User talk:62.73.72.101

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Talk:Kalinago. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Introductory tutorial
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• The Teahouse

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (62.73.72.101) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Again, welcome! Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Hello, I'm MadelynnSienna. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Kingdom of Germany have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. MadelynnSienna (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edits that you reverted and they certainly weren't vandalism. You seem to have assumed that they were simply because I am an anon and, I suppose, you interpret the words 'illiterate' and 'peasant' as mere invectives, whereas I was using them in their technical sense in a discussion of the Middle Ages. I will, indeed, post about this elsewhere to involve further editors.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! My apologies for the mistake. As you can see, they have already been reverted as good faith edits on the same. For future reference, if you believe an edit of yours has been unfairly reverted, all you need to do is go to the 'View History' section of the page, and click 'undo'. Alternatively, you could also add the edit back manually and mention that you believe if was unfairly removed in the edit summary. I hope that helps! MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I assumed that I had no right to undo a revert myself, since that would have constituted edit warring - according to the principles outlined in WP:BRD - although I am not sure that they are meant to apply to talk pages as well.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem! From my experience, a single reversal (especially with good reason) is not seen as edit warring. It's usually when you do it more than once that it becomes a problem. Additionally, I'm not sure if you can clear your talk page to remove the initial warning given that you do not have an account, but I'd be happy to do so for you to ensure that this false positive does not affect any future editing for you, if you'd like? MadelynnSienna (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that there is no technical measure in place preventing me from deleting it myself, but I am not sure that I want to. You may be right that some people will actually make up their mind as to whether an edit of mine is vandalism or not, not based on its content but based on whether I already have a vandalism notice on my talk page (and, of course, won't bother to read the whole exchange), but on the other hand, I like things to stay transparent and documented. I might change my mind if the false positives start getting too frequent and annoying.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course, that's perfectly fine! Have a good day :) MadelynnSienna (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at James Fisk (financier), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

First, this edit wasn't changing content, but asking for clarification with a tag. Second, this edit makes the lede more accurately reflect the content of the body of the article, which is already sourced. Third, as for this edit, I considered the description 'controversial' to be more accurate, because the Orange riot article clearly indicates that the permission of the Orangemen's march and the police's defence of it were considered legitimate by many, rather than 'inglorious':

'Protestants objected, as did newspaper editorials in the Herald and Times, a petition signed by Wall Street businessmen, and a cartoon by Thomas Nast in Harper's. Not only was the ban felt to be giving in to the bad behavior of a Catholic mob, but fears were voiced about the growing political power of Irish Catholics, the increasing visibility of Irish nationalism in the city, and the possibility of a radical political action such as occurred in Paris with the Commune.' And 'Banker Henry Smith told the New York Tribune that "such a lesson was needed every few years. Had one thousand of the rioters been killed, it would have had the effect of completely cowing the remainder."'. On second thoughts, having done more research, I believe that I had misinterpreted the use of the adjective - the 'inglorious' part it referred to was actually not Fisk's very participation in the quelling of the riot but his being injured and escaping. However, this goes to show that the nature of the 'inglorious' affair should be clarified.

Fourth, there is no rule that requires editors to never add or change content without citing a RS.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@62.73.72.101

Lead Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize reliably sourced material in the body if the statement is properly sourced in the body, it can be reflected in the lead but the inline source should be clear. Without a citation it reads as unsourced in the lead that's why I reverted.

Tags Adding a {{why}} tag is essentially asking for editorial clarification but per WP:V and WP:OR, we need reliable secondary sources for such claims rather than editorial requests. If you think the sentence is dubious or unclear it’s better to raise it on the article’s talk page instead of inserting a tag.

Word choice The phrasing ("inglorious" vs "controversial") affects the tone. However, I haven't found "inglorious" in the cited sources either, which suggests it may have been added without attribution. Per WP:NPOV and WP:V we shouldn't insert editorial language not backed up by sources.

So, the main issue isn't whether changes are "allowed" but that any change must be verifiable in reliable sources and avoid editorial judgment. If you have sources that support your preferred wording please bring them forward so we can incorporate them. Thank you.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead - WP:LEAD does not require a citation in the lead and no, things do not automatically 'read as unsourced without a citation'. WP:LEAD makes it clear that this is an issue of balance. Yes, you have the right to request a citation or to immediately revert in the absence of a citation, but that does not mean you always must do that, or that I should have provided a citation in the first place. Since by reading the body of the article you could have found out that my edit does adequately summarise the sourced article body, your revert was unproductive. I don't need to provide a citation for the exact sentence summarising the article body: that Stokes was a 'lover of Fisk's former mistress' and was 'blackmailing' Fisk becomes clear from the article to anyone who understands what these words mean, even without the exact words occurring. Sure, I can copy all the citations from the relevant section of the article body into the lede, but again, your forcing me to do that is unproductive.

Tags - there is nothing wrong in asking for clarification with a tag, that's why this tag exists on Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:OR are completely separate issues; they say that we can ask for citations, not that we can't ask for clarifications. One does not exclude the other. You have no justification for removing the tag.

Word choice - words can be used to summarise what the source claims. The source doesn't need to contain the exact same word as long as it has the overall message that the word conveys. It may be true or false that 'inglorious' adequately expresses what the source says - I can't access it to check, so I'm leaving this issue aside. (My original edit was based on the fact that even if this source expressed that judgement, it was obvious that other sources disagreed; this was never about my judgement.)

I don't know what you mean by 'any change must be verifiable'. If you mean that every single change must be combined with the addition of a new citation - as your original message implied - again, that is not true and no policy says that. You can revert changes that are not explicitly attributed to sources, if you find them dubious; however, in the case of the lead, you had and have no reason to find my change dubious.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Since you undid the revert contents and added sources Thank you. please in the future when your adding contents like Fisk was assassinated in New York City by his former mistress's new lover, who was trying to blackmail him.make sure to include reliable sources because we monitor edits using anti-vandal tools and edits like this can trigger red flag even if you copy text from body of the article If the material has no source you need to add one. About the {{Why}} tag, I suggest using {{citation needed}} tag instead, because the statement makes specific claims about how different groups viewed Fisk.The {{Why}} tag is meant for asking for clarification when something is confusing or ambiguous not for unsourced claims. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 18:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If edits like this trigger a red flag, they shouldn't, because, again, it is not obligatory for the lede to give citations; also, frankly, I'm sure that what triggered a red flag is first and foremost the fact that I'm an IP, and if a registered user had made the same edit, you wouldn't have assumed that the change of the lede was unwarranted. The conclusion is that when patrolling for vandalism, you should not quickly assume that just because the editor is an IP, they must be 'up to no good' (more or less in the way some policemen are inclined to assume that just because somebody is a black or brown person, they must be a criminal), but you should actually bother to evaluate an edit based on its own merits (in the case of a change of the lede - based on the content of the article). About , I do not dispute or doubt the claim itself, so I am not requesting a citation, I just think it would be a good idea to have an explanation of the reason in order to give the readers a more complete picture (of course, that explanation does need to be taken from a reliable source, too; maybe it can be found in the same source from which the rest of the information is taken, maybe it can be found somewhere else). As for 'inglorious'/'controversial', I acknowledge that your revert of my replacement of 'inglorious' with 'controversial' was, at the end of the day, beneficial for the article - I had misunderstood the point of the adjective in assuming that it was an expression of a particular POV - so thank you for reverting that.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

" I'm sure that what triggered a red flag is first and foremost the fact that I'm an IP, and if a registered user had made the same edit, you wouldn't have assumed that the change of the lede was unwarranted." That’s not true even if a registered editor made the same change without a source, it would still be reverted as unsourced. The issue is with the lack of sourcing not whether the editor is an IP or registered. "when patrolling for vandalism, you should not quickly assume that just because the editor is an IP, they must be 'up to no good". We are not assuming bad faith simply because an edit comes from an IP when patrolling edits are reviewed based on their content and compliance with policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV et cetera not on whether the editor is registered or unregistered. Unsourced or problematic edits are reverted regardless of the account type. Thank you Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 04:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, 'unsourced edits' are made all the time, this is normal. 'Unsourced edit' is not even a standard concept - there are numerous cases in which an edit can be warranted without the addition of a new source. In particular, people do edit ledes without adding sources. If you really did, as a rule, revert every such edit coming from a registered user - not to mention every potentially 'problematic edit' - you would be in content disputes almost all the time. Vandal patrolling is a whole different type of activity. But whatever, you can say what you want.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right unsourced edits happen all the time and are normal. But your edit was not normal. Unsourced edit is not even a standard concept your edit became one only because it was very sensitive. Fisk was assassinated in New York City by his former mistress's new lover, who was allegedly trying to blackmail him. You copied this from the body of the article which also had no source. that was why I reverted with edit summary adding unsourced content. Anyway, since you’ve already added a source, you’re good. If my revert offended you in any way, I apologize. My advice for the future: when adding content involving serious claims such as blackmail or assassination, make sure you include reliable sources to back up the claim. I think I’ll stop here. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 07:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Now you're changing your explanation and claiming that it was because of the 'serious claims' you reverted. Not only were the 'serious claims' already found in the body of the article, but they also had references to sources in the body of the article - that's where I took the sources from, too. Even if they hadn't had references to sources in the body of the article, if you were genuinely so concerned that the claims might be false, you should have deleted them from the body of the article, too, not just from the lede. In reality, you simply didn't bother to check whether the claims were found in the body of the article at all, you just saw an IP writing something that you figured sounded 'nasty' and reflexively reverted. In general, you are very eager to prove that you acted correctly and I was the one who did something wrong, but in reality I did nothing wrong and you were the one who acted incorrectly. I suppose your 'advice' could be useful as a way to spare me some time in case another vandal patroller is in the habit of reacting just as inadequately as you did - I could avoid such interactions by copying the source from the body every single time I make any edit to a lede to make it reflect the body - but even this is uncertain: if the editors of the article have decided not to include many or any references in the lede, they might think that the footnotes I add clutter the lede, and they might even revert my whole edit precisely because of the addition of references. So far, fortunately, I have rarely or never encountered someone who reacted as inadequately to an edit in the lede as you did, so I won't bother to adopt this particular time-wasting routine.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Hello, I'm Igor123121. I noticed that you made a change to an article, John Newton, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Igor123121 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Igor, the 'change' I made was that I placed a tag, which means that I have checked the present source and have not found the claim in it. Adding such a tag does not require 'adding a source'.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, you're wrong in your apparent belief that every change made to an article must provide a source. Many kinds of changes to articles do not require providing a source.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

---