Hello, thanks for your edits to Peter Conover Hains. Please add in-text citations when you add new content, so it can be verified by other editors. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you! These are all details from the links already provided in the article's reference section. I am basically just cleaning the article up from the illegible, non-internally linked, redundancy laden, grammatically incorrect state it was previously in. If I add new content, I will most certainly do so. ChuckDabs (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I did previously, on this same article. ChuckDabs (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I can add more in-line citations. ChuckDabs (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look, and adding. Made a few minor fixes! Welcome to Wikipedia! --Engineerchange (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think it looks great! ChuckDabs (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much more verifiable information out there on him too. I want to totally overhaul his page similar to 'George Pickett' or 'John Clem' another substantive American Major General's article, for instance. It seems like because he's an engineer and not an infantryman, his article has been overlooked for a while. However, unlike any other U.S. servicemember, he both fought the rebels and defended the East coast from German U-Boats, what a dichotomy! ChuckDabs (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuckDabs: definitely a ton of military articles that are stubs where their role was more supportive and less "in the action" during the wars. I wrote Charles R. Train and Henry L. Howison last year. Definitely fun to pull together facts for these overlooked military biographies. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChuckDabs! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. glman (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Grant (Upper Canada politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revolutionary War. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. See WP:BLPCRIME. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: You are wrong, I was simply adding additional info to an already existing section of this article. I suggest if that alleged plot does not qualify for this page, the page should be significantly overhauled because there are multiple non-convicted alleged "terrorism" plots on this page.

You added additional violations of policy to the page. If you identify other instances where WP:BLPCRIME is violated, you should remove them, rather than restore additional violations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Do you not understand what I am saying? I could not know it was a policy violation, given I was simply adding additional news details to that pre-existing section as it appeared at the time. I did not create that subsection, so my edits were in-scope with the dozens of other 2025 instances of non-convicted "potential plots". There was other vandalism from another user occurring at the exact same time your clarification/"nuking" was made.

Also, the policy states regarding living people: "...editors must seriously consider not including material", given the existence of other entries for 2025, a reasonable person would assume that any additional edits were in the scope of WP:BLPCRIME.

Regarding your "nuking" of 2025, I am going to review those instances you deleted to see if any of them have now resulted in a conviction and restore/amend those to include such details, as that is in the scope of the previous article (unless I'm missing something).

Please advise otherwise, thanks! ChuckDabs (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused regarding the policy's specifications about "seriously consider not including": that is in respect to references that use the name of suspects in their headlines, allowing editors to fully cite such reliable sources without automatically violating BLPCRIME. It does not create a broad permission that suspects can be named. Regarding I could not know it was a policy violation, please recognize that I indicated that there were substantial policy violations in my edit summaries removing that content; if you are unsure why content may violate Wikipedia's BLP policies, it's always best to ask first before restoring possible violations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: You seem confused on my intent or what I said above; I have no intention of violating any policy. I was simply adding secondary source/newsworthy information to a section of the article that already existed. I did not engage in any defamation, especially more so than any other editor of those previous instances from 2025 nor the news itself, again at that given time. Multiple edits occurred concurrently in the span of like ten minutes, yet you specifically left this notice on my page, seems rather targeted.

Also, since this article now has 'extended protection', are you going to review and amend the parts you "nuked", per your exact description of WP:BLPCRIME and newsworthy content? Upon a cursory review, some of those people have pled guilty or have been convicted. ChuckDabs (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours is the exact edit that restored possibly defamatory content. Whether you intended to violate policy or not, it happened. You won't get blocked for a one-time accident, but mistakes with over 60,000 characters of material containing more than ten BLPCRIME violations is significant. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Interesting, before you removed that entire section instantly, you published changes to that same section of the article on November 3rd, and unwittingly republished other defamatory content, such as the names of the suspects from other cases who have not yet been convicted, which makes your edit (among others there) in violation of WP:BLPCRIME, like you clarified above.

You don't know how to read diffs, it would seem: that indicates that I deleted those defamatory claims. I'm sure you're more than willing to retract you false aspersion, in accordance in CIVIL. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I retract my statement, you're correct. So why did you remove all alleged plots from post 2024 and phrase it as "removing politics" from the article? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Again, you're misreading an edit summary: I reorganized the article by decade, which is neutral and does not imply that presidencies have any direct correlation to particular terror plots while also satisfying the navigational purpose of dividing the article. I also removed all the consecutive instances of reporting incidents where no conviction has occurred, as that list is only for confirmed terrorist plots. An underage kid accused of posting menacing things online might be charged with "terroristic threats", but a suspected incident of violent language is not the same as a fully verified instance of a failed terror attack. I'm disappointed to see you retract your statement that correctly identified your shortcomings in falsely assuming misconduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Ok, that's logical at least, but that approach will definitely inhibit current events from being accurately recorded on this website. I read WP:BLPCRIME, I'm not sure simply 'mentioning' an alleged plot/threat/'inkling' without naming suspects, counts as libel/defamation under any legal jurisdiction pretty much anywhere in the free world.

I will make sure to update this article (if it still exists) once convictions are passed down and/or the suspects plead guilty.

Regarding I'm disappointed to see you retract your statement that correctly identified your shortcomings in falsely assuming misconduct: I edited my response to be succinct, because I disagree with your current assessment of the article, you made the article materially less useful. Nobody will go back and edit this article after convictions. Why even have the article?

ChuckDabs (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the alleged actions of someone as a terror plot is, indeed, opening the door to potential legal action. I would encourage you to err on the side of caution on BLP matters. Look at how the rest of the article features events that resulted in convictions. I think that indicates that Wikipedia editors are entirely capable of thinking about something for more than the 48 hour news cycle. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: That article's 2025 instances can simply reflect what was reported in the news/secondary sources, like Wikipedia did/does with Luige Mangione or other persons indicted but not yet exonerated/convicted, in pubic facing cases (such is the spirit of this article anyway). Some of these people in instances you "nuked" have been actually indicted by prosecutors, so your criteria here: "fully verified instance of a failed terror attack" has either been met by your own logic or met via the logic of other alleged/indicted persons on this site.
If your argument next is 'relevance' of each given instance, why have the article at all?

I highly recommend you caucus with some other high up mod, this article will turn into "This list is incomplete..." . ChuckDabs (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]