User talk:DeFacto

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity, this inflammatory post was totally unnecessary, but thanks for confirming what I was beginning to suspect. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that reverting others edits is an issue for this editor, again they have broken the 3rr in 24 hours. Jord656 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently, as well as in the past, made references to

@

Words to watch

', which says: ... certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias, and Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words..., and Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view.

So from your diffs above we see that, in every case, I was attempting to address the the bias in the "how you say it" requirement of NPOV. For each of your diffs respectively, I changed the articles' contents as follows:

• From 'laws' to 'regulations', when the latter is to more specific term as we are talking about breaches of Coronavirus Regulations, no matter how the media choose to spin it.
• From 'revealed' to 'found', the latter being less loaded, and from 'multiple parties' to 'multiple gatherings, including parties', the latter being more precise, and from '[parties] breaching [regulations]' to "[regulations] were breached by some members of staff", as it was the people, not the gatherings, that the regulations in question related to.
• From 'attempts to redress the disproportionate impact of COVID-19...' to 'attempts to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19', and from 'including failures to respond to warnings' to 'including the response to warnings', as the original wordings were negatively loaded.
• From 'but later admitted to following them' to 'and later confirmed they were following them', as the original implied culpability.
• From 'the police force admitted' to 'the police force confirmed', as the original implied culpability.
• 'Statements deemed racist' to 'Statements alleged to be racist', as the original implied a judgement had been made.

Are we on the same page now? Or as I do think you are wrong about this, do you still suggest we go to

WP:NPOVN? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"From 'laws' to 'regulations', when the latter is to more specific term as we are talking about breaches of Coronavirus Regulations, no matter how the media choose to spin it."

You are doing

you don't like how they report. Cortador (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Cortador, as much as I'm tempted to point out here why you are mistaken about that, I will not, because this is a discussion about what is, and what is covered in the NPOV policy. I will happily engage on this though if you start a discussion in the more appropriate place of the article's own talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admitted that you simply changed what the sources stated because they "spun" it in your opinion. The place to discuss that isn't the article talk page, it is this page, as this isn't an issue with a specific article, but an issue with your general lack of understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't the reason I gave for changing it - that was: ... we should apply our own NPOV policies and not necessarily mimic the style used by the media. I've never questioned the reliability of the sources, just the biased/loaded language some of them often use. The rest of my edit summary was countering that misunderstanding of Wiki polices as in your edit summary restoring the non-NPOV compliant version, as you said there "Law" is the term that the article body and sources use. So please take to the article's talkpage where we can discuss why I think that assertion of yours is mistaken, or to

WP:NPOVN, if you want to challenge the NPOV policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Our own NPOV policies" is WP:OR, as Smartse explained to you above. Cortador (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador, please check the title of this thread. That's my last word on that here. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my comment above. Cortador (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the recent revert on Keir Starmer can you clarify what you mean in your edit summary by "established consensus"? It seemed undue to me and is already covered on Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take to the article's talkpage so that editors interested in that article get to see it too. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I concur with your sentiment. I too would like to express my concern and draw attention to the disruptive editing observed in Suella Braverman's article. Such behavior not only fails to contribute meaningfully to the discussion or analysis but also hampers the collaborative effort to maintain a reliable and accurate source of information. Consider this message as a cautionary reminder from another concerned user. Let us work together to ensure the integrity and quality of the content on this platform, maintaining a respectful and cooperative approach in our interactions. Additionally, I encourage both users to engage in open communication on the article's talk page or seek assistance from experienced editors or administrators to resolve any conflicts or disagreements amicably. Aimilios92 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:notwallofshame

•Cyberwolf• 12:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimilios92, such unsubstantiated allegations are not welcome here. Please either substantiate it with policy-based arguments that counter the reasons I gave for my edits, or apologise and strike out your nonsense. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello, thanks for filing that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m considering striking comments made by the block evading IP on

Best, A smart kitten (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten, I'll leave it to your discretion, but thanks for the message. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up deciding to strike them. I think I’ve finished extracting the block evader’s contribs from the relevant articles now, but crikey that took a long time to do! A smart kitten (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

Hi mate, just wanted to get your opinion on this edit. I'm not sure I'm seeing a consensus to add this ideology on the talk page, but you've been more active there recently than me. What do you think? — Czello ^(music) 07:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czello, I don't see a consensus for that on the talkpage at all. The discussion seems to have stalled there since this editor refused to say how they had selected the sources they has presented as evidence, and after they hid my questioning there as "off-topic". And previous attempts to change this have always been reverted. Perhaps we need to continue the discussion there, or perhaps start a new clean one. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello and @DeFacto

What were both your thoughts on the 'Controversies' section on Conservative Party (UK). If these two issues were so prominent (which they aren't), wouldn't they be incorporated into the relevant part of the history section. It seems undue to me to have separate sections for this, does it violate NPOV rules? Michaeldble (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree they should be merged into history per

WP:CRITS — Czello ^(music) 16:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Czello I would normally agree, but the history section is surely just a summary of the key points of the history of the party. Neither of these issues dominated Johnson or May's premiership even remotely. Would this section not be better off moved to the Premiership of Boris Johnson instead or removed entirely? Michaeldble (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaeldble, I think the best place for this discussion is on the article's talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Conservative Party (UK). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that accusation as retaliation for me pointing out your behaviour here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In regards to

@Abbyjjjj96, this discussion belongs on the article's talkpage really, but the answer is simple. We don't know if she has had more children since the date she had her second one, so the article may be out of date. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no reason to believe she may have had another child and not announced it. The 'as of' in the article as is seems to suggest she will have (or is planning to have) more when she may not (and planning to have more still doesn't mean she will). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ASOF. Please take to the article talkpage if you still have problems with that, and we can see what other editors think too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keeping it accurate, neutral, verifiable, and encyclopaedic is not a bad thing. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he had not assumed ownership of the metrification page, as well. 1.145.23.211 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Just Stop Oil edits. But I don't expect this comment to stay. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, JSO have posted to Twitter: twitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1714665304771407885 Not a secondary source, more like evidence I would say. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison, that doesn't support your addition either, but the talkpage is the place to discuss that too. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsupported content and I removed it. That is supported by

WP:BLPREMOVE. If you disagree, the thing to do is to present your rationale on the article's talkpage (not here) and try to reach an agreement, but don't just force your version back into the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have presented my rationale twice. Once here and once on the article talk page. You rolled back without responding. I am kind of left hanging. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BURDEN. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

⚠️ Please stop. If you continue to assume ownership of the articles, such as the metrification page, and the Metrication in the UK page, you will be blocked again for this. Such behaviour is deemed disruptive. And a violation of Wikipedia polices. 1.145.79.78 (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia!

Please remember that false, malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations about fellow editors fall foul of the

WP:NPA policy and may lead to you being blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The redirect 2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23 § 2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unit of length, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Micrometer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arc Vehicle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Vehicle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is as above; please undo your recent revert of my move to Alan Bates (subpostmaster). Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters [SIC] refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take to the article talkpages and we (and others) can discuss it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters [SIC] refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: please take to the article talkpages and we (and others) can discuss it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters is an article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For one article, yes, but not the one you mentioned here. Discuss it at the article in question's talkpage, not here. And at the talkpages of the other articles where appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... where you have now written "maybe [discussion] should all be centralised here"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've moved my contribution to there now, and put a note on each of the other pages which had a similar discussion. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior at

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not sure that I "continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions", I can't think how think that. But I do feel that the article is being 'managed' by a relatively small number of editors who perhaps assume that that every one else knows as much about the event as they do, and that it cannot be improved. Whenever I question content I get up to a handful of regulars all agreeing with each other that my criticism is invalid. Perhaps you could have a look at the questions I have on the talkpage about the dueness of the sub-sections named after the perpetrators, and the amount context-free (leaving it's relevance unknown) detail given about them; and the other one about the verifiabilty/attribution/OR of what is in the article about the TSN statement about the media "publicly disrespecting" Ghey, and help me understand what's going wrong there. I don't feel good being so persistent on the talkpage, but I feel that it is I who is being stonewalled, and that some of the issues cannot be swept under the carpet. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a word we use for a group of editors all agreeing with each other.

WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe there are issues with OR or DUE bring it to a content noticeboard. If you believe that a wider consensus will differ materially from the consensus on the talk page then open an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:STEWARDSHIP, perhaps, but I suppose being knocked-back so many times without a convincing rationale could have left me a little paranoid. And if you don't mind me asking, did you pick up on this from monitoring the article/its talkpage, or has another editor complained about me somewhere? I just wondered.-- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, did you form that opinion of my behaviour from monitoring the article and its talkpage yourself, or has another editor complained about me somewhere? Your answer is important to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been monitoring the article for about a year now, and have been watching the discussions play out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks. I made my first edit to the article on 3 Feb '24, and have made less than 50 edits to it in total. And as far as I can see, I've only reverted a handful of times, and only two of those were in relation to the same point. So I don't think "and you continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions" was a fair characterisation there. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past ten days you've made 46 edits to the article and 57 edits to the talk page. That includes edits like reverting, reverting, and tagging content which ended with a consensus on the talk page within a day. There's also this revert followed by a revert of a second editor who restored the material you reverted. Here you make a series of bold edits, which were reverted, which you then restored, although you also invoked BRD in a later edit despite not following it here. These content issues have been going against your preferred version, but you continue to revert to your preferred version. That you've only been active at the article for a week and a half isn't a defense, it just makes the issues more obvious. That's why I stopped by to ask you to stop. I figured a word now would save a sanction later. So, again, please stop this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks then for you good faith action in intervening to save me from myself. Given your further comments though, I'm considering giving up my good faith attempts to improve the compliance of articles on recent or controversial news and which can attract less experienced editors working from the less mainstream sources.

With there being so many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, even for the definition of the fundamentals such as consensus, reverting, BRD, and the use of tagging, and combined with the unpredictability of how other editors and especially administrators will react to any given situation, the incentive to try to make a modest and lasting difference is dwindling. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Have any ideas as to how to get 'more' editors to show up at the RFC I've opened at

@GoodDay, I've no idea really. How about mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would help. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

I saw that you've just removed some |language=en parameters from a bunch of {{cite web}} and similar templates. As the template documentation notes, the parameter is not redundant when the cited source language is English. By preserving the language code, it makes it easier for editors on non-English wikis to translate our articles, as they are able to directly copy across our citations where they will then be properly marked as non-native language sources for that wiki. It also provides language metadata for academics who consume our citations in the COinS format.

Could you please stop removing those parameters when they are added to articles? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th, the documentation for, Template:Cite news, for example, documents the 'language=' parameter as The language in which the source is written, if not English; use a two-letter language code or the full language name. Do not use icons or templates. The "if not English" is what I understood to mean only to be used if not English. I've removed them from many articles for many years, on that basis, without problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong part of the template documentation, and seems to be out of sync with the fuller text on the use of the parameter. See the text beginning at The language (or a comma-separated list of the languages) in which the source is written, as either the ISO 639 language code (preferred) or the full language name, which has a much clearer explanation for how the parameter is used, and does not imply that we should not use the parameter for English language sources. The inclusion of |language=en is by long standing consensus to assist in the conversion of enwiki articles to other Wikipedia projects. This is why we got rid of Category:CS1 maint: English language specified about nine years ago, as we wanted to stop people from removing it when it was added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th, perhaps you should get the template doc updated if you think it's mistaken. In the meantime, I'll hold off from changing any others.

Don't you think the whole cite template thing is a mess anyway, with no two editors using them in the same way, and they add such a lot of clutter to article code? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's overly messy. We do have multiple citation styles because the community has not been able to agree on

inline parenthetical

referencing.

Sticking within the realm of

link rot, and something that the community has a pretty strong consensus against. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's so inefficient and prone to errors. For every article that a source is used in, an editor has to repeat all the cite parameters again. Almost every article you look at has problems somewhere amongst the cites. Imagine if sources were entered once somewhere outside of the articles, and could be used for free any number of times in any article. Articles would be more consistent, the article code would lose all the cite clutter and thus be easier to read and edit, and require less storage space, and deprecated sources could be more readily eliminated. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI I've now started a discussion on the CS1 talk page on clarifying the language used in the template documentation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's see how it goes. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. T9537 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the AN3 report, and they posted at AN first. It really ought to be at ANI, but three messageboards is too many. Now you're notified. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they've all been rejected without a word from me. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]