User talk:DeFacto

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)

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:

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'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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

Stirchley.resident (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stirchley.resident (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Had been already closed as "Nominator partially blocked 2 weeks" before I saw this. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You made 4 reverts. I believe you should also be blocked. WP:ONUS is not an exception from the 3Rr rule. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you made 3, I read 16 as 18, apologies. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No probs - all's well that ends well. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

CNC (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Websites change over time. For example:

• This shows content as it was in July 2024; it mentions Angeliki Stogia
• This shows the content as it is now; it does not mention Angeliki Stogia.

This edit added url-status=live to a citation template with an archive URL. This was inappropriate because the archived content was what was being cited, and the current content was not. I have changed it to url-status=usurped.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The rest of your changes to Angeliki Stogia were helpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I try my best. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1, fair comment and thanks for the explanation. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello DeFacto. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrest photograph.png, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Thise Reuters image is the subject of the some text in the article. Whether that is sufficient is something that needs to be taken to WP:FFD. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Whpq, the article is a BLP and not about that photo. That text about the photo in the article seems to have been removed now. I guess it was originally added as an attempt to bypass copyright scrutiny. Can you look at it again please? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The Reuters photographer Phil Noble's photograph of a "shell-shocked, haunted" Andrew sitting in his car earned international attention. is specifically about the photo and has sources that back up the statement. That is a commentary about the photo itself. There is no requirement in WP:F7 that the photo be used in an article specifically about the photo. There was no attempt to bypass copyright scrutiny. The image is clearly marked as a copyrighted image. It has a non-free usage rationale. The rationale actually does articulate the purpose of the photo in the article, and it even identifies this as a Reuters photo. Whether its use is compliant with non-free content should be discussed at FFD rather than speedy deletion. Whpq (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Whpq, OK, thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you self-revert yourself given your 4th revert within 24 hours here, Notably the last two is restoring exactly the same content. I thought of going to noticeboard where such violations should be reported, but instead thought I'd let you know in case it slipped your mind. Regards, CNC (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the first diff as blatant synth, so I guess you can pick something else. CNC (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with that revert, but we can talk about it on the article's talk page. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes it would be best to gain consensus there rather than restoring again. CNC (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, or you could self-revert your fifth revert to restore it and thus reduce your revert tally to four, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite by some. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, thanks for your comradely warning, and I accept that you sent it in in good-faith.

However, I think you miscounted, in the heat of the moment perhaps. By my reckoning, per the definition in the red box in the policy here, I think only three of those were reverts.

Over a similar perid and following the same policy definition, I think (and I concede that it is a tedious PITA to try and count them, and prone to errors) that you racked-up at least five reverts. These are they: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

In articles such as the one in question, I think that most seasoned and well meaning editors would exercise a bit of flexibility and a large helping of good-faith in their tolerance of this sort of fast-moving give and take. Doing so because they know that way will probably ultimately deliver a natural, congenial, and more stable consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The second and fourth diffs of mine aren't reverts; they are adding content and summarising content, that leaves me at 3, arguably 2 given the 1st diff is summarising not reverting necessarily. Tbf though the consecutive nature of the reverts in the 1st and 2nd diffs I provided probably leaves you at 3 reverts rather than four, although I guess interpretation can vary on that one.

There's gives and take, but when the reverts are restoring the same edits that have been reverted by other editors already, and takes you over the 3RR limit, then it's more back and fourth which isn't as productive. CNC (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said, only three of those edits of mine that you listed were reverts. The first two are unambiguously consecutive - there are no other edits between them.

OTOH, the first, second and fourth edits of yours are unquestionably reverts, leaving your revert count at five. WP:EW (the policy which inclues WP:4RR that you linked to in your original post here) says: To revert is to undo the action of another editor those three edits each undid the actions of another editor.

• The first one obliterated attribution context that I had added in this edit
• The second one removed material showing that The Times called them right-wing which I had added in this edit (the same one you removed other stuff from in the first edit 1 above)
• The fourth one removed at least a sentence about Nigel Farage's inquiry proposal that was added in this edit

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Delayed response, but you're welcome to think that, I'll otherwise ignore responding to the personal attack above. "obliterated attribution" made me laugh, when it improved it. And bare in mind WP:NOT3RR applies to poorly sourced BLP content.

It does otherwise seem like arguing with you about these things is always a lost cause as it's irrelevant how many other users revert you, or when there is clear consensus against your preferred version. And now I see you've tagged the section, I assume after running out of times you can revert back to your preferred version? But I guess you can still revert editors who end up removing the banner due to lack of dispute, at least twice? Curious to see how it will play out. CNC (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, I'd really stop digging.

You made five reverts, and stating that, and how your allegations might appear to others, given that you alleged that my clearly three reverts were four, is a fair observation and not a PA. And you then gave a quote truncated to lose its context, followed by an irrelevant claim that the revert improved something - a revert is a revert. That revert removed numerous pieces of "attribution context", as I said, and none of them were "poorly sourced BLP content".

As for others also reverting, again that is irrelevant. Regardless, reverting back to NPOV infringing content is not a good thing, no matter how many people try it - and even if there was a 'consensus' for it, that consensus would not trump the Wikipedia NPOV policy - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

And yes, as advised in WP:NPOV, I tagged the compromised section after all remaining attribution was later removed - please assume good faith. I think we all know how it is likely to play out, but you can't say I didn't strive for neutrality - even if that turns out to be a lost cause.

You made a mistake in the original allegation of four reverts in 24 hours that you brought here. I pointed-out your mistake, and noted that around the same time you had actually made five reverts in 24 hours yourself. An apology would have been sufficient, and we could have moved on. However, you chose, instead, to try dancing on the head of a pin to somehow excuse your mistake and, worse of all, to excuse your own five reverts. Are you proud of that behaviour? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You lost me at PA tbh, followed by Are you proud of that behaviour? Not sure what the focus on image and pride is about, but it's very odd. CNC (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I lost you? That was convenient for you then. Ah well. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You can find it here.

NONE19204 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)