User talk:DeFacto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] London Congestion Charge

Hi, the changes you have introduced about morning peak time effects do not apply to the short effects as those figures were drawn from a long-term monitoring report. There is already a mention of this effect there, although perhaps the wording could be stronger. Be wary of quoting too extensively from the the Bow report in WP as a source, as it is not an independent source, but is a political organisation with a particular axe to grind (regardless of the veracity of their conclusions!!). However the graph they cite would appear to be a good one as it is from the transport planners' monitoring report.

• Re: Traffic & Public Transport section - There is a lot of confusion in the media with what congestion means, and a change to calling that section "Congestion" would perpetuate that problem. The stats in this section major on traffic volumes, not on congestion, which is a measurement of delay. This difference was raised on the talk page last year & is sitting in the archives, but in brief, a network does not suffer from congestion just because there is more traffic.
• Re: Safety - The figures & quotes by the LAS have a direct relevance on the interpretation of TfL's accident estimates, thus they should not be removed. They are not POV, as they are all quotes from LAS etc.

Before reverted I had invited you to raise these issues on the talk page - should we take this conversation there now? Ephebi (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did start a discussion about this at Talk:London congestion charge#Content of the 'Effects' section - let's continue this there. -- de Facto (talk). 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi again - I've got back to the CC article again tonight & have been going through the Bow Group stuff ... their take on the accounts are very interesting, and I'm pleased to see another perspective on the figures. This is a really important element for transport planners - as you probably know, the economic benefits of a congestion charge should be partly the freeing up of traffic flows, but maybe a larger part should be a redistribution of money towards public transport (& not just a few bendy buses!). Apologies if you think that I've dropped in 'weasel words', although if you look carefully you'll see I've added a few more attributions in the citations. But the question marks against TfL/Livingstone's finances do seem to originate from one individual who, through his blog, seems to be feeding the numbers into the counter argument which is being echoed by Bow & Boris' campaign. What Taylor is saying does seem plausible if he is correctly interpreting & reporting back on the figures he claims to have got back through his FoI request. As a result I've also tightened up the wording around the accounts from impact assessment reports - no GAAP there! But I'd feel much more comfortable about taking a firmer line on this when/if these omissions by TfL somehow get confirmed officially (!) or get aired in the more mainstream media. Regards, Ephebi (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAM Motoring Trust

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of IAM Motoring Trust, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- de Facto (talk). 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign for Better Transport and Public Transport changes

Not too convinced about the union and bus industry angle you added to the leader of Campaign for Better Transport. Lets talk about it in the talk pages if you are not happen with my last change. You could put an entry in the Controvercies section if you like, but please don't shove it straight into the leader.

Not sure why you removed my contribution about congestion charge and investment in public transport in London from the Public Transport article, I thought it was one of the best referenced bits of the article? Can you comment on my talk pages rather than in the PT article. I guess the cycling stuff may not fit in a PT article although I think it is an important part of a 'low car' transport system.PeterIto (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the message, it is good to have people keep one on one's toes! I will review my contribution re London and reinstate something that is supported by the references. The PT article in general needs a huge amount of referencing. I may have a go at referencing for few sections of it and removing stuff that isn't supported, the idea of putting referece tags on each section is a good one. For your interest you might like to see the makeover that I gave car-free movement over the weekend (check the before and after articles) which I think is now is fully wikified and referenced except for one claim that I can't source but which I believe is true which now has a fact tag. PeterIto (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now investigated CBT's funding in more details and CBT Ltd is funded by loads of transport operators etc, so I have added a phrase to the leader about their sources of funds and introduced a controversies section relating to their impartiality. Btw, all the negative links currently lead to Association of British Drivers, it would be good to have some from elsewhere if they exist or it just looks like a feud between the two organisations. Thanks for the explanation re PT article, I will come back to it at some point. PeterIto (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should emphasise the difference between the role of their "affiliates" and their PT-industry dependent sponsors. -- de Facto (talk). 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road protest

You tagged this for speedy deletion, and I deleted it, but a user has come back to me and asked for it back so that he can improve it. I have to say I'm very skeptical but, being a sucker, I've agreed to do it... I just wanted you to know that I completely 100% agreed with your decision to tag it in the first place, and I would not have restored it except on the assurance that it would get some content. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for letting me know. -- de Facto (talk). 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that I'm going to be watching the article like a hawk and if it doesn't shape up, it ships out. Thanks for your understanding. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that you had marked the Road protest (UK) article (previously Road protest)that I was currently working on for speedy deletion just after I had committed in the log to expand it over the next two weeks into a viable article. It had had 3 contributers (talk+article), an active talk page and was only 3 days old or so. Please discuss recommendations for articles I am working on on the talk page first. Thanks. PeterIto (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied in detail on your own talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merged into of Congestion pricing into Time-based pricing

Dear DeFacto. Sorry but I do not think this is a good idea, only the title names of the articles seem similar. Congestion pricing refers to public goods (utilities and public services) and their externalities (congestion in this particular case), while time-base pricing refers to private goods and services under free competition, essencially, how private firms do their pricing. Follow the references, particularly K. Button, and in particular all the existing literature on this subject in the transportation economics literature and papers. There are plenty of references in the congestion pricing article. Other readings to clarify the issue: welfare economics, congestion pricing is looking for maximizing social welfare, time-based pricing is about maximizing profits; Commons dilemma applies only to public goods and is one of the justifications for congestion pricing, it has nothing to do with time-base pricing; see also Pigovian tax, Externalities and follow the "see also" links. I respectfully request the speedy deletion of the Merge banner.

By the way, we seem to be bumping each other in transport related articles lately. I would like you not to be so swfit with big changes, and please, let's discuss any issues in the Talk page first. I do not like to waste my time on edit war or unnecessary controversies. I am a transportation enginerr/economist, with a background on highways, traffic engineering, traffic safety, urban transportation and planning, economic appraisal, etc. I would like to know your background and establish a productive collaboration together in transport related articles. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PD: next I will put the definitions of TDM for you in the Talk page of that article.

I replied to your "merge" points in the proposed host article's talk page - Talk:Time-based pricing. -- de Facto (talk). 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your other point. I am a road and transport user, and know some of the problems involved. When I read an article, I like to see plain every-day English used, with no unnecessary technical jargon, with a neutral point of view, and with all assertions fully and verifiably attributed. -- de Facto (talk). 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road protest

A few comments:

• You have broken the links to news items for "On several occaisions protesters received prison sentences for refusing to be bound over, or for breaking court injunctions" have no URL's. Can you add them. Are you sure they were 'bound over', I thought they were injuncted and I thought that was different but can't check it because there is no link.
• Why remove the reference to Rebecca Lush and to the viist from the european environment person?
• The phrase "According to" relating to the mention of ex-Twyford Down protestor Paul Kingsnorth," makes it sound like it was a personal opinion that there were major protests which I just don't think is true. Please check for yourself and see if that was a general opinion and reconsider PeterIto (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers, in the same order:

• I've referenced newspaper reports, which, as far as I know, aren't freely available on the web - so they have no links. According to those reports, at least one of the protestors was bound over. I'll quote the newspaper articles in Talk:Road protest (UK).
• I didn't think it was appropriate to single one individual out of the many imprisoned, and the reason for the visit wasn't explained, so seemed pointless.
• I'll re-phrase the "According to" sentence.

-- de Facto (talk). 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Road Protest article Defacto! Before trying to 'adjust' the references of SACTRA in 1994 again please do your research and understand the radical effect this document had on roads policy for the UK government due to its recognition of induced demand and the big changes this created by removing a key plank from the benefit / cost calculations that previously assumed that road users would see major benefits in their journey times. This message needs to be retained in the Road Protest article. PeterIto (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this comment to the article's talk page. -- de Facto (talk). 09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting undo in Congestion pricing

Dear friend, most of the changes you made in this article reflect your opinion, but these are economic concepts. For example, economic efficiency has a specific meaning, as well as second best, etc. it is the jargon of economics. If you do not like the economics that is a different thing. I kindly request you make the proper citations or undo all the changes you did yesterday. I do not like to waste time in edit wars. We can discuss in the talk page any issues. Otherwise, I will directly ask an admiministrator to intervene.Mariordo (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mariordo, I'll answer your concerns on the article talk page, where I think this discussion belongs. -- de Facto (talk). 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Come on, give Mariordo a break here please, and AGF? He has shown the patience of a saint in dealing with your requests for tuition in this & other topics. Let him get on with editing, his edits are of a high quality & accurate, from my own professional experience he seems to have a good grounding in what he's writing about. You have shown yourself to be quite capable of sourcing these peripheral references: if you don't have access to an engineering or university library for the background reading try getting started here - search for congestion pricing & their listserve. That would be more constructive & educational than drive-by tagging and revert wars. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you failing to AGF for my edits? My actions are designed to improve the NPOV and clarity of articles. I attempt to add balance to articles which are often largely based solely on the "establishment" or "orthodox" POV. Readers should be made aware of the assumptions that these views are founded upon, and that they are not necessarily the only means to a given end. If I believe that a statement is making a non-neutral assertion, and thaat it has not been adequately qualified and/or attributed, then I will point it out. -- de Facto (talk). 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course not - I appreciate you have been making to efforts to introduce balance - though sometimes it is clearly a minority perspective, and aggressive promotion of that perspective as mainstream can be disruptive. But remember WP has a role to present the mainstream view, and it is good for an editor to "bone up" on that aspect first, otherwise contrary edits can impact readability and introduce confusion. An article such as this is built on a pyramid of other economic theories, learning, and practice - questions and doubts about those foundations should be directed elsewhere. Ephebi (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP requires that views be presented as that - views, not as fact, or as the only "truth". It also requires that all significant views should be presented, none of them pejoratively. We should not allow mainstream views to be presented as incontrovertible. -- de Facto (talk). 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A380

The reason I had to get mpg from L/100 km and then plug it into the template is that the MPGe JetK accounts for the BTU of Jet fuel (a factor of 0.89). I would be nice to have (or a way to use) the convert template to get plug a value into the MPGe template, something like this: {{MPGe JetK|{{MPGe L/100 km|(310000/(15200*525/100))}}}}, but convert return both L/100km and mpg instead of just a number - I didn't try to see if it works... I like your new wording on most entries, but the table got messy. Work in progress? I'll write MPGe imp and MPGe L/100 km conversion templates that just return numbers (hope it isn't already done). 4.3 L/100 km (54 MPGe_US) Ephdot (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the "equivalence" part, which is why a template that calculates it is good. But if the original data is quoted in litres, then a template that accepts litres, would also be useful. The present set of templates needs the editor to first convert from L/100km to miles per U.S. gallon, which not only is laborious, but could introduce errors. -- de Facto (talk). 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple more templates. "MPGe L/100 km" - which converts to mpg as a simple number and "MPGe mpgimp" which converts to mpgus as a simple number. You use them like this:

{{MPGe JetK|{{MPGe L/100 km|(310000/(15200*525/100))}}}} Ephdot (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks a bit awkward, could we try something like: {{L/100km JetK to MPGe|3}}? -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but your suggestion requires duplicating all MPGe conversions for "L/100 km" and "mpgimp". Ideally, it would look like the convert template {{MPGe|3|L/100 km|jetK}}, but it will take a while to figure out. This was simpler/faster. If anyone has the technical ability and time, have at it. I might get to it if I have time, but fixing the mess on the Fuel efficiency in transportation page seems more important right now. Ephdot (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary table on the Fuel efficiency in transportation page is still messed up. It overlaps the next section. Why put it at the bottom? What was wrong with having it on the side? Ephdot (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though you have fixed it now. It was a bit wide for up the side, especially on smaller resolution screens. The adjacent text could get very squeezed. -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still a bit odd because there is data from above and below in this summary table. Could it be made slimmer (using rowspan=2 ?) or put at the top? If I can figure out how to make it slimmer, anyy objection to moving it back? Ephdot (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

First, thanks for tackling the Fuel efficiency in transportation page.

(The rest of this comment was moved to the appropriate talk page: Talk:Fuel efficiency in transportation)

Ephdot (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion of details of a specific article (which may be of interest to other editors) should be carried-out in the article, so I've moved the discussion to there. -- de Facto (talk). 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automotive industry

Suggesting a change (removing production figures) on the talk page of an article is fine -- making a "suggestion" in the notes while unilaterally deciding on such a change seems rather high-handed. Why on earth is "less information" a better thing for Wikipedia? I expect to revert this change unless you have compelling information as to why it's not valuable for the reader. Tomh009 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Automotive industry, to ensure that other interested editors see the discussion. -- de Facto (talk). 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

hi, where do we need those dates in car articles? I think there is nothing intresting to check about those dates... --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Typ932. We don't actually need (or even want) the links themselves, but that is the only way of allowing the 'user preference' for 'date format' to be obeyed. If you are not familiar with the setting (available to all registered users) see Help:Preferences#Date_format for more details about it, and its effects. Also see MOS:SYL for a description of date linking. Various customs and preferences exist around the world (even around the English-speaking world) for how dates are displayed, and Wiki provides the user preference mechanism to allow users to see the date how they like to see it, rather than how the editor liked to write it. It seems fair enough, to me, to use it for that purpose. -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV on London congestion charge

If you are going to make an edit that goes against consensus and introduces a POV term (changing "toll" to "tax") then at least discuss it first. I've reverted it back to "toll" in the mean time. Cambrasa (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you consult the article history, you will see that the word "toll" was POV-pushed into the article, with no edit summary, just over an hour before my edit. "Tax" is a legitimate word for a government revenue raising measure, such as the LCC. Cambrasa, can you point me to the "consensus" to which you refer? -- de Facto (talk). 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See articles such as Electronic Road Pricing and Oslo#Road --Cambrasa (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in either of those articles for the use of the term "toll" in the London Congestion Charge article. -- de Facto (talk). 10:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the term "toll" was POV pushed, to replace the term "fee" but then you introduced the POV term "tax" instead of changing it back to "fee", a term that had stood for at least a year, looking at the article's history. Cambrasa (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tax" seemed the more appropraite term at the time, after seeing it edited to the POV-term "toll". Although I did later revert it to "fee", following your reversion back to "toll". -- de Facto (talk). 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wp:3rr violation reported

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prius. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Violation reported at: WP:AN/3RR Appreciate your passion in editing wikipedia, but edit warring is not a solution. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that you chose to invoke that rule over those edits. There was no 3rr violation. I was attempting to restore the neutrality and integrity of the paragraph that I had added. Other editors had moved it to the "Controversies" section without supplying the necessary references to justify such a move, added unsupported original research to it, added personal POV (such as diesel being "expensive") to it, and re-interpreted the referenced data, omitting the essential disambiguation of the gallon related units used (see wp:mos#Units_of_measurement). Requests for justification and references were ignored and tags removed without comment. -- de Facto (talk). 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Fair enough. I agree to stop the reverting.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Promises to be good. Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted by east718 (talk · contribs). Request handled by: weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prius edits June 2008

Hello, there: Why do you remove the section I added to Toyota Prius page. Click here to see what you have removed. Note that whole sub section is for Controversies. The actual fuel economy of Prius is a controversy so it is fitting to present facts to support both sides of the story. I cited a link where people show they achieved better fuel economy than officially claim. I persoanlly take a photo of my own Prius to show what it can actually achieve in real world. What's wrong with it? Those are facts, not opinions. My wordings were trying to be neutral and factual. Please put it back. --Silverbach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbach (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you read the edit summary that I added, you'll see that I: "Removed sub-section as apparent personal POV and original research". Check the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the third sentence: "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." Additionally, if you check the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, you'll see that generally, forum posts, and most other types of self-published information, are not accepted as reliable sources for article content. -- de Facto (talk). 08:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DeFacto: I read the Wikipedia:No original research, and I find I can not agree with you. The section I added did not break the policy. It specifically calls for a broad exception for original images. There is no personal reseach done here. I did not set out to research Prius fuel economy. I used it for regular commute, and took a photo of what it happened to be. I have NOT doctored the image. It is a fact, not a personal opinion. I presented link to OTHER people talking about their experience with Prius fuel efficiency, NOT my own experience. I will continue to dispute to get the word description of that section back. For now, since the image obviously does not break the policy I am putting that image back as a factual example. My image, as well as a pre-exiting one submitted by some one else, clearly show a higher fuel economy better than EPA rating. Shouldn't Wikipedia respect factual truths better than respecting official data source? Silverbach (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are recording a primary source (the images of your car) and then analysing the primary source to form a hypothesis. This is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia's No Original research policy:

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

While on first glance your use of other peoples' images sounds like you are referring to a secondary source, each of those images are in fact primary sources of the other peoples' cars. The forum you have quoted is a secondary source that examines the data from the primary sources but unfortunately, as DeFacto pointed out, forums are not reliable sources. Anyone could create a handful of forum accounts, post any information they want and then try to use that to justify their own claims. As stated in WP:V:

"self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Regrettably, I will have to conclude that while your statements may indeed be true, the sources you have used are not reliable or, in themselves, verifiable. Road Wizard (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)