure you'll find a way to disagree with me. - mspete93 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I added that field to the template to allow navigation between chains of articles which were, essentially, documenting the life of the same physical team through various ownership changes, yes. If the team name changes during the life of the article, then the "Long_name" field should be used with a "<br>" to hold the various names - as in the Renault F1 article. That can be done in the Mercedes article too. If you are saying though that the articles should be framed as 'constructor' rather than 'team' articles, then I would agree with what you are saying. I'd expect the names to be something like: "Renault (F1 constructor)", "Lotus (F1 constructor)", "Caterham (F1 constructor)", etc. if that were the case though, to emphasise that meaning, and for the evolution of team names and ownership details per 'constructor' name to be documented properly (not just the latest one dominating and displacing previous ones as at present) within the article, and for the articles to be free of other clutter related to just one of the owners during that era (c.f. the current clutter in the Renault F1 article unrelated to the period when, although the constructor name was "Renault", Renault cars were uninvolved and the team's majority owner was Genii supported by Lotus). -- de Facto (talk). 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be on to a winner with this one. It could solve many of the current naming problems and confusion, and set a consistent methodology that all could understand. The articles would be 'constructor' name-centric (named something like I allude to above) and each starting something like: "Renault was a Formula One constructor name used by... ...". The infobox would need to be redesigned slightly. Perhaps we should discuss it at the project talk page. I've got to be elsewhere right now, so can't start that until later, but feel free to do so yourself if you can see any merit in it. -- de Facto (talk). 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, that wasn't entirely what I was aiming at! Our articles are about the constructors, and it is what I call the basic constructor name that is used where-ever it is possible (e.g. McLaren, Sauber, Force India). However, with most F1 teams being named after their parent company there is a need for disambiguation. This is why things like 'F1' or 'Racing' are used. I think I may have suggested Renault (F1 constructor) as an option when the car company left, because the article covers the F1 team known as Renault regardless of whether Renault cars were involved or not. But it was agreed that brackets should be avoided where possible and 'F1' works just fine. As a side note, Renault in Formula One wouldn't necessarily have to refer to the car company, in the same way that a Lotus in Formula One article would presumably include 2011's Team Lotus.

The teams are almost always referred to elsewhere simply by their constructor names (e.g. as in Template:Formula One constructors). Whether it's on Formula1.com, Autosport.com or on the TV graphics, they always simply refer to them as 'Lotus' or 'Renault' or 'Ferrari'. Because it is clear that F1 is being talked about, there is no need to say 'Lotus F1', 'Renault F1' or 'Scuderia Ferrari'. Most reliable sources called 'Lotus Renault GP' just 'Renault' in 2011. And that's what I was aiming for in my original suggestion - there's no need to use the full team name in that infobox. The predecessor to 'Marussia' was 'Virgin'. The predecessor to 'Caterham' was 'Lotus'. The predecessor to 'Lotus' was 'Renault'. The predecessor to 'Mercedes' was 'Brawn'. The predecessor to 'Red Bull' was 'Jaguar'. I appreciate with the Lotus teams there might be an issue here - but if you insist we can use disambiguators simply where it is necessary to distinguish between two or more different F1 teams with the same constructor name. - mspete93 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. Should the articles be constructor-centric or team-centric? For the straightforward cases (e.g. McLaren and Ferarri) it probably doesn't make any difference; but for cases such as Marussia and Caterham it does, and for the really complex ones like Renault the distinction is essential. An article on the 'constructor' "Renault" could document and explain the different teams involved, and the name and ownership changes to the Enstone team without any question about changing the article name or the leading sentence content ("Renault was an F1 constructor..." will still hold true regardless of team ownership or team name). However, an article about the "Renault F1" team is frought with problems (as we've seen). The team name has changed several times, but the article name has not. The team has changed ownership, but the article cannot adequately reflect this. We need the distinction between team and constructor to be very clear, and I now think that constructor-centric articles are the answer. "Renault in F1" type articles could supplement these, referring to the constructor articles for the nitty-gritty details. The "Renault in F1" article could describe Renault's ownership of the Enstone team and the fact that its constructor name remained as 'Renault' long after Renault withdrew from the team. The "Lotus in F1" article could mention the Lotus use of the 'Renault' constructor name and of the later renaming of that to 'Lotus'. The 'Lotus' constructor article could continue where the 'Renault' constructor article leaves off with the Enstone team's history. We could even imagine a "The Enstone F1 team" type of article, charting the team's evolution and ownership and constructor name changes, referring to the appropriate constructor articles where appropriate. Win-win? -- de Facto (talk). 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gone away from the infoboxes and onto a more general problem that people are trying to address at the WikiProject, regarding whether we have one article for both Renault/Mercedes/Honda teams or seperate ones. There's no point just us two discussing what we want. I don't really have a particular preference that I'm going to heavily defend. I just want a consistent solution rather than the undiscussed mish-mash that has emerged recently. Oh, and I am genuinely sorry for wrongly pointing you out before. - mspete93 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the place to discuss this is the project - and I plan to take my new thoughts on this there later. And thanks for clarifying the Mercedes history issue at the project page too. -- de Facto (talk). 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindhead Tunnel

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Hindhead Tunnel". Thank you. --Mixsynth (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On team article names

Just a heads up, I finally got around to replying on the discussion. Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather busy in recent days and didn't notice your reply! Anyway I do have a few questions on your proposal, as I am confused on some of the points. Thanks :) QueenCake (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I've replied there. -- de Facto (talk). 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

How many more times are you going to split my comments, even when I 'explicitly state that they are not to be split? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Placing a comment between two separate, signed, contributions isn't "editing" (or "deleting") a comment. The normal way talk pages work is to add comments after sig lines, as I did. If you want your comments to stay together, then include them all above the same sig line. I hadn't even seen your second edit when I replied to your first (note my "(ec)" remark) - you hadn't added it when I started my response. Please stick to the issues being discussed rather than looking for reasons to criticise my behaviour. -- de Facto (talk). 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had an edit conflict, why didn't you look to see why? And once having read my comment that I didn't want my comment split, why did you leave it split? I've had my say over there, if you want to turn the whole thing into a joke, be my guest. If the others want to let you, that's their look-out. But I would urge you, don't go half-hearted at it - go ahead and merge articles, don't hold back. Really go for it, why not? It's your encyclopedia after all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit that I was replying to hadn't changed, something had been added after it, which I didn't read as it wasn't relevent in the context, so I went ahead. I didn't read your new comment until after you'd unreasonably complained about my addition. Let's stick to the issues, eh? -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotus

Look, I'm going to be absolutely - and maybe a little brutally - honest with you here. I think that you might want to back down on editing some of the articles related to Lotus F1 and the team based at Enstone. Now, I want you to understand that I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I do have to agree with some of the other editors who have noticed something of a POV push on a lot of the articles about the Lotus teams. To cite a particular example, your recent restoration of your edits to the Lotus E20 page. On the talk page, you directed editors to a discussion at WP:F1. Having read through that discussion, I've noticed a lot of comments that agree that a full account of the naming of the chassis is not necessary, and yet you still restored those edits. I don't think you have any stake in Enstone, or anything like that. I don't think you're even doing this consciously, if you're doing anything at all. But I do think you are a little close to this, and given that it is such a complex issue among the editors, I think what we really need is to leave the pages as they are for now and just take a bit of a break from it, refresh ourselves, and come back to it later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are not accusing me of anything, but have "noticed something of a POV push". Who then are you accusing of pushing the POV? And what do you mmean by the phrase: "But I do think you are a little close to this,"? -- de Facto (talk). 08:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no one person that I can single out as being responsible. It's groupthink. Because of the complexity of the issue involved, and out collective desire to cover the differences between the teams as clearly and as accurately as we can, we have all gradually pushed a POV across.

As for my other statement, you are clearly entrenched in the Lotus issue. And that's okay, because we need people who understand the issue to be able to make sense of it. But I think you're in a little too deep. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Lotus E20". Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Marussia and Virgin

I have reverted your edits to the 2012 Formula One season page, where you stated the following:

Marussia had a controlling stake - that became the official team name - read the article. Virgin was by then only the "constructor" name

You are correct in saying this. However, the section you are editing specifically refers to changes in constructor names. Regardless of Marussia's actual stake in the team, the team itself was formally recognised as "Virgin" by the FIA. Marussia were little more than sponsors in 2011 (despite their investment), and so listing the team as "Marussia Virgin Racing" would be in appropriate for the section, simply because the team was never known by the constructor name "Marussia Virgin".

Likewise Lotus and Renault. The team was recognised by the FIA as Renault, not Lotus Renault GP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That the section I edited "specifically refers to changes in constructor names" is not at all clear in the article, but I'll discuss it at the article's talkpage, not here. -- de Facto (talk). 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you don't actually understand the changes that you make. We are talking about changes to the constructor names, not to the team names. Any change to the team name is inconsequential. Your changes imply that team and constructor names are the same thing when they are not. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't make edits to that section of the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My edit was verifiable from the FIA press release, yours wasn't even comprehensible, let alone verifiable! -- de Facto (talk). 23:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not verifaiable? If is a document taken from the FIA website, just as your press release was. If you cannot understand the wording of the document, how are you in any position to judge whether or not it is acceptable? This reference is used on other pages, where it is considered an acceptable reference. But please, allow me to explain it to you. I take it that this is the section you are having trouble with:

Article 6.3: The constructor of an engine or chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor. If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car.

Which can be re-written as this:

The constructor of an engine or of a chassis is the person who owns that engine or chassis. The make is the name given to it (engine or chassis) by the constructor. If the chassis and the engine do not have the same name (for example, the Red Bull RB8 uses Renault engines), then the title (and therefore, all results achieved) will be awarded to the constructor of the chassis. The name of the chassis will always be listed before the name of the engine it uses.

Does this clear things up? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, unless you've make the wording in the article more coherent and less inconsistent. -- de Facto (talk). 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I'm well aware of the three-revert rule, thank you. But if it does attract the attention of "someone less tolerant than you", all I have to do is explain that the reversions were in good faith because they were restoring the original content to the article - and they were restoring the original content to the article because the content I removed was unclear, confusing and was being made by someone who did not fully understand the subject, and so was in no position to make the changes in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR is absolute - those excuses wouldn't wash. You'd probably risk a disruption action in addition to the customary 3rr block! -- de Facto (talk). 06:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you would be in violation of 3RR first. Your first edit today changed content that you had previously changed. Although you never specifically used the "undo" function to make these changes, you clearly edited the article to reflect a previous change. Therefore, you reverted it. So I can't violate 3RR without you violating it first. In fact, you already have - you made three edits to the page in the past twenty-four hours (at 07:14, 22:42 and 22:56), all of which restored content that had been edited out. But I'm not going to report you - I just want you to be aware that you're in violation. I'd recommend waiting for consensus on the talk page before you make any more changes to the page. Like I said, you've confused the issue by introducing the term "chassis name" when it had not previously been used in the article. Also, you have made it plain that you do not understand the wording of the sporting regulations in an official FIA document. This, to me, indicates that you are in no position to pass judgement on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, 3rr is absolute. No-one is immune. I'm sure your goal is the the same as mine, to improve the content of the articles, although it's hard somtimes to realsie that we are (presumably) on the same side on this. I've opened a terminology discussion at WP:F1, to hopefully help clarify how we use all the various terms - please participate. -- de Facto (talk). 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are treating edits in your favour as some kind of victory. This is an entirely inappropriate way to go about editing Misplaced Pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "edits in your favour"? Please explain. -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean seeing edits made to the page that are in line with what you think is best for the article, rather than what someone else believes is best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Brawn

This:

Brawn GP Formula One Team, the trading name of Brawn GP Limited, was a Formula One motor racing team and constructor, created by a management buyout of Honda Racing F1 Team.

This says that this team was a F1 team that happened to be created by a management buyout of Honda.

This:

Brawn GP Formula One Team, the trading name of Brawn GP Limited, was the Formula One motor racing team and constructor, created by a management buyout of Honda Racing F1 Team.

This says that Brawn was the only F1 team in existence, which happened to be created by a management buyout of Honda. Where grammar is correct, do not change it to something that means something entirely different, for no obvious reason at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, sorry - I agree with you after reading it properly. The point I was clumsily attempting to clarify is that a new team hasn't been created, an existing team has been renamed. -- de Facto (talk). 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem - we got there in the end. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

E20 RRH

I have re-written the Lotus E20 page. I have found a reference that confirms Lotus developed the RRH for use in 2012, and it directly quotes Eric Boullier saying he is disappointed by the ban that was introduced once they intended to use it. This is now completely verifiable. I would advise that you do not remove this from the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindhead Tunnel RfC outcome

I hear that you think those who oppose your interpretation of WP:UNITS do not understand it but remember that the MOS is a guideline based on editorial practice and consensus, not a rulebook. I appreciate that you have taken a strong position and presented it well but your views have not gained support. I respect your desire for clarity and correctness and hope those sensibilities enable you to see the "correctness" of the consensus result as a product of our community process. Jojalozzo 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that some gave too much weight to what they believed was the "official" unit in the contexts and not enough attention to establishing what was the "common-use" unit in the contexts. The wording of a particular relevent portion of WP:UNITS doesn't help, as many seem to have misinterpretted "including" to mean "exclusively". See my other comments at Talk:Hindhead Tunnel too. -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to the metric system & 3RR

Please undo your last change. Louis XVI signed the order in 1791, so your change is not only incorrect, but it transgresses the 3RR. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss the dates on the article's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I just spotted your 3RR comment above, I missed it yesterday. Please explain your totting-up process to arrive at that conclusion - I can't see it myself. However, the article seems to have reached a stable condition just now, there have been no changes to it in more than 24 hours, and there are no further comments on its talkpage, so I don't see any reason to make any further changes for the time being. -- de Facto (talk). 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom: Banners added in bad faith

Remove the banners that you put into this article. I believe that they were placed there in bad faith. If this is not done soon, I will report you to the ANI and given your recent bahaviour you will almost certainly get you a ban. Martinvl (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to this unfounded intimidatory ultimatum and threat on the poster's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen your response. Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Metrication in the United Kingdom. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, which commentary? -- de Facto (talk). 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I declined the g10

I see that you and Martinvl aren't getting along. I haven't studied the issue closely enough to determine whether one or both are at fault, but I reviewed User:Martinvl/MitUK and disagreed that it should be deleted as a g10. I urge you to consider Wikiquette assistance to address the general issues, and wp:MFD if you would like to prose that the page be deleted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hello DeFacto, I have left a comment on ] in an attempt to keep this dispute from escalating further. Hopefully, it will assist in resolving this issue. I have also hatted the thread between you and HiLo48, as it doesn't have anything to do with the article in question. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are two sides to the dispute in question, no consensus had been achieved yet the other side removed the paragraph in question - all I did was restore it pending a consensus being achieved. I was actively attempting to reach a negotiated consensus on the talk page - check the history. An administrator was helping and had put a message on WP:ANI to seek further advice - but, after 27+ hours, none had arrived. The the other side in the dispute out numbered me by 5:1, so were able to use brute force tactics. Any war has two sides, why has one side been blocked and the other left free? Why is restoring content which was removed without consensus more serious than removing content despite it being the subject of an ongoing dispute? Please reconsider this block in light of the evidence on the article's talk page, I think an editor passionate to create a neutral article, such as I, striving to achieve a negotiated consensus for how to deal with a controversial and obviously divisive issue, should be rewarded, not punished. Check my record: DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you.

Decline reason:

That doesn't matter. You were engaged in an edit war, and you were not correcting vandalism, but rather a content dispute. The purpose of 3RR is to stop these edit wars from happening. All you need to do to get unblocked is agree to stop the reverting and gain consensus for your position on the talk page -- which is what you should have done the first, or at least the second, time you were reverted. I said that to you last time you were blocked for edit warring three and a half years ago... --jpgordon 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

5:1 sounds like a rather strong consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fair enough. I agree to stop the reverting.

Accept reason:

I am prepared to unblock on the basis that you have undertaken not to continue the edit warring that led to the block. However, you may be blocked again without further warning if you resume any sort of disruptive editing in connection with this case. Amongst other things, you need to realise two points: (1) "Consensus" does not mean "consensus which you consider reasonable", and you must accept consensus even if you think it is unreasonable. (2) The fact that discussion is still proceeding does not mean that in the meanwhile you can impose your version until you think the discussion is over. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejection of consensus

Your insistence that you and only you are correct with respect to discussions related to Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom has already gotten you blocked once, and is about > < this close to getting you blocked for disruptive editing, specifically persisting in your rejection of community consensus.

I've closed the discussion on the article's talk page as well as Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The discussion is over. Please allow the drama to be over too. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You misrepresent my position. I was questioning whether a consensus (in WP:Consensus terms) had been achieved. I believed that it had not, as the full process available had not been completed. That is all. The hatch battening reaction triggered has left me perplexed. It seems that some are afraid of what could be unleashed! I will continue to ponder. -- de Facto (talk). 08:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• As you know, I accepted your unblock request. However, I did so with some misgivings. You had undertaken to stop the edit warring which was the immediate cause of the block, but the edit warring was not the whole problem, and so I took the trouble to explain to you that other disruptive editing in this case would be unacceptable too. Unfortunately, you have not taken that message on board. You have persisted with your endless insisting that you are right, and attempting to push your own view through in the face of clear consensus against you. No matter who tries to explain things to you, whether in the article talk page, in user talk pages, or wherever, you persist with a I didn't hear that approach. Even so, it must by now be abundantly clear to you that there is a strong consensus that what you are doing is unhelpful. I strongly suggest that you leave the article that you have been battling over, and find other work to do. There are over three million articles on English Misplaced Pages, and instead of spending your time in flogging a dead horse over an article where you are clearly not going to get your way, you could use the same amount of time making uncontroversial improvements to dozens of other articles. There is no "witch hunt" or conspiracy, and nobody is "afraid of what could be unleashed". There are simply several editors who are tired of wasting their time over an issue which is settled except for one user who stubbornly insist that he alone is right. As you know, there is a discussion as to whether you should be banned from this topic. However, whatever may be the outcome of that discussion you will be blocked again, quite likely for a longer period, if you continue to edit in the same disruptive way that you have been doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello James, message received and understood, thanks. I'm still pondering. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)