User talk:Plasticwonder

I am the firmest believer in calling a spade a spade, and telling the emperor that he has no clothes.<>

Vandalism on this page will be reverted without question, and you will be reprimanded. Don't even try it. (Or do, its up to you)

Brett Epinheimer revert

Good show reverting your revert. I cannot tell you how rarely that happens. It warms the cockles of my heart to see such a sincere Wikipedian with such demonstrative integrity. 2601:196:180:DC0:45F5:3EF7:390B:49C3 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thanks! Plasticwonder (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Appreciate your anti-vandal work. I can't stand those vandals! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3156:1DC4:AF14:D226 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Plasticwonder (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re De Sade

And I apologize for saying you lied in the edit summary; I then recognized you meant the source article, not ours. --Golbez (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mauk Kham Wah

Hello Plasticwonder, do you speak Burmese? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree,

I do not speak Burmese. I checked the history of the article you linked, as I don't remember editing a Burmese themed page, and realized I undid a content removal from an IP that I thought was disruptive. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Why did you think so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In AntiVandal, I see large chunks of text being removed, I usually revert, especially if there isn't a proper reason for it, or even worse, no reason at all. In this case, the user stated that "justice is served", which didn't seem encyclopedic to me, and perhaps the editor had a bias. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "justice is served" doesn't even question the accuracy of the content, so I agree that the edit summary combined with a large removal of text is a pretty good indicator of disruption with a conflict of interest.

So that's okay, no worries and thanks for the clarification. However, please be careful with such restorations. Whichever reason you had for restoring the content, you clicked a button and suddenly became legally responsible for the content you restored. If the user had stopped reverting there and sought a lawyer, and the content turned out to be defamatory, you could have been sued for defamation. 17 seconds between a removal and someone who doesn't speak the language of the references restoring the content are very likely far less time than should have been taken in this case. Allegations are just allegations; WP:BLPPRIMARY applies about court records et cetera et cetera. If you could take at least a minute of reading and thinking as a matter of principle before restoring BLP content, that would be great.

Special:Diff/1317139564 had a far better edit summary that shows good faith (even if there's a strong conflict of interest). Skywatcher68 reverted that one, which is the actual main problem in this dispute, but at least they sought advice afterwards. I found the page because they asked on my talk page.

And that all said, thanks a million for the recent changes patrolling you do. Especially for being brave enough to deal with such subjects and to oppose the introduction of bias. All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best comment I have had on my talk page. This was a tremendous heads up. I never knew you could be litigated for stuff like this, so this probably just saved me from a whole lot of trouble.

And as for the patrolling, it is the least I could do! Plasticwonder (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(It's extremely unlikely and the recent situation with Caesar DePaço was an extremely rare case where the WMF actually had to reveal users' IP address information. It went through the press and Wikipedia noticeboards because it is so extremely rare. I think this is mostly about morals, honor, reputation and not getting blocked rather than actual legal risk; even if we both used anonymizing proxies all the time and noone could sue us, we'd still be interested in not doing something illegal. It's mostly something to keep in mind, not something to be afraid of.)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Wow you are fast! – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LuniZunie!!!!!

Nearly 2 years being here and you are the first person to give me a barnstar! I couldn't ask for a better person to award me one honestly. Salute! Plasticwonder (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REALLY??? I am honestly so surprised!! So glad you finally got one, VERY much deserved.

Happy editing =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Everyone probably assumes you have a stack of these already :) Thanks for everything you do. tony 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely unreal. Thank you so much TonySt!!!

Now I have two of the best patrollers giving me praise. I really appreciate it! Plasticwonder (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further cleanup of authoritarianism-related articles

The articles on military dictatorship and military juntas also use the loose (i.e., including both autocracies and oligarchies) definition of "dictatorship". The former should probably be renamed to "military regime". ZFT (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll begin work on it soon, thanks! :) Plasticwonder (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DECA

The names of previous executive directors are completely incorrect. Have no idea who came up with them, TBH. I have been a member (and state director) of DECA since 2014. I tried correcting this, but you reverted it back. Look back into the old history of the page and you'll see that I was correct. ~2025-32115-80 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well why didn't you write this as an edit summary instead of on my talk page? I wouldn't have reverted you as your removal would have been explained (and thus I have no reason to revert you). Plasticwonder (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]