2409:40F2:102E:1FE5:CD:3C3C:AEF7:F4F6

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kimberly Gardner. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is not vandalism. Muboshgu, please refrain from abusing warning templates. Thank you, Politrukki (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It is vandalism, he is wrong about him being backed @Politrukki Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What type of vandalism? This should not be taken as an endorsement to the edit, but it's a fact that a Soros-backed super PAC donated to Gardner,[1] so it's not like this was a hoax or something. Seems like the user was guilty of NPOV contravention, and should have been issued a warning through {{uw-npov1}} or a custom message.

I don't understand what the rest of your message is about. I went to the article by typing Gardner's name, then checked a couple of dozen edits in the revision history, and read the article or its sources for less than an hour. I'm not an expert on the topic. I certainly don't think the IP's edit was neutral. It was misguided, but the intention was not harming Wikipedia. I just wanted to criticise a poor claim of vandalism. Politrukki (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

---