Archives

/Archive 2005-2007 /Archive 2008-2009 /Archive 2010-2011 /Archive 2012-2014 /Archive 2015-2020 /Archive 2021-2024

Welcome!

Hello DeFacto, andwelcome 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 aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check outWikipedia: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 myTalkpage. --Martyman-(talk)20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made on2025 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 tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked 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, andWP:BLPRESTORE andWP: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]

Respecial:diff/1267749415: There isnothing 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 edithere - 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 missedthis one. Good thing both of us haveWP: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]

HelloDeFacto! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Deciding notability and due weight for factual content in articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated 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]

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 byCarl 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 toWP:AGF, but bordering onWP:PA andWP: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]

Hi. I see you were involved in adiscussion 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]

You have recently made edits related toclimate change. This is a standard message to inform you thatclimate change is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk18:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your recent editsSpecial:Diff/1306167743 andSpecial:Diff/1306246399 are related toclimate change. — Newslinger talk18:53, 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 receivedsix alerts for contentious topics (including alerts fordiscretionary 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 inWP:CTOP § Awareness of contentious topics. — Newslinger talk15:46, 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 ofthe existing contentious topics, but please note that the opt-out method has not yet been implemented forcommunity-authorized general sanctions. — Newslinger talk17:11, 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]