User talk:DeFacto/Archive 2010-2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

infobox typo

I was looking at Humber (car) and noticed an issue in the infobox that you added. The subsid= parameter lists Humber as owned by Hillman from 1929 - 193, which is clearly incorrect. However, I don't know what the correct date is. Please fix it. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hillman was a subsidiary of Humber until 1931. -- de Facto (talk). 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Car headband

The article Car headband has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be a defunct minor research project. Very few web references found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Neutrality tag to Overspill parking article following failure to reach agreement

I have added a neutrality tag to Overspill parking following our failure to reach agreement on which is POV and what is balance. I am also going to ask for arbitration. PeterEastern (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, and commented upon it. -- de Facto (talk). 20:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of road casualty data from Speed limit article

I note that on a number of occasions you have removed or watered down the road casualty data in the Speed Limit article including three times today. In the past you have removed similar content from Road Casualties Great Britain and I would note that we are also still in conflict over Overspill parking where you are continually trying to remove references to such parking often being anti-social.

I am registering my objection to these edits which are all in my opinion partisan with a strong pattern of removing content that is against a 'drivers POV' under any pretext rather than engaging positively with the process of creating good balanced articles and working to integrate new content. I note that you are much less hash on content that is not referenced but which is compatible with 'drivers view' that you are with other content. There is further discussion of this issue on the relevant talk pages. PeterEastern (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I refute and resent your allegations. Please read the wp:or policy and you'll see that you need relable and verifiable references to support the types of syntheses that you are putting forward. You have persistently, to the point od being disruptive, refused to supply these, and even removed valid tags requesting them (e.g. this edit). -- de Facto (talk). 14:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If I was getting a negative reaction from a number of people I would reflect on the message being conveyed further. Given that I am only getting it from one source and that I note that have been having a range of issues and complaints on related issues I suggest that we refer the matter for arbitration if we are not able to sort it out between us privately. PeterEastern (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen any other people giving a negative reaction to my edits in those articles either. Perhaps no-one else is monitoring those articles too closely. Can you give details of specific edits of mine which you object to, with the precise reasons for your objections. -- de Facto (talk). 16:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
With respect one only has to look back through this talk page to see a pattern emerging which matches my description. PeterEastern (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing of any relevance to this discussion up there. I have made thousands of edits to hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and there is no "pattern" emerging. You say that you have objections to my edits specifically to Speed Limit, Road Casualties Great Britain and Overspill parking. You should therefore have no difficulty citing specific edits with precise reasons for your objections. Without the detail your 'objection' cannot be taken seriously. -- de Facto (talk). 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a very clear pattern of disruption and POV-pushing emerging here. You have engaged in edit-warring with lots of editors across a wide range of articles, in every case pushing a pro-car POV. I note in addition Motor vehicle emissions. You should reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia.JQ (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
My removal of original research and of blatant POV-pushing is NOT "disruption". It is expected under Wiki policy. At what point then do you think that anti-anti-car becomes pro-car? -- de Facto (talk). 07:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

I (PeterEastern) notice that despite the warning you received on the 24 April 2010 (see previous section) you are continuing to plug a 'pro-motorist' POV. For example:

  • adding "and can only be justified because speed limits alone are ineffective" to the lead of speed limit enforcement.[1]
  • added "Due to the ineffectiveness of speed limits, traffic calming is used" to the speed limit article.[2]
  • added "- the visible component is harmless water vapour" to Motor vehicle emissions article.[3]
  • adding doubt about CO2 and climate change to Motor vehicle emissions article "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Motor vehicle CO2 emissions are part of the anthropogenic contribution to the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which is belived by a majority of scientists to play a significant part in climate change."[4]

All of the above were reverted by other people. I am therefore concluding that you are not able to take a moderate view of safety or environmental issues relating to motorcars and after a long battle with you on these matters over a number of years (including a period where I used a different UserName) I will in future will either not respond to comments from you or will refer people to this section of your talk page. I will also err on the side of reverting any edits you make to such articles and believe that it is necessary to ban you from these topics for a period of time unless you stop the above. PeterEastern (talk)

Peter, your assertion of POV-pushing is badly flawed, which, I guess, reflects your own extreme views on these subjects. Let's look at your examples (presumably cherry-picked as the worse cass that you could find) in detail:
  • My addition to the lead of the "Speed limit enforcement" article. Ask yourself this one simple question: "If speed limits were effective at reducing traffic speeds would speed limit enforcement be necessary or justifiable?". What is your honest answer?
  • My addition of the premise to the traffic calming sentence in the "Speed limit" article. Do you have evidence (or even believe) that the traffic calming is completely unnecessary because speed limits alone are so effective? Be honest.
  • My attempt to add neutrality to the POV-laden image of clouds of visible exhaust smoke in the "Motor vehicle emissions" article. Do you believe that the image gives a fair representation of the appearance of a typical car exhaust? Do you believe that the visible smoke is typically anything other than water vapour?
  • My toning-down of the unsupportable assertion of POV as fact that CO2 is responsible for global warming statement in the "Motor vehicle emissions" article. Even the IPCC don't go as far as to assert that!
You see, they are all non-starters. Your complaints are irrational. Please recognise that there are POVs other than your own and stop being so disruptive. I suspect that it is you, not me, that should refrain fron editing these articles until you learn to accept that the neutral POV must prevail. -- de Facto (talk). 10:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect you appear to be talking more and more nonsense. This comment of yours is very impressive given the wide range of hostility your edits to the speed limit article are generating: "The deletion, or even the inciting of deletion, of reliably sourced on-topic content is not advisable - it is considered to be a serious disruption, or even vandalism. Throw away you prejudices and read what I wrote again, and read the cited references, then come back with a considered and rational opinion."[5] PeterEastern (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no nonsense in the questions. The answers will reveal the true validity of your accusations - is that why you won't answer them? -- de Facto (talk). 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationale

Oops. Rationale would be certainly more rational. Thanks for the correction. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Working well together

I know that we have not always seen eye-to-eye on, but for the record I thought that I would note how well we are working together at present in creating new articles: Road speed limits in the United Kingdom and Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. The first is already a very good comprehensive article and the newer second one is well on its way to becoming one. Thanks for all your archive searching out the missing details from The Times and in other old documents. PeterEastern (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the positive message, very decent of you. I think you were a little suspicious of my motives in the past, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from now. :-) -- de Facto (talk). 17:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Car of the Century logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Car of the Century logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting hairs

You seem to be picking very small holes in a single article (Vehicle Excise Duty) today. Could I very politely suggest that there are far better things for us to spend our time on? Please go and sort out Association of British Drivers if you want a challenge - it is had disputed and reference tags on it for over 2 years! PeterEastern (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to article page at Vehicle Excise Duty#More about the 'road tax' section) -- de Facto (talk). 22:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Personally, I am not satisfied with the conclusion of the thread which is now on the VED talk page. I don't believe that DeFacto was using WP:OR and WP:SPS appropriately. PeterEastern (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Discuss it there then! -- de Facto (talk). 18:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I initially put this thread on this page because I felt that it related more to your interpretation of the rules than to the subject. You moved it the the article talk page without discussion which was ok by me, but please don't now complain when I do a short post to let people know what the outcome was. PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV again?

We have been slugging it out on Wikipedia for well over a year now. Much more if you include the time before I started using PeterEastern when I was still editing as User:PeterIto (I switched for reasons that I have already explained to you). Your edits have helped me see my own POV more clearly and some of your edits have certainly been valuable for which I am grateful.

Unfortunately we have also had our arguments and have reached stalemate on two articles in the past month: Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom, (see Unrelated road casualty figures) and Vehicle Excise Duty (see Splitting hairs). I notice that over this month you have made 80 edits to Wikipedia, either the above articles or to Road speed limits in the United Kingdom, Reported Road Casualties Great Britain or Safety Camera Partnership.

Over a longer period of time your edits to the following article have been disputed at length by many different editors on the relevant talk pages. See:

I have expressed the view a number of times that your edits could be perceived as pushing a motorist's POV or to be using wikipedia policies to support one-sided edits. I am also concerned by what at times comes across as a pattern of 'targeting' certain articles and directing huge effort at them until the other party gives up. This is of course all very time consuming. Can you suggest how we can resolve this issue? As a start I am asking for comment from User:John_Quiggin who has taken an interest in a couple of the issues over the past year and hence is familiar with the territory.

--PeterEastern (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter that contrasts rather dramatically with what you said in "working well together", just a few lines up from here, in May. I notice you have concentrated on just a handful of the 1400 or so articles that I have contributed to. Are they just the ones on my watch-list that you have recently added non-NPOV and unsupported syntheses to? Could, perhaps, the problem be that you are pushing an anti-motoring POV and resent being challenged to produce the necessary support for it? Why did you select that particular user to canvas for opinion; do you see him as a likely neutral and unconnected observer? -- de Facto (talk). 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it me or you who is confused. Who knows, That is why I am suggesting that we get someone else to help. Do you support us looking for some sort of arbitration?
  • Re 'Working Well together' I did indeed compliment you when we were working much better together stitching together a complete list of changes to speed limits in the UK. We have of course clashed one other issues since then. For the record I did have some issues with the way you added evidence where it existed that showed the introducing speed limits increased casualty levels (even if the evidence was thin and statistically dubious or where other factors were involved which weren't mentioned, such as traffic growth after 1934) and also your enthusiasm to remove evidence from me which showed the opposite. However didn't think that the result was too bad overall. I debated adding a rider to my earlier comment about working well together but decided that that would be petty.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please can you stop doing edits on further articles until we have had arbitration. Since I posted the above and since I also posted a detailed critique of your recent edits to Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom on the talk have (see Proposed reversion) you have now started editing Reported Road Casualties Great Britain. For the record I dispute your edits to Safety Camera Partnership but am leaving that for now. If you don't stop and engage re getting external input I will request that you are banned. PeterEastern (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Peter, please calm down. I will edit when and where I desire. Being bold and improving NPOV and removing unsupported OR is not good grounds for asking for a ban! Please assume good faith. Are you actually going to formally seek arbitration without attempting to resolve any issues on the talk pages first? -- de Facto (talk). 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You ignored my post here, you have ignore my request for mediation on Vehicle Excise Duty (originally 'Splitting hairs' above). You are not prepared to resolve the 'incorrect' issue I raised on the same article. You have ignored by request for mediation on Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. What else am I expected to do. To me your 'boldness' comes across as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This phrase catches my eye A disruptive editor is an editor who is: tendentious - continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. ... also ... Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.. I think this describes you edits to road traffic safety related articles in particular over the past year. Any suggestions? PeterEastern (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Which post here have I ignored? This one, to which I have made several replies - or another? I discussed and answered your concerns on the VED talk page, you have yet to reply to my argument for using the term "incorrect" there. The discussion in Talk:Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom is still ongoning there so there is no need for 'mediation' yet. Please don't suggest that my good-faith edits are disruptive, especially when they result in the removal of unsupported OR or POV-pushing content that you yourself have (disruptively?) added, or re-added. What we want is policy-compliant content - whether that content aligns with your POV, or not. -- de Facto (talk). 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is not 'ongoing' because I have stopped discussing with you and am asking for mediation. I note that back in April User:John_Quiggin took you to task on similar edit patterns. In particular, on Talk:Speed_limit: The best thing would be for DeFacto to take a voluntary break from motoring-related topics for a while, and concentrate on contributions on topics where s/he has less of a POV commitment and that are less likely to be reverted. The alternative is indeed the well trodden path through RfC, temporary blocks and, in the end, topic bans or permanent exclusion, then DeFacto's assessments are clearly a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If the authorities say they are speed limits, and no WP:RS contradicts them, then that's what Wikipedia says too. Then, on Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty he wrote: This is too silly for words, and reflects a pattern of POV-pushing contributions on a wide range of motoring-related articles. You would not seriously contest the fact that motor vehicle exhaust emissions present a wide range of environmental problems, but you continually edit to imply this, and similarly across many other articles. You are just disrupting the project, and will get nowhere.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEastern (talk • contribs) 2010-10-26T17:04:50
Is that why you went to his talk page with this - you hope he'll still bear a grudge and automatically support your POV? Peter, think it through - support your case with robust argument rather than trying to intimidate me with threats. -- de Facto (talk). 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Grudge? I don't think he has a grudge against you, does he? I asked him because I get the impression that he is has an interest in road safety and gets involved in moderation of various road safety, tobacco, environment and greenwash/lobbying disagreements and I hope that he will have a useful perspective to bring to our issue. I also think that he is some sort of admin. Not sure about that though. PeterEastern (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

persistence

Persistence can be a strength. However... over the past 5 weeks you have made a total of 102 edits across only 7 articles, all of which relate to either road casualties or the use of the term 'road tax'. I have now stopped arguing with you, that doesn't mean that I agree with you or that I accept the current text. I think we need mediation and I have stopped editing the articles we have disputes over.

Today your focus has been on the chart I made yesterday which you feel needs urgent changes. File talk:Killed on British Roads.png. I only created the chart so that I and others could see in a picture what we are trying to describe in words. It is not my intention to engage in discussion with you on any editorial matters until we get this sorted.

Please can you do something else for a while. The articles and the chart are really not that bad compared to many articles. Please leave this subject alone while we wait for some mediation or whatever. I hope we do because you have done some great work and you can spot my bias a mile off. I just don't think you are as good at seeing your own! -- PeterEastern (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We may have different personal POVs, but that shouldn't prevent us from cooperating to prduce balanced articles. If as you say above, you do not plan to discuss changes there, please say so on the arice's talk page so that it is clear to others, and so that we can bring a more NPOV to the diagram without you. -- de Facto (talk). 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • To keep the thread in one place I have copied the following comment from my talk page "Some light reading for you, Please stop suggesting that I stop editing articles. When I see a POV which I believe to be non-neutral or what I believe to WP:OR being added to an article in my 'watchlist', I will attempt to correct it. You might be interested in reading the WP:NOEDIT section of the WP:WikiBullying essay. -- de Facto (talk). 22:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)" PeterEastern (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. I think I have made it abundantly clear in many places that I am backing away from working with you for the time being. PeterEastern (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you have just removed the UK casualty trend chart from Road speed limits in the United Kingdom citing that it was not balanced. Personally I think the chart is more right than wrong and I suggest you reconsider your edit. I do not agree with your change, but I am making no further edits to the contested articles, other than to put a neutrality tag on them if I think that is justified. Note that I probably won't respond on your talk page or the article talk page to any further edits for the time being, silence does not mean agreement. PeterEastern (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to the article's talk page for discussion on this. -- de Facto (talk). 12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
We have now worked on the chart extensively. I have registered there, and I wish to register here that I consider that the views that you advocate with regard to the relevance of speed limits and enforcement to road traffic safety are WP:Fringe and should be presented as such. PeterEastern (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Please keep discussion for that graph on its talk page - thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 13:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised that you have just suggested "I thought that one had blown over, especially as you now accept what I've been saying all along". For the avoidance of doubt all of the above issues are still live. The fact that I have been working with you on the casualty chart just means that that one was new and you had some input that was useful. I will wait a little longer for John Quiggin to show up and if not then I will read up further on dispute resolution and decide on an appropriate course of action. For your information the last 140 edits you have made have been to these 7 disputed articles! PeterEastern (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think here is the wrong place then, it excludes those who may only be looking at the articles in question, and not at my talk page. Please add a new section to each "disputed" article briefly outlining the issues that you have with that article, and we can take it from there. Trying to juggle various issues from various articles, both here and in the articles themselves, is too confusing. -- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
See the next section where I highlight where I have already put my concerns on the relevant talk page.PeterEastern (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputes

Current disputes:

Previous disputes - now resolved:

The pattern here is one of using wikipedia policies to push what many editors consider to be an 'extreme motorist' wp:Fringe viewpoints. I also consider that you are often wp:wikilawyering to further your aims as I discuss in the talk pages above. See Splitting hairs as an example. I have also highlighted what I consider to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing with 140 consecutive edits over 5 weeks on one issue.

--PeterEastern (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, when you say "using wikipolicies to push... 'extreme motorist' fringe viewpoints", I think you mean removing stuff (often yours) which falls foul of policies and adding content, which complies with policy, but which balances your often anti-motorist POV content.
You have misrepesented my views and my actions before, so please at least substantiate your accusations of pushing "fringe views", "wikilawering", so that others don't need to read through screeds of discussion distributed around several articles to look for examples, with lists of the alleged:
  1. Fringe views.
  2. Wikilawering examples.
-- de Facto (talk). 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I will assume, based on the lack of response, that all the "disputes" are now settled. If there are still points you wish to discuss relating to particular articles, please raise them of the talk page of the article(s) is question. -- de Facto (talk). 12:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well you would be wrong then. I think we may have agreement on 'Road speed limits in the United Kingdom' and 'Killed on British Roads'. I am not aware of any meaningful changes on any other articles. I didn't respond because I thought that I had already made myself clear. Please don't take further non-responses as agreement. PeterEastern (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So it wasn't fringe views, Wikilawering or tendentious editing then that were the problem with those two. After making those accusations above can you now explain what has changed your mind? -- de Facto (talk). 14:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't change my mind. We worked on them together and I am happy with them now. Do please take a look a at the other issues and then we can close this thread. PeterEastern (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What 'are' the other issues - I'm very confused over this whole thread? -- de Facto (talk). 14:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Each issue is explained in the talk sections with wlinks as detailing under 'current disputes' above. I can't explain it any clearer. Possibly someone else should look into it. PeterEastern (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've visited each of the four talk pages itemised, and not struck-out, above, and left comments in each of them which need responding to if we are to ever get to the bottom of this. As far as I can see, you suffered knee-jerk reactions to a few of my edits, as you have done several times before, but what the specific outstanding issues still are is not too clear. Please respond in those topics, providing edit links where appropriate, and then I will, as ever, respond in full. -- de Facto (talk). 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Honda Insight

Looking for comments on the use of a newer picture. Ng.j (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level

Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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/Archive 2010-2011! 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 Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia". (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/Archive 2010-2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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/Archive 2010-2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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 (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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/Archive 2010-2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeFacto/Archive_2010-2011&oldid=1050080593"