Archives

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

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) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn ( talk) 07:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Alexbrn, thanks for the heads-up on that, but I can assure you I have no intention of not following Wiki policies, and especially the spirit of them in relation to collegiality and respect of other editors. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

refreshing to hear in a topic area which has seen so much bad behaviour. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Anne_Sacoolas_working_for_CIA_-_relevance_to_family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfryfan ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello I add a Reliable source from Science on the talk page. Greetings -- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 12:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

When I advised Smithr32 against raising an Infobox discussion, I was acutely aware of the likely outcome. I have seen acres of effort pointlessly expended over this issue, and the departure of very productive editors as a result of it. I said on the Talkpage it would create an acrimonious time-sink to the benefit of no one. And yet you immediately made the positive choice to seek to take us down that road. Why? KJP1 ( talk) 22:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

KJP1, diffs would have been a good idea, especially as you seem to be trying to defend your actions by accusing me of acting in bad faith.

I was trying to give you the chance to address your apparent contravention of the WP:Canvassing guideline, specifically indulging in " votestacking", which it describes as: an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ..., and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. You had made this edit, in which you blatantly pinged just one other editor ("the main editor"), an editor you clearly assumed would support your position in the discussion - you said "I doubt very much the view of the main editor has [changed], but am pinging him so we can find out".

Also you say above that you "advised Smithr32 against raising an Infobox discussion", yet when you reverted their edit your edit summary ("Can I suggest you raise on the Talkpage") explicitly advised them to open a discussion. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for proving my exact point. KJP1 ( talk) 09:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

KJP1, please elaborate. You need to describe your "point" and explain exactly how me helping you avoid sanctions for votestacking proves it. And please use diffs when referring to contributions. You didn't explain your apparent inconsistency over what you advised the other editor to do, or not do, either. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Good morning DeFacto,

My sincere apologies for this edit. I am not sure why I changed 41-gun salute to 21-gun without checking the reference. Thank you for correcting it in your later change. Please accept my apologies and have a great day Gricharduk ( talk) 09:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Gricharduk, fair play and no probs. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Please may I ask: Did you create the Stonehaven derailment page or someone else did? -- 82.32.183.60 ( talk) 15:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi 82..., no, it wasn't me. You can view the history of the article by clicking "View history", then find who created by clicking "oldest" - you'll see something like this. Hope that helps. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, I tried closing this discussion by deleting it. How do you close the discussion?-- User:JTZegers Speak* Aura 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC) reply

JTZegers, see Wikipedia:Closing discussions. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello DeFacto, I hope you're doing well.

The 'Gasoline units used in the world' map for the /info/en/?search=Gallon page and the 'Speed limit units on traffic signs around the world' map for /info/en/?search=Miles_per_hour need to be redone. However I'm not sure who to contact in regards to cartography, but we've interacted before and you're more experienced, so I'm just letting you know and wondering if you could help.

Either ways here is what needs to be done.

GALLON - GASOLINE UNITS USED

Imperial gallon Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines

US gallon The Bahamas, Belize, Colombia, The Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala , Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Peru, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States of America, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Litre All other countries

Exceptions British Indian Ocean Territory - Gasoline unit unknown Turks and Caicos - Uses both US and imperial gallon

Countries using the imperial gallon, US gallon, and litre respectively should be marked with different colours. The BIOT and Antartica should be grey and the Turks and Caicos should be striped with the colors used for the imperial gallon and US gallon.

Unofficialwikicorrector ( talk) 13:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Information regarding the miles per hour map will come later.

'Speed limit units on traffic signs around the world' map

The 'Speed limit units on traffic signs around the world' map its highly inaccurate as countries and territories which use miles per hour, such as Anguilla or Palau are shown as using km/h. Puerto Rico is also shown as using both mph and km/h despite only using mph. Puerto Rico's road signs are predominantly in kilometres but speed limits are in miles per hour. Please advise the mapmaker to use the countries listed on /info/en/?search=Miles_per_hour to create the map.

Unofficialwikicorrector ( talk) 13:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Unofficialwikicorrector, both of those images are from Commons ( c:File:Gasoline unit.svg and c:File:WorldMap-speed limit units on traffic signs.png), a sister project to Wikipedia. I suggest going to their respective discussion pages there ( c:File talk:Gasoline unit.svg and c:File talk:WorldMap-speed limit units on traffic signs.png) - they work in a similar way to Wikipedia TalkPages - and posting your request to have them updated there, with any supporting references you may have. -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

@DeFacto, thanks for your response, but surely there isn't a.more centralized place where I can request for maps to be edited? I hardly imagine other users are checking the talk pages for these two maps.

Unofficialwikicorrector ( talk) 21:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Unofficialwikicorrector, I'd definitely try the images' own talkpages first; a previous editor may well be watching it. If there is no response from either of those, then you could try Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Unofficialwikicorrector, there has been another user watching this discussion, and they are offering advice for you at File talk:Gasoline unit.svg. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I gave the wrong reference number in my edit summary. Should have been 17 and 18. Have edited the article to remove the military jargon "IED" and substitute "a bomb", which should be much clearer for everyone. Mjroots ( talk) 07:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Mjroots, fair enough - thanks for letting me know. :-) -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Chesterton Windmill, Chesterton - 2016.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi DeFacto,

Hope you're well. I was wondering if you'd be interested in talking to me a bit about your work on Wikipedia. I'm a podcast producer and we're making a documentary series about Wikipedia and the people on it, and have already spoken with quite a few people in the community. I've seen some of your work on pages I've been watching and would love to hear about how it all works. Let me know if you're up for it.

Thanks!

Wearecrowd ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

On 22 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi User, I am not a specialist of English typography, but I have always seen National Olympic Committee with 3 capital letters. Am I wrong?-- Arorae ( talk) 08:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Arorae, per MOS:CAPS/ MOS:INSTITUTIONS, as it's not a proper name and not an acronym, then it seems to me it should not be written in all caps, but rather as " national Olympic committee". Of course individual NOC names should be capitalised as they are proper names, Canadian Olympic Committee for example, but I'm not sure that the generic term is. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for your reply. I think still that, even in very good books, NOCs are always written with capital initials (in French, instead, I write comité national olympique without any cap). Because here in the meaning NOC represent all the national committees and should be as a proper name. We should ask to some specialist of MOS:CAPS. by the way, I agree your approach.-- Arorae ( talk) 09:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Just saw your edit on the M25 page. Thanks for your help. 103.246.39.1 ( talk) 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

You are very welcome, and thanks for the feedback. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Howdy. I think you & I have a good idea of what's mostly behind the resistance to using "UK, in those British bios infoboxes. But, we dare not openly say it. GoodDay ( talk) 19:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You're not wrong, it seems! I hadn't realised the term was being used as a proper noun rather than just as a descriptor (as per my edit). It does seem that it is a linear park (I'm not going to admit full defeat!) but the proper name trumps that I think. I had tried to find the name of the park using various mapping services, Plymouth City Council website etc. but to no avail until just now. Cheers, MIDI ( talk) 20:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

MIDI, . -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm sure there's a few instances of language=en you've missed ;) MIDI ( talk) 21:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

MIDI, I can't keep up with them! -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You have deleted my message on your Talk Page which mentions your inflammatory attack on a reputable, notable Welsh historian, using terms like "militant nationalist view". Why? Cell Danwydd ( talk) 12:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Cell Danwydd, read my edit summary, I think it was clear enough. -- DeFacto ( talk). 12:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

On what page would you like to discuss this remark of yours Brooks? Cell Danwydd ( talk) 13:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Cell Danwydd, if it is related to article content, then on the talkpage of the article. And remember, try to be rationale, objective and measured, remembering the goal is to achieve an as neutral and verifiable article as possible, regardless of editor prejudices or pov. -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Don't add anything under my latest message about distruptive editing; it will simply undermine it. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 17:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cheezypeaz, I'm a free agent and will continue to add to discussions if I feel I have something worth saying. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The effect of that edit would be to provide an excuse for the disruptive editor to keep disrupting. Put it there or elsewhere - up to you. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 18:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I kept thinking it was something that needed to be done.

And then you did it!!!!

I appreciate your efforts, it will save me so much scrolling.

THANK YOU!!!

Cheezypeaz ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cheezypeaz, thanks. It needs automating really, to keep on top of it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Usage here is one of those things one learns by osmosis, rather than being taught, but a web search found this, which catches most of the high points. Lavateraguy ( talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Lavateraguy, nice one, thanks for that! -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Congestion pricing has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You summarise "didn't see a reason why that image was moved back (ec maybe?) - with it here it stays near where it is relevant". I think that was me (my apology), maybe indeed a crossed edit though I didn't get an "edit conflict" - I just intended to complete a reference, a minor edit. Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

No probs, and thanks for the note. These things sometimes happen when more than one editor is working on the same section. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Boris Johnson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
[1] [2] [3] [4] Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cambial Yellowing, thanks for the heads-up, although it seems you included two edits which are 3rr-exempt in your diff line-up. The 3rd was an edit mandated by WP:BLPREMOVE which says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:... is unsourced or poorly sourced", and the 4th wasn't a revert - it was a request for a source in a further attempt to make the restored caption BLP compliant.

I'm sure they were good-faith mistakes though, so perhaps you might like to fix the BLP problem that still stands, and we needn't take it any further. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I haven't made any mistakes. What is it exactly that you think we need not "take further"? And what is the further destination that you imagine? The third edit was not contentious, and was already sourced in the body. We've established that you've reached 3rr. Take care not to breach it. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The problem is the BLP contravention, the one I tried to fix, in two different ways (your diff3 and diff4) and if you don't agree that it is a BLP problem then we'll need to take it to the article talkpage - where else? -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It's moot now as another editor seems to have agreed with me. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It's frankly comical (I mean literally, laughing out loud at my screen), the lengths you go to, to paint this man as 100% innocent, and the Met Police as completely neutral. It seems to be the only reason you contribute to 2022 in the United Kingdom. I'm beginning to think maybe you work for the government lol. Thanks for all the laughs. Wjfox2005 ( talk) 08:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Wjfox2005, no, no, you are being way too modest. If it wasn't for your ingenious 'paraphrasing' of what the sources say, there would be nothing to laugh at at all!

As for your developing opinion that I might work for the government; feel free to hold it, but coming from someone who freely admitted on a Wiki talkpage "I have a particular hatred of that clown, Boris Johnson", and based on your 'paraphrasing', forgive me if I treat it with contempt, and suggest that your propensity to attack Johnson by editorialising, misrepresenting, exaggerating what sources say, or cherry-picking only sources that say what you want to hear, needs attention.

Remember: " articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it". -- DeFacto ( talk). 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Boris Johnson is becoming an asset to the Labour Party. His critics have accused him of lying, elitism, cronyism, and bigotry. Incidentally many users suspect DeFacto of supporting the Conservatives. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Proxima Centauri, what did you mean by that last sentence? -- DeFacto ( talk). 13:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, DeFacto

Thank you for creating Beergate.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The discussion does not belong to the talk page so I was talking about your behaviour to other users. I'm not a beginner here and your behaviour has been inappropriate. If you persist, I will have to report your edits. Fma12 ( talk) 10:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I misunderstood, I thought you were discussing the content of the article, sorry.

I disagree with your complaint about behaviour, because the onus is on you to get new content agreed to, and as there were changes intermingled with it that I disagreed with, a revert was quite appropriate in my opinion. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your edit. I reverted my edit changing the spelling because there is a restriction on the number of edits that can be made each day and I had already made an earlier edit. Regards Denisarona ( talk) 07:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Denisarona, thanks for your message. I don't think there's a restriction on editing per se though, it's just that only one revert is allowed per day. Happy editing! -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You're right! I should have read it more carefully, instead of panicking. Thanks Denisarona ( talk) 08:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See WP:NORN#Input requested at Beergate – Relationship to Partygate. . dave souza, talk 17:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. . . dave souza, talk 13:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello.

Can you revert the article United Kingdom weather records and check it? The article has been messed up with so many and unsourced edits.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.12.242 ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi 31..., it looks like someone else has already done it. If you notice it needs fixing again, why not try doing it yourself, or post a message to its talkpage where more interested parties are likely see it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the advice. 31.200.12.242 ( talk) 18:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The article MG Motor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The merge of the brand MG Cars with SAIC Motor was an acquisition, meaning that the original brand changed ownership, that includes the rights to use the marque MG. The page should not be separated from MG Cars, the tittle from the original page should instead be corrected and the original name preserved on the page history, as I have edited on MG Cars. PS: This is a proposal based on the financial details of the sale; glad to see a discussion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I see that you have reverted some of my edits to reference formatting on the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II page. Unfortunately I don't think these reverts were appropriate. For a story on the website of a newspaper or similar, e.g. The Guardian, The Australian or The Washington Post, you should definitely use the "work=" parameter, as it is the title of a publication and should be italicized. However, if it is a story on the website of a broadcaster or news agency, there is no publication title involved; the website is that of the company or organization (e.g. BBC News, NPR, Associated Press, Reuters) and should not be italicized, thus "publisher=" is more appropriate. This is consistent with the formatting guidelines in the Manual of Style WP:MOSTITLE. (I appreciate that the guidelines are a bit vague for websites, but I would go with whether the name is italicized on articles about such organizations: Reuters looks plain wrong!) -- RFBailey ( talk) 13:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ RFBailey, I use the 'cite news' template documentation as my guide (see template:cite news) which says:

• This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web.
  • It is for news, whether on the websites of newspapers, broadcasters, or any other organisation.
• agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher.
  • News on the websites of agencies can use 'work='.
• The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)
  • Publisher is not used for the name of a work - that's what 'work=' is for.

I hope that helps you understand my reasoning for what I do to news cites. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, I meant top-to-bottom horizontally, not-vertically, but it's fine, my words were really not necessary. Friothaire ( talk) 21:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello!

I completely understand why you changed 'Welsh Senedd' to 'Welsh Parliament' over at Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, but in this case the former does seem to be the common English name. 'Welsh Parliament' just didn't seem to catch on in the media, it's one of those things A.D.Hope ( talk) 13:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ A.D.Hope, you'll notice I had second thoughts though, and changed it back. I'm not completely convinced that was a good idea though, to use a foreign language term, when there's a perfectly adequate English term. Not all English speakers are going to know about Welsh devolution and have ever heard of Senedd, and it seems unreasonable to expect them to click a link and go to another article to find out what it means, when we could have saved them the bother by using the English term, which would be adequately understood by every reasonably educated English speaker. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I did notice, I just wanted to give you the chance to properly respond rather than trying to have a conversation via edit summary.

I don't think it's at all unreasonble to expect people to click a link, it's no hardship to do so. Senedd has become the common term in English, even though 'Welsh Parliament' was provided as an English term, so it seems only right to go with the flow. A.D.Hope ( talk) 16:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This was already on the talk page but you asked for it CandyStalnak ( talk) 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

From that period until her death — and now beyond — authorities have released only carefully curated snippets of information. https://futurism.com/neoscope/queen-elizabeth-death-cause

Such a vague cause of death not only raises questions about how someone died "old age" became a last resort phrase to describe an unknown cause of death. Or it became useful where a person may have died from a number of complications https://theconversation.com/the-queens-death-certificate-says-she-died-of-old-age-but-what-does-that-really-mean-191666

In your 90s, 'anything can take you': Why the Queen's cause of death may never be revealed https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-your-90s-anything-can-take-you-why-the-queens-cause-of-death-may-never-be-revealed (major respected Canadian newspaper) CandyStalnak ( talk) 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This is the wrong talkpage for this, and it doesn't answer the questions I asked on the correct page anyway. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, thank you for the work you do here at Wikipedia. Following our recent discussions on Talk:Kilometres per hour#Abbreviations in the introduction, as well as the related issue at Talk:ISO 2848#Reverted edit, I feel it's the right time to ask for a third party to review the dispute, and have reported the disagreement since I view it at this point as edit warring. Sauer202 ( talk) 19:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sauer202, I don't see any relationship between those two articles, and I think it was inflammatory of you to characterise my two actions in defending the status quo at Kilometres per hour, while the discussion is still ongoing, as edit warring. And don't forget, a war has at least two parties, so as you were the only other party in that exchange, are you saying that you were consciously warring? -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

First of all, I don't appreciate you editing my posts. The title of this posting was "Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion", and you conveniently changed it. I have changed it back, so as not to disturb the ongoing process.

To answer your question, I see a common denominator in both the two cases as anti-metric and disruptive edits. That is my opinion, and I realise we have reached a stalemate. I will not comment more on the topic as this is an ongoing issue that has been reported. I realise that my actions also will be scrutinized, and welcome any feedback. Sauer202 ( talk) 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sauer202, firstly, I had dealt with that first topic, so rightly removed it, and you should not have restored it. I added a neutral title for the second subject you included as you didn't give it one, but have not restored that, I'm not bothered, but clearly it needs to be differentiated somehow from the subject above it.

Secondly, "anti-metric"? I don't see how my attempts to apply Wiki policies to those two articles can justly be seen as such. Everything, even articles about the metric systems, have to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. My arguments were in support of them. Another thing to remember is that Wiki should not be used for advocacy or propaganda. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I see that you edited my content again. I have no comments, and will let this lie. Have a nice weekend. Sauer202 ( talk) 22:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sauer202, no, I did not edit your content. All I did was as I said. I removed the first subject as I had read (and dealt with it and it has since been dismissed by an admin as "No violation") and I added a header to separate the second subject from the one above. If you read the talkpage guidelines ( WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED) you'll see that it is all supported there. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, DeFacto. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Chris troutman, thanks for your kind wishes! -- DeFacto ( talk). 11:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Happy First Edit Day! Hi DeFacto! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ CAPTAIN RAJU, thanks for your kind wish! -- DeFacto ( talk). 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at List of -gate scandals and controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Banana Republic ( talk) 17:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Banana Republic, no, WP:BLPREMOVE insists on this, and WP:3RRBLP exempts such edits from 3RR. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

You cannot hide behind WP:BLPREMOVE. This is not a BLP issue. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Banana Republic, there is no need to hide as it is very definitely a BLP issue as that added content, implicating real live people, was not reliably sourced. Please open a discussion on the article's talkpage if you disagree, and we can explore it further there, in full view of any of the article's watchers.-- DeFacto ( talk). 23:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The article is not a biography, and the content does not name specific individuals. WP:BLP therefore does not apply. Your BLP claims are designed to obfuscate your edit warring. Banana Republic ( talk) 23:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Banana Republic, the first sentence of BLP says, Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. It doesn't say but only if it's a biography and only if they're named. From the context we know who they all are. -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no provision for an indirect BLP. It either is or it isn't a BLP issue, and it clearly isn't, as not no individuals are named. Furthermore, there is a Wikipedia article about the scandal, so you cannot really say that listing the scandal (not people) in a list of scandals is defamatory. Bottom line: stop edit warring. Banana Republic ( talk) 23:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Banana Republic, did the content I removed from the list article contain "information about living persons", or not? -- DeFacto ( talk). 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

It did not. Banana Republic ( talk) 00:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Banana Republic, who was meant by politicians, political staffers, lobbyists, civil servants and their families then? Are they all dead? -- DeFacto ( talk). 00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Go violate WP:3RR, and see if your WP:BLPREMOVE defense holds. Banana Republic ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Two of us want this in the 2023 in the United Kingdom article. This is Paul wants it as well as I do. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2023_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1135135065&oldid=1135133963 DeFacto has ben edit warring there as well. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Template:EZnum Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Falklands War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuse.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think it was a good-faith revert! Take care, Drmies ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

No? -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I'd like to understand how to reference them in compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons please. Thanks in advance Garganito ( talk) 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Garganito, the "in a nutshell" box at the top or that policy says it all really: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Read the linked pages, and remember that as we don't know the full context that the messages were written in, that any interpretation of what they mean must be explicitly attributed to the person or publication that made it, and not relayed in Wiki's voice. And you need to keep it neutral, which may mean reading a cross-section of sources covering the same message, and comparing how their interpretations vary. You also need to cover any denials or rebuttals, and any criticisms made about the way the messages are being reported. -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. –– FormalDude (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 WP:NPOV in your edit summaries in a way that I consider contrary to the policy, for example here today where you stated we should apply our own NPOV policies and not necessarily mimic the style used by the media.. There are similar examples here: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. NPOV is about representing views from reliable sources in proportion to the coverage that exists. There is no such thing as Wikipedia's neutral point of view in the sense that article content should be neutral. NPOV is such a central policy to editing here that it is vital that you understand what it means and do not interpret it to mean something else. If you think I'm wrong about this, I'd suggest we go to WP:NPOVN to get more input. SmartSE ( talk) 13:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Smartse, in those diffs it is not generally the balance of the article that I've been addressing, but the choice of vocabulary. I was following the 'in a nutshell' box at the top of WP:NPOV, which says: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. (my bold). To try to meet that, I was applying the requirements of a section in NPOV that you might have missed, ' 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 WP:OR here, which is why your edit was reverted. If you believe that media considered to be reliable sources by the Wikipedia community are not in fact reliable, you can challenge their status here. Until that has happened, you are not entitled to editorialise what sources are actually stating on the bases that 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 Talk:Nadine Dorries, per WP:BANREVERT. I’ve already added a comment to the bottom noting the block evasion but I’m wondering if that’s enough. As the other editor involved in the discussion I just want to get your view on whether the comments should be struck. (I don’t think I’d want to revert them as they form part of a conversation that may merit being retained - for evidence of the IP’s behaviour if nothing else - but part of me thinks leaving them un-struck may inadvertently imply more weight than is due to a block evader’s comments.)

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Apache287 ( talk) 14:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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 this edit at Suella Braverman, why is the 'as of' template necessary here? WP:ASOF says the template is used to deal with info which will become dated, so doesn't including it here presume she will have another child ( WP:CRYSTALBALL)? Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 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

@ Abbyjjjj96, I told you my reasoning. I wasn't speculating what might happen in the future, I was treating the date sensitive content as recommended by 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

Please stop. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Bob247 ( talk) 17:23, 3 October 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:BURDEN, and more importantly, 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

@ RobbieIanMorrison, you should assume good faith though, and not immediately revert without waiting to see if your rationale has been accepted or rejected. See 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 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 2023 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) 00:24, 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 ( d c̄) 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using 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 Murder of Brianna Ghey and its talk page are falling below that which is expected when editing in a CTOP. Frequent WP:1AM situations are popping up, and you continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions. Please stop that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 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

@ ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks, for your wisdom. I was thinking more along the lines of 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 WP:YEARS? We don't want to implement its decision (after it's closed), only to have editors showing up complaining about such changes being implemented. GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 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 "one citation style to rule them all". In addition to CS1/2, there's also SFN, and [[Help:Shortened_footnotes#Using_[[#CITEREF|]] harvnb error: no target: CITEREF ( help)|Harvard]] styles. Pretty much the only style we've ever successfully deprecated is inline parenthetical referencing.

Sticking within the realm of citation style 1 & 2 the biggest variation I see on its use is parameter order, which as long as you're filling them in correctly doesn't really matter. Most common errors are pretty trivial to fix once you know how to use the template. If we were to get rid of CS1/2, I think we'd see a spike in bare URLs, something that is prone to 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