W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Proof finder

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.


Welcome!



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:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Search the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing! <!-- Template:Welcome--> Kj cheetham (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your recent reversions



25px|alt=icon ↗ 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 <u>continue their behavior after a warning</u> (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)

A Barnstar for you!




{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Greatly Improved Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | 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)
|}

February 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not change the name of files in articles&nbsp;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 {{Button|text='''Show preview'''}} button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
thumb|center|760x760px|The "Show preview" button is right next to the "Publish changes" button and below the Help:Edit summary|edit summary ↗ field. ↗

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. <!-- Template:uw-filename --> <span style="color:#7F00FF">Katniss</span> <span style="color:#FF007F"> ''May the odds be ever in your favor ♥''</span> 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)

RM on Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich



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)

CS1 error on Karlsruhe Institute of Technology ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ 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:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Proof_finder&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Karlsruhe Institute of Technology}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1337579886 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephan Lehnstaedt ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touro University ↗ was added. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BANREVERT ↗



About this revert ↗. WP:BANREVERT ↗ was listed in the previous edit ↗, whereby the edits of abusive socks should be reverted. The sock edit being this ↗, which introduced many a ethnonationalist changes to the infobox and lead against WP:MOS ↗ and changed the lead against Talk page consensus. In any case sock edits should never stand especially clearly disruptive ones like these.

Hope this clarifies things.

Cheers Gotitbro (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the helpful comment, which helps more than only your false claim in the new edit summary, as WP:BANREVERT ↗ is a very limited justification for your changes. However, what you mentioned as previous edit ↗ does not match the changes in your recent edit, which encompassed much more. Did you maybe forget to mention some further edit(s), some further justification, or something else? If not, I will consider your edit a mistake. Maybe consider reading Help:Edit_summary ↗. Proof finder (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::That was a quick edit summary while reverting quite a few edits from the sockpuppet at multiple articles (for details see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PakistanHistorian ↗), could've detailed the exact sock being reverted but BANREVERT (which reads thus "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason; such reverts are also exempt from being counted under the three-revert rule") as such fully explains the rationale when reverting socks (especially when one is cleaning up multiple articles).
::There is no difference between my previous edit ↗ and the lastest one ↗ (except the edit summary).
::Cheers Gotitbro (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok, the reference to the investigation is indeed helpful, thanks. Sorry that my comment was badly worded; I meant to say that your edit encompassed more than just that alleged sockpuppet's edits. It would be helpful to separate your "own" edits from the "real" reverts, otherwise the edit summary is at best misleading. Proof finder (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, there was some very very minor copyedit there as well (removal of the LMU abbreviation from the infobox and italics from poem titles). Should've mentioned the minor copyedit in the edit summary as well, I agree. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Definite article



Please be careful in going around the encyclopaedia adding definite articles in front of proper noun institution names. In many cases this is not necessary, and not desirable. You are effectively altering the English version of many articles against MOS:ENGVAR ↗. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for making me aware! I did not intend to change the article's variant of English and will do my best to respect your advice. My understanding was (at least for the institution name in question) that whether the name requires a definite article is essentially dependent on the institution name itself. For the specific example, the institution's WP article uses the definite article throughout the page itself.
:However, I am still a bit confused, as your argument is that British English generally (?) does '''not need''' definite articles in front of proper institution names, but the article of (the?) Munich University of Applied Sciences ↗ seems to be also written in British English, but '''does''' use the article.
:Hence, I cannot quite follow your argument here. Could you help my confusion? Proof finder (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::I cannot comment on another article, only the ones I've edited. Consistency is inconsistent across Wikipedia. In British English generally though it is not used unless it's specifically in the institution name, and it sounds very wrong to British English speakers. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

First sentence style + language switching



Hello Proof finder,

I see in several of your edits you've been adding birth locations and death locations to the first sentence (e.g. diff ↗, diff ↗). It's true that German Wikipedia often does this, but English Wikipedia style is not to do this. See MOS:OPENPARABIO ↗ and the examples - EnWiki includes dates usually, but not locations. MOS:BIRTHPLACE ↗ specifically says "Birth and death places (...) not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates."

This is less of a concern but I also don't really agree with putting in "LMU Munich" everywhere. Per WP:NOTBROKEN ↗, redirects are okay. That said, it's possible there's some accuracy concern I'm unaware of here. "University of Munich" seems fine to me. I also see that you've made some edits that are just straight-up switching to your preferred form, e.g. diff ↗. That'd be one thing if your Requested Move had succeeded, but it did not. So it's not really a matter of uncontroversial cleanup. (And to be clear, this guideline would apply equally to someone going around switching the German name to the English name.) If there's some aspect here that argues for doing this, happy to hear it out, but it shouldn't be just on grounds of relitigating the Requested Move discussion. SnowFire (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:Dear SnowFire,
:oh, thanks for making me aware of the difference regarding birth and death locations. I was not aware that the different Wikipedias differ on this matter, and I will take that into account from now on!
:Regarding the university name(s) of LMU Munich, I believe there IS some accuracy concern. At the latest since the existence of the "other" university in Munich (Technical University of Munich), the use of the (sole) term "University of Munich" got more and more ambiguous. Also, here on Wikipedia, I saw several uses of that term when actually the other university was meant. Moreover, since around the 1960s, LMU Munich became the common name and (slowly) replaced "Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München" or (the less formal) "University of Munich".
:I am sorry if my edits seemed as if I was simply inserting terms of my preference. However, my aim was mostly to remove ambiguity and improve on accuracy, where "Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München" is the older term that got replaced by "LMU Munich" around the 1960s.
:You may also take a look at my argument for WP:PRECISION ↗ as written in the respective discussion here ↗.
:If you think that your concern is still valid, could you maybe elaborate? Proof finder (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::No worries. I will freely admit that if there was a historical difference in terminology, this is beyond my knowledge. I just am saying that historically, Wikipedia has had editors who go around changing all occurrences of term X from English to the original language, and other editors who go around changing all occurrences of a term in the original language to a literal English translation, and it tends to generate unproductive churn. That isn't to say that such a switch isn't merited sometimes, just - please don't be the above type of editor. :) If there's genuine historical differences in terminology, I'll defer to you on that. SnowFire (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::As a quick follow-up, I said as much in my edit reverting's edit summary, but on date ranges - I'd be cautious when you see something like "1964/65." The source is infuriatingly unclear (https://idw-online.de/de/news186639 ↗) on whether that meant "we're not sure what date that was" vs. "this is the range of time." In this kind of case, it's safer to leave it unchanged, IMO. It's possible your change here was fine, but I'd want to find a clearer source. SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure thing. I always try to be open for learning as well as for taking constructive feedback into account! Hence, I am actually happy about your comment!
:::Regarding the date range that you are pointing out, this very much looked to me as the standard way of expressing to an academic winter term or MAYBE also the subsequent summer term, i.e., the period from fall 1964 to either spring 1965 or MAYBE end of summer 1965. Any other interpretation would seem very unusual to me in an academic setting. In that example, it imho clearly refers to a stay of either one or two semester(s) abroad, which would in either case start in the fall of one year and then either end in spring or at the end of summer of the next year. Many other articles about scientists or related issues also apply this terminology. Yet, and I take your uncertainty as evidence here, I think that spelling out the full year(s) (thereby avoiding this academic "slang") does almost always improve clarity in such cases. Proof finder (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)