User talk:DeFacto

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello DeFacto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for your additions on English cars, and technologies. If you have any questions feel free to drop past my Talkpage. --Martyman-(talk) 20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003

Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob^Talk 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006

Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob^Talk 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked this account per a successful appeal at WP:AN. You are unbanned per WP:Standard offer and WP:ROPE. Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block. You are indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages. You may add measurements to articles you create in compliance with the WP:MOS. You are on a 1RR restriction on all areas of Wikipedia. The 1RR restriction absolutely applies to articles you create. You are also indefinitely restricted to 1 account and may not edit while logged out. Each individual restriction may be appealed independently after 1 full year.--v/r - TP 07:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks TP for facilitating my appeal and to all who were prepared to risk giving me another chance. -- de Facto (talk). 17:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beaulieu Palace House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaulieu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. -- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

a better comparison

Not sure about that. That kind of assumes the petition votes were made by Remainers, rather than a possible but eternally indeterminate mix of Sour Grapes Remainers, Begretters and those who didn't ever vote because they were not registered, never received their postal ballot, were too young, were not available to vote, etc., etc? We will never know, of course. But I just thought my suggestion of more than three times the margin of votes by which the referendum was decided was more neutral. I suppose, at the end of the day, it's just a certain ratio. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I agree, except that I think your version inferred that they might all be the un-voted and so possibly less neutral. -- de Facto (talk). 06:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Country IOC alias GBR

Please follow up at Template_talk:Country_IOC_alias_GBR#Edit_request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Swallow Sidecar Company

Fine by me. Sometimes I think many if not most WP editors would now start a fight by saying: well, it is not in the BMM in the photo. Is it? Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just thought that as all that has changed since the photo was taken is that the museum has been renamed (the same car is still in the same place by the same stairs) that it would make sense to reflect the current name. -- de Facto (talk). 20:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006

Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003

Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skye Museum of Island Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilmuir. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

MGB

Nice photo. "I may be old-fashioned but . . . " it upsets me enough to write to you like this to see a 1969 MGB in its native land described as a "roadster". How old-fashioned do you think I am? Eddaido (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm old-fashioned enough too to prefer British/English terminology over American where they differ, but for this I went by the convention used in the MG MGB article to distinguish it from the GT, and by the Commons category name. But, as ever, feel free to correct me if you feel strongly enough. I'll even rename the image file if you think an alternative name is more appropriate. ;) -- de Facto (talk). 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think they were called just sports cars. Is that right? And the closed version a GT? I take your point about in the article but wonder if it (the article) should stay like that. What I would really like to do under your photograph is simply leave it as MGB and delete "roadster" but I've done with my whinging, thank you, and will leave any amendment to you as the originator. Hmmm, maybe North Americans bought enough of them to have paid for a (small) voice in the matter. ;) Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Project Eagle

Hello DeFacto,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Project Eagle for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Template:Z166

Mduvekot (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot, thanks for the message, but none of the current content of that article was written by me. I created the article in July 2008 as a "redirect" to Lotus Evora, which was developed under the project name Project Eagle. The original redirect was replaced by the current article in one edit by User:Spacenerd1 yesterday. Rather than delete the article, can you revert it back to the original redirect? -- de Facto (talk). 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mduvekot (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mduvekot. -- de Facto (talk). 19:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR restrictions appeal

Hello DeFacto, your 1RR restriction has been rescinded following your successful appeal at WP:AN. This appeal has no impact on your other restrictions, including the general disruptive editing warning. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux, and thanks to all those who supported my appeal. -- de Facto (talk). 17:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower

Hello DeFacto. This datum was stated twice, so I removed the first section, and added the full citation to the second. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Kablammo. Probably best to state stuff like that in the edit summary to help others understand your train of thought! Thanks for the quick response. I self-reverted back to your version. :) -- de Facto (talk). 19:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will try to make such changes in one edit, rather than two. Kablammo (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Limited" also caused odd addition

Hi, this edit to remove unnecessary "Limited" also had an odd effect in adding unintended "limi" text in the infobox. I've fixed it now. Possibly text intended for your web browser's "search" box ended up in the article text instead. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for fixing it - I'll try and be more careful with my C&P in future. :) -- de Facto (talk). 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack‎:Suspect (neutral language)

Apologies. I thought I was moving your vote to the proper location. The whole RFC is awkwardly formulated.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No probs, and I agree! -- de Facto (talk). 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Buckingham Palace incident

Oops, sorry about this, I hadn't spotted your edit after those made by the ip, but have fixed it now so hopefully we're working with the right version. This is Paul (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi This is Paul, no probs :0) - it's quite quick moving at the moment, and difficult to keep up with it all. -- de Facto (talk). 21:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Metrification WP:AN

Given an obvious consensus and no recent activity, I've closed the AN discussion [1] and updated WP:Editing restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. NE Ent 21:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NE Ent, and thanks to all those who supported my appeal and to those who added constructive comments and advice. -- de Facto (talk). 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And now I've closed it again with the same result as the original close. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that Black Kite. -- de Facto (talk). 15:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting being called terrorism

See Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doug. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 in motorsport

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 in motorsport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Baddesley Clinton page

Hi there! Thanks for the helpful edit on the Baddesley Clinton page. Just to note that I'm going to correct it because it was not Fountains Abbey that was used for the facade (or interiors). Fountains Abbey is a ruin, and doesn't match the building used, in any case. I'll put the few articles I have found on locations in as extra refs too. Cheers! --gobears87 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. I should have left you this link too: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/fountains-abbey-and-studley-royal-water-garden/features/fountains-abbey-in-explosive-plot- [Fountains Abbey starred as the undercroft of the old parliament.] Cheers!

Hi Gobears87, thanks for the info. I'll take a look and comment on the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in August 2017

Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Givibidou (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's not clear for you, read this arrticle on which the list is based : Terrorism. You're at least the third user doing this, this is quite upsetting. If you disagree with the editors' consensus on this article, please go to the talk page. Givibidou (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take this content dispute to the article talkpage, not here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for fixing articles related to The London Taxi Company

Hi. Thanks for doing those re-directs! That was next on my list for fixing after getting the TX5 article sorted. The series of articles needs a bit of a fix up. Master Of Ninja (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there are still some "adjustments" that need doing. MBH was originally bigger than just Carbodies, and Carbodies continued "business as usual", albeit with a couple of name changes, after becoming a subsidiary of MBH, so I think all the taxi stuff belongs in the Carbodies article and just the outline of MBH's activities in the MBH article. That might mean renaming Carbodies to LTI or The London Taxi Company, or whatever - but we can discuss that later. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd better let you know I sent an email to you. More cheers, Eddaido (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Banned from editing metriction

I note that according to WP, "You are indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia". A quick check indicates this ban is still in effect. I have therefore reverted your edit on "History of the metric system". If you again edit the article, you may be indefinitely WP:blocked from editing. This is the only warning you will receive. Sbalfour (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sbalfour: you are mistaken, that topic ban was replaced with a 1RR restriction in September 2017, so my edit was compliant. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ownership of Jaguar Land Rover

Hello again concerning your changes to the actual ownership of the brands/trademarks/company/corporate shell that manufactures and markets Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) vehicles. Please do not remove citations that describe the ownership of JLR. The owner/controlling entity/parent is Tata Motors. This fact may be perhaps still be controversial for purists of these 'British' brands. Nevertheless, the articles about JRL and these brands must be based on actual facts. Unless you have citations that prove otherwise, the following additional references that will be added into the articles.

• Gribben, Roland (15 September 2013). "Jaguar Land Rover: £1.3bn Tata gamble pays off as big cat purrs at last". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Five years ago Tata Motors paid Ford £1.3bn for Jaguar Land Rover, the luxury car and utility vehicle group ...
• "Tata Motors-Owned Jaguar Land Rover Is Now UK's Largest Carmaker". NDTV CarAndBike. 22 January 2016. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has witnessed a dramatic turnaround in its fortunes ever since it was taken over by Tata Motors over 7 years ago
• "Jaguar Land Rover's Owner Boosts Cash Hoard by 87% to Expand". Bloomberg. 24 September 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Tata Motors Ltd., the owner of luxury car brands Jaguar Land Rover,
• "Jaguar Land Rover Is Looking to Buy a Luxury Brand". Bloomberg. 25 September 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Jaguar Land Rover, the luxury unit of Tata Motors Ltd., is scouting for acquisitions of international automakers amid rising competition in the industry, people with knowledge of the matter said.
• "Jaguar Land Rover North America sales fall in December ahead of new models". Nikkei Asian Review. 4 January 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Jaguar Land Rover, the luxury automaker owned by India's Tata Motors, saw its North America sales dip ...
• Grant, Kinsey (7 January 2018). "Jaguar Land Rover Sets Sales Record as Push Toward Electric Future Intensifies". The Street. Retrieved 23 January 2018. It was a good year for Tata Motors-owned (TTM) Jaguar Land Rover.
• "Tata owned Jaguar Land Rover global rises by 6.5% in 2017". The Financial Express. 9 January 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
• "Brexit-hit Tata Motors' Jaguar Land Rover to cut production in UK". Free Press Journal. 23 January 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2018. Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover has announced plans to cut production ...
• "Jaguar Land Rover Corporate Website". jaguarlandrover.com. Retrieved 23 January 2018. NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE OFFICIAL JLR WEBSITE IS THE FOLLOWING: Jaguar Land Rover is part of Tata Motors

Thank you - CZmarlin (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you for your post. I completely agree that "the articles about JRL and these brands must be based on actual facts", in fact the clarification of the facts has been the main purpose of my recent edits. Sure it is obvious who the owner of the JLR group is - and that should be clear and prominent in the article about the group. It also follows logically that the group's owner therefore indirectly owns each and every of the individual assets of each of the group's subsidiary companies, and of their respective subsidiaries.

However, in the subsidiary and more parochial articles about specific assets, it is also our duty (see WP:NPOV) to be clear and neutral about which subsidiary is the direct owner of that asset. And clearly under our obligation to WP:V we need to be able to provide reliable sources for everything we add. We should, of course, also be aware of due weight and citation overkill.

Of course readers interested in the ownership hierarchy always have the option of clicking the links to the successive parent organisations if they want to know that, for example, the Jaguar marque is owned by Jaguar Land Rover, which is a subsidiary of Jaguar Land Rover PLC, which is a subsidiary of Tata Motors, which is a subsidiary of Tata Group, which is owned by Tata Sons. Or (I hope not) are you suggesting that each article about each of the assets, British or otherwise, ultimately owned by Tata Sons should be re-written to eliminate details of each of the intervening subsidiary layers and everthing attributed soley to Tata Sons? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A final right-left traffic death question

for you on Talk:Left- and right-hand traffic#Road death table. Awaiting your decision. 86.158.154.23 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not my decision, but I've given my view there. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II

Sorry, but you removed many important sections from the page such as hospitals, streets and monuments by trying to remove the flag icons. Please, try to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaAscot (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrendaAscot: sorry but I can't see anything missing - hospitals, roads & monuments are still there as far as I can see. Please explain exactly what is missing. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! There was some sort of delay by Wikipedia in updating the page after it was last edited by me. It's all right now! Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaAscot (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No probs. :) -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Article leads

If you want to uphold a consensus, that's fine. Just make sure you read the wording carefully before you do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: please be more explicit as I am obviously missing something here. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your wording says the following:

"Starting in March and ending in November"

But the calendar has not been finalised yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: so whu did you change more than just removing the as yet uncertain dates? Now I know your reasoning I've restored the agreed wording with just the dates commented out for now.

You know we could have avoided this loop if you had added an edit summary to your original, and even subsequent, edit. Please read WP:FIES (It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.) and always add edit summaries to each of your edits to avoid wasting time like this. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Links from country names in Left-_and right-hand traffic

Thank you for removing WP:FLAGCRUFT from Left- and right-hand traffic. In the same edit you removed most of the wikilinks from the table, resulting in a net degradation of the article. Would you please restore the links while keeping the flags out, without introducing WP:OVERLINK ? --Cornellier (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cornellier: I've linked all the geographical places that had flags, but haven't made the decision as to which to not link re WP:OVERLINK or checked the linked articles for for DAB problems. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's better than it was, and that's what counts! --Cornellier (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Left- and right-hand traffic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Congo, Ascension, Macedonia and Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Renault Trafic article was messed with again

Greetings. It seems like the person that messed with the article on 7 March was at it again. Would be great if you could restore the article once more. regards 2A04:4540:1715:1E00:5044:799E:A7AD:FA27 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I undid the latest unconstructive changes. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass

Not going to edit war, as I don't care that much, but at least five people were poisoned (the Skripals, the ill policeman, and two others with minor injuries). The FBI define a mass murder as a murder of four or more people. Fish+Karate 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: this is a British English article though, and the Oxford Dictionaries define mass as a large number. I think you'll need reliable UK sources using the term "mass poisoning" and something added to the prose setting the context before that category would be appropriate. Also, I think this discussion should be on the article talkpage rather than here. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Erm, you're edit warring over this! Trout. As your removal is contested, you should not remove it again per BRD. Further, as you do not agree with the other two of us, you should seek wider consensus before you remove it again going against this rough consensus. As I don't care (and it's borderline "mass") prima facie, but with obvious, clear "hundreds" may (suiting any geographically nuanced definition of the term), I expect you to come to you senses and I will leave alone! ps trout. Widefox; talk 20:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your addition is contested, you shouldn't have added it without consensus as it is controversial. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, you're right about the cat. I'd like to take the fish back, or give them to Fish and karate. Widefox; talk 08:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to get that, it was beginning to smell. ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Insert determiner

Why? Eddaido (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought is read better. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly conventional around WP and I was hoping to get rid of it so that's why I asked. Eddaido (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoping to get rid or it, why? -- DeFacto (talk).

Because I think it is superfluous and ugly. Why not A Morris . . . Why the United Kingdom but not The France (or for that matter) the Australia? See this one Eddaido (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of the English language, I suppose. "A Morris..." would work too. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hrumph. Eddaido (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Re that one, "Morris Sixes..." would work too. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Content removals

Thanks for removing all the carefully referenced and collated information that I added to Vehicle Excise Duty. The content was fully and correctly cited, and was factual, not POV as you incorrectly asserted. Your content removal was not an improvement and has reduced the article quality again. Cnbrb (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In exactly the same way you didn't before content removal? Cnbrb (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll happily discuss it on the article's talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Renault in Formula One

Couldn't you have brought up what you was going to do on the talk page before butchering the whole article? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark: butchery? No, I added three infoboxes and split another - basically providing four missing infoboxws (one for each incarnation of the constructor) and refining the original one to provide the appropriate information for an artilce covering the four different eras. If you want to discuss the content further please take it to the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well its already been reverted by another user. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Would be"

Could you please take more care when making edits such as this? I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your use of the phrase "it would be" is not appropriate because the low modality of the word "would" implies that the race was scheduled to go ahead but has since been cancelled. It is not as bad as "it would have been" but I have noticed that the increasingly colloquial use of "it would be" is coming to mean the same thing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: it's a perfectly normal use of the word, and If you didn't keep making the same mistake of using the word "will" I wouldn't need to keep correcting them. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a mistake on my part. I'm doing it deliberately because you keep using "would" incorrectly.

Secondly, it is not a "perfectly normal use of the word". It is grammatically incorrect. You are trying to change the language of the articles so that the certainty of the event becomes the certainty of the scheduling—but what you are actually doing is suggesting that the scheduling is uncertain.

If you want to make the changes, please use different language. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys:

1. Are you saying that when you initially set up the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix article, you deliberately used the word "will" a couple of times to try to provoke me into fixing it (in line with WP:CRYSTAL as I have done previously for other articles about future races) so that you could then challenge my use of English?
2. As I left it, it was effectively saying that if the race took place as expected it would be the fourth round of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. What's wrong with that?

-- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I only did it deliberately after you changed the wording to something inappropriate for the article. I've pointed it out to you half a dozen times and you haven't made any effort to change, so it was time for a new tactic.

As I have explained to you, the modality of "would" is not appropriate for the article. Modality is the degree of certainty associated with a word. "Will" has high modality because it has a high degree of certainty. "Might", on the other hand, has low modality because of the potential something else happening. Your use of "would" has too low a modality for the article because it implies that something else is more likely to happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the deliberate disruption you admitted to above and talk of "a new tactic" sounds like you don't know how to lose to me. Your "explanation" was ill-founded as it was trying to explain a case whiuch didn't exist, not the case that did. The use of "would" as in "the race is due to take place and would be the fourth round of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" does not imply that the race is unlikely to take place, but acknowledges that it happening is not an incontrovertible and absolute certainty. If you don't like my phrasing, please offer an alternative, rather than continually reusing the phrasing that you know to be unacceptable. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I do know how to lose. More importantly, I know language. It is quite literally my job to know language. Haven't you noticed how often I point out the technical elements of grammar in discussions? Or how when I do, those comments usually shape the final wording under discussion?

Now, you can continue to claim that this use of the word "would" is technically correct, but a) there are better ways of expressing the same idea without any of the drawbacks and b) I have multiple degrees in English literature, linguistics and semiotics. Do you really think I've got no idea what I am talking about? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: as you are such an expert, why do you keep reverting back to the unacceptable rather than using your expertise to rephrase it into something that fully complies and which is, in your view, gramatically correct? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not my job to follow you around correcting every mistake that you make. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: imagine for a moment that we are collaborating to make a good article: what phrasing would you offer that complies with the notion that dates are not definite until the event actually takes place (i.e. don't use the word "will")? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically enough, this. It works because it doesn't say that the race will certainly go ahead, but it does say that the race is certainly scheduled. It was this last point that your use of "would" is lacking. So you know the ideal wording for the situation is out there, which makes it such a mystery to me that you insist upon using an inferior wording despite its flaws having already been pointed out to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys:the bigger mystery is why you: a) initially wrote it with two "wills", and b) why each time I fixed it you changed it back to "will" - especially as your favoured version seems now to be my last attempt at a compromise after you changed it back to "will". Has it dawned on you now why it's not good practice to use "will" for future events? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's not good practice. I'm equally aware that you stubbornly refuse to learn from your own mistakes. You will notice that I stopped changing the wording once you started using the most appropriate phrases. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You known the fact that you stubbornly keep using "will" event though you have known it's not acceptable for a long time and you are well aware of suitable alternatives since a long time due to previous occasions, you don't show much ability to learn from your mistakes yourself. As you admitted yourself in your first comment here, "would" is perfectly appropriate. It doesn't imply anything. "It would have been" is what implies cancellation. Anyway there are other alternatives, but the choice is just a question of taste.Tvx1 00:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: you say you repeatedly created, changed or reverted content to be unacceptable - knowingly and deliberately - because you knew that I would correct it in a way that you disapproved of, despite it being more Wiki-policy compliant and grammatically correct. Now that you have admitted to having been deliberately disruptive, I'd stop digging, if I were you. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I'm confused:

"As you admitted yourself in your first comment here, "would" is perfectly appropriate."

Except I didn't say that at all. This is the only time I used the word "appropriate" in that comment:

"I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your use of the phrase "it would be" is not appropriate"

I'm not sure how you have managed to read "not appropriate" as "perfectly appropriate".

@DeFacto

"you say you repeatedly created, changed or reverted content to be unacceptable [...] because you knew that I would correct it in a way that you disapproved of"

I didn't say that at all. I did not change it to antagonise you. I changed it because I have previously pointed out the issues with your edits and you made no effort to change your ways. So I made those edits in the hopes that, with enough repetition, you might learn ftom it.

"despite it being more Wiki-policy compliant and grammatically correct"

Your use of the word "would" was never grammatically correct.

"Now that you have admitted to having been deliberately disruptive, I'd stop digging, if I were you."

You can't claim the moral high ground here since you have deliberately and repeatedly ignored requests to make particular changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: if you know better, then correct it by all means, but please don't: a) write it incorrectly in the first place (as in the 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix article, and keep reverting to the incorrect form rather than trying to fix after the error has been highlighted, b) be disruptive to try to teach other editors a lesson. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that when someone makes a suggestion to you, that you at least acknowledge them and maybe even take their suggestions on board? I'm not asking you to make a radical change—just pointing out that there are other, better approaches to take. If you are arrogant enough to assume you have done nothing wrong and expect people will follow you around correcting your mistakes for you, then you have no right to go around lecturing other people on how to edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: if you think you've ever made a constructive edit suggestion on this subject, rather than repeatedly creating similarly bad content or reverting back my attempts to improve your additions with nonsensical comments, then please give a diff to it - and I don't mean taking credit for my recent change, made in a conciliatory attempt to stop your disruptive and unnecessary reversions, and which still stands. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It still stands because it's the best wording for the article not because I have my heart set on using "will". Why do you not understand this!? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: you forgot to tell me where your suggestion was that you say I didn't acknowledge. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Right here. You even pointed out the potential flaw in the wording in a subsequent edit summary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: all I see in the first case is your disruptive reversion (you knew you were reverting to an unacceptable wording), and with a nonsensical and unconstructive comment - I don't see any constructive edit or suggestion thee. In the second case we see my subsequent attempt at a compromise wording. I don't think you can claim any credit there. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course you don't see anything, because that would mean admitting you were in the wrong. After all, you were clearly expecting that I would be unable to produce the evidence you wanted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I knew you wouldn't be able to support what you said as it wasn't an accurate reflection of what actually took place - and I was right - as you didn't. If what you produced was evidence of anything, it was evidence supporting what I have said all along. Let's stop this now, as you are convincing no-one and merely enhancing your reputation as one who doesn't know when to drop the stick. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I produced exactly what you asked for. You're just looking for reasons to disregard it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: enough is enough. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest putting a hatnote over this? This doesn't seem to lead anywhere sensible.Tvx1 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Research question

Hi DeFacto,

Am I correct in guessing that you are living in Britain? Your edit history seems to suggest as much. If you are, I was hoping that you could please help me out with a bit of research for an article. This year's Rally GB features a heavily revised route by virtue of an act of parliament. For the first time in decades, the rally is able to include public roads and as the organisers have been able to put together the most exciting route in thirty years, I'm going to push to make the article GA (and ultimately FA).

My question is this: which act of parliament allowed motorsport to take place on public roads? Furthermore, which act did it repeal/replace, and why was that original act introduced? I'm a little confused because even though we use the Westminster system, I'm not sure which jurisdiction(s) would have to pass the legislation as the rally is based in Wales, but occasionally crosses over into England (although I think that has been dropped thus year). This would really help with the context of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi PM, I can help with some clues, perhaps... As I understand it, the primary legislation covering public road use and regulation in Great Britain (the United Kingdom minus Northern Ireland) is the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA). As enacted, section 12 of that act prohibited motor racing on public roads. In 2015 the UK government introduced a law designed to lighten the regulatory burden across all walks of life, the Deregulation Act 2015, which included amendments to the RTA section 12 which now allows for secondary legislation to authorise motorsport on public roads to be enacted (explained by the MSA here). The power to enact that secondary legislation had already been devolved to the separate local legislatures for England, Scotland and Wales.

England was first to benefit from the law change when, in 2017, with the enactment of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Motor Racing) (England) Regulations 2017, it became possible there to get permission to close for public roads to be used for motor racing events. Then in 2018 the Welsh Assembly passed a similar measure for the roads in Wales - the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Motor Racing) (Wales) Regulations 2018, which came into effect on 2 February 2018.

All the current UK legislation is available online if you fancy doing a bit of OR, but I think most of the important detail was covered in the UK motorsport press and on the MSA website anyway (e.g. Autosport, MSA).

I hope that helps and good luck with the article! -- DeFacto (talk). 13:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, DeFacto. It's not quite what I was hoping for, but that's not on you—you've really helped me out there. The issue has more to do with the policy-making than anything else; I might have to go for general details rather than specific ones.

The MSA article helps a lot; it's too easy to rely on Autosport, Speedcafe (which really just re-posts Autosport articles for international events) and wrc.com. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote at Daimler Company

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Mini (marque)

Githek (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Yes, it's part of German group BMW but i don't know why it's not a subsidiary.Githek (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Githek: Mini is a car marque that BMW now own and use on vehicles produced in their factories, including in the one that they own in the UK which operates as BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited. There is no company called Mini, and there never has been. It is a marque that was created by British Leyland in 1969 to rationalise all the Mini models that they had inherited from BMC under. It then passed to Rover Group and subsequently to BMW. Hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Climax CR1

Thank you so much for your images! I'm surprised that you haven't uploaded them yet, seeing as these were dated 2011 and 2015.

The only images at the time I could use were my own which I took back in 2015. They weren't the best as I didn't have any intention of producing quality images and was using a iPhone 5.

I was always meaning of making this page to prevent this vehicle fading into obscurity. The old images I took in the showroom (Which is all demolished now and they're building a large flat complex) was the only time I could go there and was able to obtain a brochure of the car which I used as reference since any information of it was so scarce. To be honest I was quite lucky because after that day there was nobody at that place and simply left the car and dealership semi-abandoned for about 2 years.

I always wonder where the car is now. I went to the Coventry Transport Museum on my birthday this year but couldn't find it.

Again, thank you for making this article even better quality with the images you took. --Vauxford (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford, well done for creating the article and I'm glad you enjoyed my images. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	See statement above Vauxford (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables

Hi. Since there are more than one article involved, the discussion was held in the WikiProject F1. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Corvus tristis, It would have been a good idea to mention discussion involving these article on their respective talkpages too. However, I don't see a consensus at WT:F1 either, I just see an ongoing discussion about it. If I've missed something please let me know, otherwise (per WP:BRD) please revert back to the long-standing status quo, and wait until a new consensus emerges. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

But it has been already emerged through WP:EDITCONSENSUS, nobody objects the 2016-2019 tables format. It is a three-year status quo. If we really still have the consensus that tables should look like in 2014-2015, then I don't see any volunteers to implement the format in the 2016-2019 articles. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis:, that's not how it works. "Edit consensus" only applies to the article in which the edits were made. The articles in question here each have their own "edit consensus", which, up until your changes over recent days, included the sortable tables. That was the stable condition, the condition you should now accept and revert to until a new consensus is established. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Corvus tristis (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Daimler 250

@DeFacto: Hi DeFacto, a few days ago I made some edit on the Daimler 250 article page. One of the edit was replacing the infobox image to a more higher quality and standard picture. Eddaido disagreed and reverted the edits and we are trying to reach a consensus. Would you mind joining the discussion on the Talk:Daimler 250? --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Land rover

hi, how these new Range Rovers differs from old ones? what means badged`? Range Rover has always been "own" brand made by Land Rover, if you use Land Rover in infobox the actual page should be renamed also. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Typ932, let's discuss this on the article's talkpage. I'll copy your comment there and reply to it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom Pryce

Howdy. If you can get a consensus for adding W/S/E/NI nationalities & flags to the infoboxes of British bio racers, then indeed add the 'person code' to those infoboxes as well. Otherwise, don't bother adding it, as it serves 'no purpose' without W/S/E/NI. A basement is no good, without a house on top of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi GD, I'm not trying to get and have not sought a consensus for adding W/S/E/NI nationalities & flags to the infoboxes of British bio racers. All I have done is suggest a compromise solution in the dispute about adding the fact that Tom Pryce is Welsh to the person infobox which existed by consensus in his article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There already is a compromise at that & the other British racer bios. W/S/E/NI is in the prose of those articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Teqball

Thanks for creating Teqball.

A New Page Patroller Vexations just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

I'm removing the ruls section because it is copied from a copyrighted source.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Vexations (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Vexations, I didn't add that section, perhaps you should talk to Duckhunter44 who did, with this edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There's a bug in the page curation tool that notifies the creator of the article in stead of the editor who made an edit that catches the attention of the reviewer. Vexations (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DeFacto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New account

Hi DeFacto,

The reason I haven't created a new account is because I have been having a lot of problems with GeoJoe1000. About 18 months ago he went on an abusive rampage when results from a race weren't added to a championship article as quickly as he would have liked. I referred him to the admins, who permanently blocked him. GeoJoe has blamed me for it ever since. He periodically revisits my talk page even now, constantly posting messages about how it's all my fault. He's gone through dozens of socks and IP addresses to do it. If I create a new account, I have to disclose that it's me, which will just give him a new target to fixate on and he will spill over into the articles. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, your call. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1RR restriction lifted

Per community consensus at this discussion, your 1RR restriction is lifted. I note in passing that you have two other restrictions logged at ER that have not been formally overturned; a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block." These are standard conditions for an unblock, but since they have not explicitly been appealed or removed, they remain in force. I mention it here only so that you do not violate it inadvertently (and if you desperately want to use an alternative account, you could appeal it, and I see no reason why your appeal should not be granted). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde93, and thanks to those who supported my appeal. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Grovewood Awards) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Grovewood Awards.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

You have probably looked for sources for the other years' recipients, but if any other winners can be found and added to the page, that would be a great improvement.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.105.29 (talk • contribs) 2019-01-14T20:46:26 (UTC)

A favour

I've put a lot of work in to Elizabeth College (Guernsey) with the intention of it achieving good article status, particularly as there are very few GAs in the Education category about British schools, and I'd be grateful if you take some time to make some comments on the review page if you see any improvements that need to be made to improve the article.

This article has been something of a sandbox since I registered my account on Wikipedia, so although I've done my best to get the article up to scratch, there may be some artefacts and issues lingering from times where I knew less about manuals of style and general guidelines to writing articles. Thanks. Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Formulaonewiki, I made a few tweaks to it, but on the whole it looks very good to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, appreciate it. Formulaonewiki (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Shoreham

That's very nice of you, thank you! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I was grateful that you enlightened me. I know it's the opposite when similar things occur on the roads, there can be uproar, especially from the professionals, if the a-word rather than the i-word is used. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely! An amazing and ever-mutating terminological/legal minefield ... the way the RTA language has changed, the way people (police, insurance companies, Prince Philip etc) need to be so careful what they say. Thanks for being so calm about it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

​​​​​​​Thanks to everyone who supported my appeal, which led to my final restrictions being lifted. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Racing Point F1 Team) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Racing Point F1 Team.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for creating this relevant page!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Racing Point UK) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Racing Point UK.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for sorting through the whole Racing Point debacle - much appreciated!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Racing Point UK) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Racing Point UK.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

thank you for creating this relevant article - much appreciated!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Racing Point UK

Hi DeFacto, how's things? Regarding the RPUK article, I've been thinking things through and having a look for additional WP:GNG-compliant sources, and I just don't see them. Of the sources already provided on that page only one deals with RPUK as the primary topic, and it is just a news item saying that they bought FI, not any kind of significant, in depth analysis of the company. Of the remaining four, two give RPUK a one line namecheck in articles that otherwise talk about the racing team, and the other two don't even really do that. As things stand, there is nothing on that page that couldn't be covered by a single sentence added to the RPFI and RPF1 articles, so I really don't see what having the article adds here. The vast majority of the info is actually about the racing teams, not the legal holding company. Where do you see the article contributing over and above a mention that it is a legal instrument used by a few rich people to hold their ownership of a racing team? Pyrope 22:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pyrope, I created Racing Point UK as a parent article for both Racing Point Force India and Racing Point F1 Team. Those two team articles are not documenting two different entities, they are documenting two different eras of exactly the same entity. The single entity is a Formula One racing team operated by Racing Point UK; the two eras are the 2018 season for which their team was called "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team", and the 2019 season, and possibly beyond, for which they renamed their team to "Racing Point F1 Team".

The reason for a different article for each team name is, apparently, that WP:F1 decided that was necessary because the FIA treat each name as a different points-collecting unit. So it would appear disingenuous to duplicate details, that are 100% common to the team under either name, into the two separate articles as if we were discussing two different entities - as is currently the case with the almost identical history sections. This common and identical data is clearly suited to being in a parent article. (now reworked to move the common history to the parent article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

With respect to RS coverage; sure RSs may conflate the stories of the three different concepts (company, team name 1 and team name 2), but that isn't to say that anything not clearly specific to one or other of the separate team names, does not, as a matter of fact, relate to the single underlying company/team. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

InfodudeUK

My Brexit post is backed up with evidence it's basically a reword of the BBC post copyright free and outlines the possible processes remaining to get to a Brexit date.