User talk:Proof finder

Hi Proof finder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Proof finder! I would like to thank you for helping out on wikipedia, but I would also like to point some things out. Please be very careful when you revert something for Vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. I saw on the article Charlottenburg that you reverted a edit which may have been in good faith. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM. I encourage you to hold off on counter vandalism work until you are confident you have a good understanding of the rules. Again, thank you for attempting to help Wikipedia! - Otherwise (Talk?) 08:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Mustbeotherwise, thanks for pointing that out. At first, I did assume good faith, and I must say that I am not sure for the particular edit of the article Charlottenburg. However, I took a look at the user's other edits, especially of Schöneberg, Pankow, Pankow (locality), Friedrichshain, Wedding (Berlin), Fennpfuhl, and List of tourist attractions in Berlin, where I cannot assume good faith anymore, as these clearly indicate purposeful obstruction of the articles' quality.

All the other edits by this user follow the same pattern, and, e.g., changing the description of a school to a music hall appears to me as pure vandalism, as no reason or evidence is given in the edit. Hence, it appears to me very unlikely that the change of Charlottenburg would be the only outlier by that user, as there is again no explanation or evidence. Proof finder (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Proof finder Thank you for your response! When looking at their edit history, I can see why you'd think that their changes constituted vandalism. However, I would strongly recommend you NOT call edits vandalism or call a person a vandal, unless they continue their behavior after a warning (Useful reading: Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade & Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). As far as warnings go, that is something else that I would like to bring up with you

You may already know about them, but if you decide to continue counter vandalism work, you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Additionally, warnings help other editors know a user's past history, and a user that continues disrupting past a level 4 warning can be blocked/banned. Please use these warnings or make your own warnings to inform a user on their talk page about any reverts you may have made. - Otherwise (Talk?) 10:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Indeed, I was not aware and will be more cautious with my wording in the future and look into the indicated warning template and the other provided reading. One thing of which I am unsure is whether this procedure is also sensible for temporary accounts, as I strongly suspect the user account in question might not be in use anymore. Proof finder (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern regarding temporary accounts, but unregistered editors are human too!

To be clear, I don't think you were wrong in reverting the edits, just wrong in labelling them as vandalism and not warning the user of the reason for the revert! If you have any other questions, feel more than free to ask me! - Otherwise (Talk?) 10:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that is indeed both helpful and encouraging! Proof finder (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I know that you were sincerely trying to help and I sincerely appreciate that. Thank you so much for helping! If you have any other questions, feel free to ping me.

I know I've already linked you a ton of essays but I just want to link one more, you did nothing wrong here! You were just being BOLD. I sincerely hope you decide to keep contributing! - Otherwise (Talk?) 10:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Greatly Improved Editor's Barnstar
		The Greatly Improved Editor's Barnstar is awarded to editors striving to learn and adopt best practices of the project, aiming to improve their contribution. Thank you for being open to feedback! - Otherwise (Talk?) 10:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not change the name of files in articles as you did to German resistance to Nazism. It breaks the link to the file. I have corrected the mistake. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 14:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I seem to have confused the description with the file name, sorry! Thanks for fixing my mistake, the nice explanation, and pointing me to the preview feature, that definitely seems useful. I will certainly use that feature more regularly in the future, especially when file names may be involved. Proof finder (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to check in on the result of your requested move. Another user has indicated that they don't think my read on the result was correct. If you have any feedback, I would welcome it. I am always trying to improve as a closer/mover. Thanks! HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello User:HundredVisionsAndRevisions, thanks for your request for feedback, which I very much appreciate! While my favorite outcome would have been "Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München", I very much understand most of the other participants' points, and also very much agree with the rationale behind your move as stated on your talk page. It might have helped to include this (imho very clear) summary also in the closing of the original discussion, as people who only do a shallow read of the discussion might be prone to overlook the evaluation of the alternatives that has been done inside the arguments and in your final decision of the discussion.

Moreover, I am frankly not yet very knowledgeable on customary procedures within Wikipedia, and hence do not know how one were to proceed in the event that other Wikipedians, who might have seen the decision and discussion too late, would like to re-engage in the matter with the potential to reconsider the decision. I had thought that this would need to be handled in a new discussion that they could open by themselves, but I might very well be mistaken here. Proof finder (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have re-opened the move request. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, thanks for the (even automatic) remark! Proof finder (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)