User talk:DeFacto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia 2 Raleigh Chopper 3 Naiper Railton and Railton Special 4 Take care 5 Crash test dummy 6 Shared space 7 Message from Levanszzzz 8 LDV Pilot 9 Warning 10 Response to your query 11 Alec Issigonis 12 Fact tags 13 Motorway 14 FF Developments 15 Austin Montego 16 Highway Code (Malta) 17 Years in motoring 18 British motor industry 19 Mini Moke - peer review please 20 Trucks

[edit] 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)

[edit] Raleigh Chopper

Hi there. I just wanted to acknowledge your contribution at Raleigh Chopper - your mentioning of Ogle kicked me off googling and it uncovered a whole bunch of intrigue, backstabbing and a very interesting story that I was completely unaware of. I think the article has gained as a result, which is what Wikipedia is all about! Good work. Graham 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was following a chain (from Mini I think) that brought me to Ogle Design, then I googled for their website to add it, which had their history, including the Chopper bit. That led me to Raleigh Chopper. Keep following those links! Thanks for the message. -De Facto 23:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naiper Railton and Railton Special

Hi DeFacto, thanks for pointing out the error in the Railton Special article where I was confused about the two cars. I've put something at Talk:Railton Special which clarifies. PeterGrecian 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's clear now. I've removed the merge requests - thanks. -De Facto

[edit] Take care

You have been a good and knowledgable contributor on various car advocacy issues, but you are starting to fall into edit warring, which is not your usual practice. Please tread carefully to avoid spoiling a good reputation. Up until now you have been remarkably calm in working on some quite contentious issues, and I commend you for that. Please chill :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It is though difficult to tolerate some of the recent edits removing altogether factual (not POV) content. -De Facto 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's more than one way to state a fact :-) I think if we keep working as we have been, discussing on Talk and remaining calm, the articles will all be better as a result - they are all better than they were a few months back. The anon removal of chunks of ABD was not good, but I see Softgrow undid that. Perhaps the table is superfluous, but the article is not over-long. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash test dummy

Thank you for taking the time to replace Mary Driscoll with the correct information, and for providing cites for this info. I reverted your last edit because you had not done these two things, but all appears well now. Denni ☯ 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did a poor job the first time, I had been following all links to Mary Driscoll correcting them, on 'Crash test dummy' I started, then saw the citation, so back-tracked, leaving the wrong date behind, but correcting the sentence from 'first victim' to 'one of the first', intending to come back later with a good citation to do it properly. You gave me further incentive to get on and finish it. All the best -De Facto

[edit] Shared space

Good article, I can't believe I never noticed it before, having been told about Monderman by John Adams :-) I will see if I can get any GFDL-compatible images, there is a nice pair of Seven Dials before and after that I've seen. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commendation :-) Pictures of good examples of shared space schemes would certainly enhance the article. I have never investigated the process for seeking permission to use images from external sources. I did also start an article about Hans Monderman which really needs a good picture of him too. -De Facto 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

John Adams has an email adrdess lsited on his UCL page, he's quite approachable and I'm sure he has pictures because he uses them in his lectures; I'm pretty sure he has some he's taken himself (he has some hilarious ones of kids crossing a road by hopping over the pedestrian barriers - incredibly there has never been an injury at that site because everybody knows they do it!). I'll ask him, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

At the same time I have proposed merging living street and naked streets into the same article, since the three are essentially similar. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Levanszzzz

Dear DeFacto, Thanks for your feedback -- it has been quite difficult for me to get started -- bit like learning Excel when you have never previously used a spread sheet. Indeed, I am not sure I am communicating with DeFacto -- perhaps you can say "hi" to confirm. My user ID looks a bit silly -- can I choose another -- thought it was just for site entry, not realizing it was my "signature" Levanszzzz 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Levanszzzz, I've moved your message to here - my talk page or discussion page, each user has one. I'm also going to put another message on yours. -De Facto 07:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, DeFacto. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDV Pilot

Hiya, I thought I'd write to you here before making nit-picky changes... you've rephrased part of the article to say, "A wide-bodied version, the LDV Convoy, was also produced, derived from the Leyland DAF 300 series." – I see the sense in this (it's an article about the LDV Pilot, not the earlier models) but at the same time I think you've lost the sense that the 300, in turn, was developed from the 200. (This is supported with some ambiguity by the web site linked from the article; it's also obvious from the tech specs in the period brochures, which I have here.) I'd like to find a better form of words which makes this clear. Any thoughts? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I see what you mean. There is no article yet about the Convoy which could describe this, or about the Sherpa, or even the J4, but you could say here something like "A wide-bodied version, the LDV Convoy, was also produced, derived from the Leyland DAF 400 series, which itself was also derived from the Freight Rover 200/300 series". I'll leave it to you (then nit-pick afterwards ;-). -De Facto 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a go, and although I'm not hugely happy with the smoothness of the wording, I think it gets the facts across. I've referred to the "unofficial Austin Rover resource" site to get clarification on when it moved from 300-series to 400-series, and I think what we now have is as good as we can get from that information. An email to them might provide better dates and details, but it may as well wait until a Convoy article is produced, if it ever is. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or you may be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of it. Please explain exactly what you mean. -De Facto 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well. Category controversial rtoad safety legislation was deleted. Category controversy was removed form the same articles for pretty much the same reason. Category junk science road safety is an even more contentious version of the same thing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your query

Greetings, De Facto. I chose to make my comments in the discussion on JzG's page so that it would be obvious I was offering a critique. Had I appeared from nowhere on your talk page with my comments, it would've seemed too much like a random attack, as it seems to me. There are many examples on Wikipedia of how to write cogently; I don't see that it would be beneficial to either of us for me to rewrite your content for you. I think I provided sufficiently detailed comments on the problems that you should be able to clean it up and fix it by yourself. Can you explain what you were trying to say in no more than three sentences of no more than 25 words each? Scheinwerfermann 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Issigonis

Hi! The image you added to Alec Issigonis just got deleted because of lack of source information - any chance you could fix it? The article really needs a photo. SteveBaker 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't actually provide the image, I just added the one I found in 'comons' to the article. I don't know who uploaded it, or its provenance, so unfortunately, I cannot fix it. Sorry.- de Facto (talk). 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - sorry - I'll try to chase down whoever added it to commons. Thanks! SteveBaker 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

Don't get too carried away, eh? Where a single continuous paragraph requires a citation, one fact tag is enough; if there are numeorus specific concerns within a single para best take it to Talk. Too many {fact} tags is ugly. No problem with requiring citations, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 10:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Although where many different assertions are made they each need confirmation. It is not necessarily desirable to expect a reader to find (especially if not available on the web) and trawl through a cited document to see if an earlier assertion is also covered. In such cases it would be advantageous to put appropriate quotes from the cited documemt in the talk - as with Bicycle helmet. -- de Facto (talk). 10:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem with any of that, cited and verifiable is always good. But in the article itself, a single tidy {fact} tag and noting the issues within the para on Talk is, in my view anyway, preferable to multiple tags in the para. It also makes it easier to fix, since the individual problems are listed along with why they are considered problems. Incidentally, I'll be in the States next week and only online intermittently if at all, so please be patient if you tag something and I don't pick it up straight away. I think we know each other well enough by now that you will accept my word if I say I have a citation somewhere, I am in the middle of moving house so some of my more arcane references (including some microfiched documents TRL sent me) are not readily available. Please bear with us while we try to restore normal service :o)

Oh, one more thing: I try not to cite Davis because his book is actually a synthesis of research, and everythign in it is referenced back to the original sources. I generally cite the original sources. But sometimes I remember it's in chapter 5, as it were, and use that as a placeholder until I get to the original. The one whihc exercises me most right now is the blind trial on seat belt materials which was actually about comparing habitually belted and unbelted drivers - I know I have the cite somewhere but I'm buggered if I can find it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorway

Hi, I noticed that you reinserted the bit about speed limits on dual carriageways. Unfortunately the statement

In the UK all dual carriageways, including motorways, unless otherwise indicated, have a maximum speed limit of 70 mph.

is incorrect, as it ignores the built up area restriction of 30mph, which does not need to be signed. The restriction does not apply to motorways so placing the qualification

In the UK all dual carriageways, including motorways, unless otherwise indicated, have a maximum speed limit of 70 mph. Except where a dual carriageway is in a built up area as defined by the distance between street lighting columns.

seems a little much for the motorway article. It would be much simpler to place information on dual carriageways in the dual carriageway article and leave it out of the Motorway article all together. Road Wizard 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have just remembered that there are a few stretches of single carriageway motorway in the UK (M58 & A601(M)). I think those stretches have 70 mph speed limits also, so grouping motorways with dual carriageways is a little misleading. Road Wizard 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• All good points. I've reworded it again. I mention dual carriageways to draw attention to the fact that motorways, despite their higher standards and restriction of access to slow vehicles etc., do not have a higher limit than them. Remember that street lights on dual carriageways may indicate a 30 mph limit, and also remember that some motorway sections have limits of less than 70 mph. Feel free to reword it if you are still not happy with it! -- de Facto (talk). 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you have any objection to, "In the UK the majority of motorways and dual carriageways have a maximum speed limit of 70 mph (113 km/h) for cars."? Road Wizard 19:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, no objections to that at all. -- de Facto (talk). 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FF Developments

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article FF Developments, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:FF Developments. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Montego

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Austin Montego. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Describing something as "market leading" in an encyclopedia isn't exactly neutral. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Take another look at it and see if you think it now satisfies the criteria. I've reworded it and cited the source of the data. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highway Code (Malta)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Highway Code (Malta), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Highway Code (Malta). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years in motoring

Hi, I see in the 1986 article we've both been working on (and perhaps others) there's a bit of a mish-mash of past and present tense. Do you know if there's a standard which is supposed to be used for these, and even if there isn't, do you think it's worth going through them trying to make them consistent? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if there is a standard, but I guess they should all be consistent. I've written in the past tense - as it is the past, but can change if you like. -- de Facto (talk). 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't, I quite agree, past tense is more appropriate. The present tense ones sound nice, but more like a magazine article than an encyclopædic one. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)}

[edit] British motor industry

Congratulations on upgrading British motor industry. I have looked at this item several times and wondered what to do with it. You have made a vast improvement. I have got the production totals for the years 1900 to 1996 from an SMMT publication and can add these, probably on a decade basis ie 1910, 1920 etc to stop the list getting too large. The same book will allow the history section to be expanded. Malcolma 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Replied more fully at User talk:Malcolma#British motor industry. -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Moke - peer review please

Hi! I recall your help in getting Mini through to WP:FA and wondered if you would have a moment to copyedit Mini Moke. The article is in reasonable technical shape - but I'm not good at polishing the English to the standard needed and I could use a little help! SteveBaker 12:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've just uploaded and added a photo of a Portugese built Moke to it. I'll read through the text later and see if I can contibute anything - good luck with it! -- de Facto (talk). 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice photo! Many thanks for your help. SteveBaker 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trucks

Pardon for intruding, but would you be interested in supporting the creation of a project about trucks? Please feel free to sign up or just comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Trucks.   Rotten Stone 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)