User talk:DeFacto

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DeFacto.

Archives

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:

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)[reply]

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2025 New Orleans truck attack. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeFacto,

Please do not edit war over which categories this article belongs in. Start a discussion on the article talk page if one hasn't already begun. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, BLP requires everything to be verifiable using quality sources, and WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLP3RR exempts attempts to enforce there requirements from 3RR. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, do you agree with me that my edits weren't edit warring, they were following Wiki BLP policy? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i vs. The i Paper

Re special:diff/1267749415: There is nothing wrong with linking to a former name, especially when this was the name in use at the time of the cited piece. Paradoctor (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor, didn't you notice that I corrected that edit in my next but one edit here - with the edit summary: corrected my mistake, it didn't change its name until the end of 2024? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Kind of like you missed this one. Good thing both of us have WP:WIP to shield us, eh? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it - it was my edit before the correction, that I alluded to above. I can't see any good reason to pipe to that redirect, especially when it's so cumbersomely disambiguated too. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello DeFacto! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Deciding notability and due weight for factual content in articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous post on Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_riots

The post you restored was removed for a good reason. The user in question is combative, and brings up redundant points that are discussed further below, conveniently ignoring the fact that his argument has already been debunked. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other posts on that page from that IP poster, and they added comments that are relevant to that thread, and which have now been replied to by another poster. Why not reply to, rather than expunge, comments that you disagree with? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the user brought up a subject that is already discussed in the very next thread. in that very same thread it is very clearly explained why the HMICFRS report doesn't say what the riot apologists want people to believe it says. Rather than participating in that discussion, the user in question simply responded to a different thread under a different heading, repeating the initial false claim that has been debunked below. Furthermore, this:

I also think it is MORE than fair that the article mentions that the government and the media were VERY happy to immediately point fingers at the "far-right" before any actual RELIABLE link was ever made.

is POV-pushing and this:

Bias works both ways, chaps. Get it done.

is combative language.

The report is an old one, and has only recently become the subject of discussion in far-right circles because it was mentioned on the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, a far right podcast run by Carl Benjamin, which raises questions about pssoble brigading going on. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't see any other posts on that page from the same IP poster. Also, the report is not an old one, it was published on 7 May 2025, and it isn't relevant where it might have been discussed off-Wiki. We need to assume good faith, and stick to Wiki policies and guidelines the best we can. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said absolutely nothing about other posts from the same IP. Not in my first comment, not in my response to you. I said the specific report is discussed in great detail further down below, specifically here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_riots#HMICFRS_(UK_Government_Agency)_releases_new_report_on_Southport_riots , and that the IP went out of their way to avoid that discussion, and instead brought it up in an unrelated topic. In the relevant topic it has been explicitly explained in great detail that the report doesn't prove what the far right claims it proves.

That the report is being discussed off wiki may not be relevant 9 out of 10 times, but when it comes to far right talking heads who disseminate disinformation at an alarming pace, it is very much relevant, because these people have a long and consistent history of brigading wikipedia, which is something that the site has clear rules against. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I thought you were saying that the same poster was posting the same thing in different discussions. That clarification though, makes your removal of that post even less defensible as you cannot just remove their contribution because you assume, in bad faith, that they have read all the comments on a talk page and are just being disruptive. Further, you seem to be making unsubstantiated allegations about their motives which is not only contrary to WP:AGF, but bordering on WP:PA and WP:DE too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the exact quotes from his post to see what I base my assumptions on. That being said, I decided to check his edit history and noticed these two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=1290464331

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_prison_population&diff=prev&oldid=1290566124

Note that he once again failed to sign his talk page comment, despite the fact that current site features make that difficult to avoid. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their other talk page post does not justify your deletion either. Omitting a sig is quite common, even experienced editors do it. It's better to fix it using the {{Unsigned}} template than to delete the post. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sig omission is a minor issue. I wanted to draw attention to the nature of his edits, specifically that they seem to be highly concerned with matters involving race. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the sample size you used to draw that conclusion, and even if it were true, why do you think that entitles you to expunge their contribution to a talk page discussion? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COBRA / Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms

Hi. I see you were involved in a discussion here before. You might want to take a look at a current, similar discussion involving the same editor, similar disagreement. Thanks. // Hippo43 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, where? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits Special:Diff/1306167743 and Special:Diff/1306246399 are related to climate change. — Newslinger talk 18:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, I took part in a noticeboard discussion and reverted a BLP violation wrt an unreliable source? Not sure how that qualifies. Did you send the same message to everyone else involved in that noticeboard discussion and to everyone who has previously included or removed that source? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit related to the topic area qualifies. To date, you have received six alerts for contentious topics (including alerts for discretionary sanctions), and this one is no different from the others except for the topic area it applies to. If you would like to alert any other editor who qualifies to receive an alert, you are free to do so per the guidance in WP:CTOP § Awareness of contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 15:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, yes, and although they carry reassurance to the contrary, each time they arrive they somehow feel like a threat or a warning to coerce one to stop supporting one side of a disagreement - like a restraint on freedom of expression. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to opt out of receiving contentious topic alerts, you can apply the {{Contentious topics/aware}} template on your user talk page (this page) specifying the topic areas you would prefer to not receive alerts for. The template can be used to opt out of alerts for all of the existing contentious topics, but please note that the opt-out method has not yet been implemented for community-authorized general sanctions. — Newslinger talk 17:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, thanks for the info - that makes me more relaxed about them. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations

Hiya, do you think there is enough for a SPI for Silencio x being a sock of Leiwishhh?Halbared (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, easily. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I've made this.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/lewishhh

If you can add any useful info it would be appciated. I'm currently engaged in abi t of a tit for tat on another page. Ta.Halbared (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, DeFacto. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary DeFacto 🎉

Hey @DeFacto. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Avi8tor brought your name up at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Formula_One#Primary_unit but did not notify you here; consider yourself notified if you'd like to comment. Also, 20 YEARS!!! And still not a grouch! Amazing. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]