User talk:Throast/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Poster

Hi there. I don't know why you think the file you uploaded has the correct saturation and if its contrast were changed, it would look like this. Warner Bros. own page shows a different and clearly worse version than the two files here, but the others, including the original film website (archived here) and IMP Awards show that the png version is the correct one. Have a nice day. nyxærös 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And do you know what happened to the image that was there before you replaced it with yours? throast (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted per WP:FCSD. You might find it archived on the archive.org though. nyxærös 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I see. I'd like to add that your argument doesn't disprove mine. Warner Bros. could have just as well used an altered version, so can IMP Awards. Per my argument, the image I added can only be the original one when it is compared to yours because more detail is retained. throast (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should discuss this further on the film's talk page then, see how other editors think. I personally believe that the original site, which was active during the film's theatrical release, is sufficient as a source and should be considered the best source unless proven otherwise. nyxærös 20:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I honestly didn't expect you to bring up the original film website. :D So you do have the upper hand here. I don't think setting up a discussion on the talk page is worth the hassle. I appreciate the civil discourse. Cheers throast (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for you to enjoy. I am impressed by how you cleaned up the article on the Angry Grandpa and did such a good job with the cleanup and condensing information. SlugStream (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, thank you! Throast (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from Emir of Wikipedia

Hello, Throast. You have new messages at Emir of Wikipedia's talk page.
Message added 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

I apologize in advance for writing here (I don’t know if I’m supposed to T_T) but Wikipedia is so confusing at first and I’m still trying to figure it out… First of all, thanks for the feedback on the Gabbie Hanna edit!! It’s incredibly appreciated cause, again, I’m new and I still have to get the knack of it. Secondly, I think your comment might have been probably directed at the controversies section – because the rest of the things I added were largely updates of stuff that was already up on there – and I do want to try to explain myself (obviously, if it is contrast with Wikipedia’s guidelines, I won’t put it anymore!!). Preface: Gabbie Hanna is one of my favorite singers lol. Her second EP, Bad Karma, is a response to all her past controversies and deals with basically everything that she has gone through from 2019 to 2021. But you cannot grasp the full scope of the EP without a background of her controversies, cause without context it largely does not make sense. (example: the song Special is about her controversy with Smiles, drama channels, Paytas and Kenza. Call Me Crazy is about Paytas. Etc.) Still, I would appreciate a lot a response and some suggestions on how I should write/do edits next time!! Thanks in advance!! Charlotte 92 emma (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand, I've been on here for eight years and it's still confusing to me. I left you a response on your talk page. Throast (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind going through my changes for Gabbie Hanna's article and telling me the specific things that were wrong? I just created a page for her upcoming debut album and I want to add it in her own article but at this point I'm afraid whatever I will write will be reverted lol Also, I spent a lot of time on that article and gathered all the references so if possible I would like to salvage as much as possible and keep all the things that were good/relevant. Thanks in advanceCharlotte 92 emma (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Charlotte 92 emma, I'm afraid Gabbie Hanna unnamed debut album (GH1) will likely be deleted as it clearly violates WP:FUTUREALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL. Before you edit, let alone create, any more articles, please get yourself acquainted with Wikipedia's policies!

When I reverted your first batch of edits to the Gabbie Hanna article here, I left an edit summary citing some policies which I further explained on your talk page.

PLEASE check out this page before making any further edits and read through the policies I linked to in my edit summary, your talk page etc. If you need any further guidance, go to the Teahouse to get in touch with experienced editors. Throast (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up!! I understand if you will delete it, sorry again.

One thing that I would like to point out tho is that Youtubers who make music rarely get independent coverage, even her 2 released work have gotten 2 or 3 articles at best, so while I do understand wikipedia's policy and the need to enforce it, it's hard when people just don't give coverage to the person you're trying to write an article about.

Charlotte 92 emma, notability is what it's all about. If there's no significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources on the subject (plus some additional criteria depending on the subject), there should be no article on Wikipedia. Perhaps Gabbie Hanna has her own Fandom or other fan based forums where you can contribute. If you want to continue editing here, I hope you take my advice to heart. Cheers! Throast (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Gabbie Hanna podcast interview

I note that you follow the article about Gabbie Hanna. I added a link to a podcast interview on the theory that it might be of interest to readers wanting to learn more about her, did you manage to watch it? - knoodelhed (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scott Sanchez: The hosts of the podcast are biased towards her as evident by the support they show her at points throughout the episode. I don't think the source is neutral enough to include as prominently in the external links section. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Just letting you know that you reverted my edit but all I did was fix the citation template, so the Hollywood Reporter citation and whatever problems there were with the link are still there but not in a cite template properly. Not sure if it should be removed or just needs a link fixing or something so I'll leave it to you but thought you should know. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I see you already realised haha. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: Thanks anyway for letting me know here, in case I hadn't realized. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for fixing the citation template. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi dear user

I found this edit to be over the top, please correct me if i'm wrong but, all the sources i put are reliable and numerous. What's undue about what i wrote?--Hotbox eron (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You removed credits, wikilinks, well sourced encyclopedic informations for what? I'm really not getting it--Hotbox eron (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hotbox eron: Please take a look at WP:UNDUE, WP:TMI, WP:RS, and WP:OVERLINK, policies which, in my opinion, your edits are in conflict with. Going into strenuous detail about one particular song, unreleased at that, is a good example of undue content. This article is about the album as a whole. It would be excessive to dissect every single song on the album. Also, YouTube videos as sources are generally inferior compared to articles published by reputable publications in my opinion. You state that other journalists are included but Charlamagne tha God is neither a journalist nor a music critic, he is a radio host. His opinion on the album might be included but before you add it, I would recommend you to seek consensus for it on the article talk first, as his off the cuff remarks are in contrast with the written reviews by music critics for reputable publications that are otherwise featured in the "critical reception" section. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your point now, I'll fix my edit--Hotbox eron (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hotbox eron: There are still WP:OVERLINK issues in your edit and you did not explain the removal of cited content in the "critical reception" section. The keyboarders who worked on the track "Hurricane" are already credited in the "personnel" section and do not belong in the "producer" column of the table. I will address your edit but please refrain from reverting back to your version. Instead of edit warring, seek consensus on the talk if you disagree. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Donda

I was not starting an edit war, as only one edit was reverted and I won't readd the content since I now understand why it's redundant so no talk page debate is required. --K. Peake 07:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Hey, sorry for the late response. An edit war is not always started in bad faith and I can see that we are both trying to improve the article. An edit war is started once an editor reverts back to their preferred version after they have already been reverted. Hence, the editor introducing the disputed edit is supposed to then seek consensus for their edit once they have been reverted. Thank you for understanding. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of the faith guideline about edit warring, but I thought it only counted as warring if you reverted more than once? If I was still in disagreement with you about this actual content for instance, I would have posted on the Donda talk page. --K. Peake 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: You might be referring to the three-revert rule, which is merely a "bright-line rule" that, if broken, can lead to a block. Edit warring describes a general pattern of behavior which I described above. The 3RR is there to deal with particularly bad cases of edit warring. Anyway, this was just supposed to be a clarification, I understand that the issue is settled now. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Website Under “About”

Wrong website or no website shows up when Nicki Minaj name is Googled every few days. It’ll show the the correct site under “About” when Nicki Minaj name is Googled, then disappears or shows an inactive website (mypinkfriday.com) a few days later.

Who keeps removing her correct website under “About” when her name is Googled? It’s being done by someone here. I believe it’s you, Throat. Rvaughn21 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rvaughn21: What are you even talking about? Google knowledge panels have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Why would you bring that up here, let alone accuse me without any evidence? Throast (talk | contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Throast, congrats on being granted the right, looking through some of your accepts, here are some minor mistakes I found:

Special:Diff/1048364144 Spacing needs to be corrected before accepting

Special:Diff/1048356589 I'm not 100% sure about this one but editor claimed the king was "Michael Gurguis" although Seru Epenisa Cakobau seems to contradict that (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here)

Please note that none of these violates any of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#General criteria, but it's best to correct mistakes before accepting. Thanks for keeping the backlog down for (looking at Special:AdvancedReviewLog) quite some time and have fun reviewing changes :D Justiyaya 17:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Thank you very much for notifying me, it's my first day as a reviewer and I'm currently working on getting a handle on it. How do I correct an edit before I accept it? Or am I supposed to accept first and then immediately correct manually? Throast (talk | contribs) 17:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, if you edit the page, before you publish it, next the minor edit box there is an accept all pending edits option which you can click on, if you choose not to select that option, your edit will be published without being accepted. Justiyaya 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You might find the pending changes sandboxes useful if you want to test stuff out but you seem to have most figured out already. Justiyaya 17:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Got it. For some reason it didn't occur to me that I can just edit the page when looking at the diff. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome :D Justiyaya 17:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes note to self

On October 5 at 17:38 UTC, I meant to revert this edit instead of this edit as vandalism. For some reason, perhaps due to another user simultaneously trying to revert that edit, mine was overridden. I am aware that the edit I accidentally reverted does not count as vandalism, though I can't undo it now unfortunately. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, no damage appears to have been done :D

I would've probably reverted too, just with a different edit summary

You have gained a (talk page watcher) Justiyaya 18:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

H3h3 productions revert

Hey I saw you reverted two of my edits. The one about the description, I would describe them more as a YouTube duo than a channel (singular) as they have multiple channels covering multiple topics. And their more active channel is not h3h3hproductions. And my other edit was about the speculation of why the viewership surged, even if the source said it, it doesn't mean it's the objective truth, which is why I think it should be reverted. Thanks. Perfecnot (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Perfecnot: The title of the article is "h3h3productions", which clearly suggests that the article is about this specific channel. The lead supports this by saying h3h3productions is a YouTube channel..., hence "YouTube channel" is the most accurate description. The article title is not "Ethan and Hila Klein", in which case the short description you've proposed might be more fitting.

Regarding the sourced content you removed as "speculation": One of Wikipedia's key principles is that material that is verifiable must not be removed simply because someone thinks it might be objectively untrue, which you might want to read up on. As I stated in my edit summary, the claim you removed is very much verified by the source. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Would the H3 Podcast (Their main channel now) be deserving of a blurb then? They are ranked like top 20 podcasts in America by viewership. Perfecnot (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Perfecnot: No. If you believe the podcast meets standalone notability, you might as well create a new article. The article as it stands now is about the YouTube channel "h3h3productions". Throast (talk | contribs) 00:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I just looked up what a blurb was, I meant an article. My bad Perfecnot (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad we came to a consensus regarding the article :) Perfecnot (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Perfecnot: Yeah 👍 Throast (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Congrats :D Justiyaya 14:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Thanks! Throast (talk | contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Machine Edit Review

Hi Throast! Thanks for the message! I recently added content into the "Power Sources" section under the Machine article. This section had not contained any mention of electrochemical power sources, so I added an "Electrochemical:" type within the section. The reason there were no citations on my addition were the following:

• There were no citations in any of the rest of the section for any other type of power source (excepting one, where additional information required it)
• It is not disputed/controversial that solar cells and batteries are power sources
• It does not require additional verification or more information, as the addition linked to other Wikipedia articles where their use as power sources are stated
• Most importantly, I felt that adding references/citations would violate WP:BLUE and WP:OVERCITE

If you want to review my content manually to confirm this, that would be appreciated very much! And if you want me to re-add the content instead of yourself, just let me know. Or, if you still think my addition needs citations, I'll look for some and add them, though I'm certain the existing Wikipedia articles linked are adequate.

Thanks again! Keep in touch about what you decide!

Ezra Kirkpatrick (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ezra Kirkpatrick: Wikipedia, at its core, is a summary of information based on secondary sources. Every claim made on Wikipedia must be traced back to a reliable source, regardless of how other information in any given article is cited or if the information is controversial. If it was up to me, I would actually add {{More citations needed}} to the top of the article. The exception that you cite, WP:BLUE, clearly does not apply here in my opinion, as the concept of electrochemicals being a power source for machines can't possibly be argued to be common knowledge. I don't know how WP:OVERCITE would possibly apply, as you suggest yourself that the article contains relatively little inline citations. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Alright, I'll add a citation that verifies that batteries and solar cells are sources of power. Thanks! Ezra Kirkpatrick (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ezra Kirkpatrick: *Sources of power for machines specifically. If you don't establish a connection between those two, that information is irrelevant to the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Giving thanks

Hey there. Just want to say thank you for that message you put on Usedtobecool’s talk. I do want to learn, but the person can’t expect edits to be respected without reasoning. JTW1998+ (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help

This person is vandalizing my page for money 2603:8001:9301:737:30FE:B0F7:7DAB:3587 (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my page you’ve removed everything I actually did positive for 20 years and replaced it with paid negative content from h3 which is all false. Why would you do that? You erased 20 years of my life and instead added in one month and made it skewed highly negative please help? Knightedblog0934 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Knightedblog0934: I am not vandalizing "your" page. I have also not replaced anything. I've improved the sourcing and struck unsourced or poorly sourced information, as well as information serving a promotional purpose, entirely in line with Wikipedia policy. You need to stop creating sockpuppet accounts. Your primary account User:RK777713 has been blocked for making legal threats against editors like me. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not pretending to not be Ryan. I signed up for an account once and was blocked when I pointed out this is all happening as part of a legal action against h3 and Klein and knew he was paying editors and that they would be dragged into it. You have totally destroyed my page. I am not threatening not hiding anything when I say we are filing a suit against Ethan Klein and h3 next week including this.

You have litterally removed everything real and good every sourced charity award 20 years of my life and just added in skewed poorly sourced and incorrect info. I can’t even believe what you did was legal by wiki. I am pointing out anyone involved will be name as part of the third action (triller has two against him already) against him this one I am personally bringing. It is for everything he is doing Includint this. If you are so concerned with my pages accuracy why did you removed the charity awards I received sourced directly to the charities. Why didn’t you include the dozens of events sourced ad naseum between 2008 and current including I co founded triller and fight club? I implore you to look at what you have done and rever Knightedblog0934 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Throast, just wanted to direct your attention to Ryan's comment on his own instagram post where he again claims you are working for/are H3. Addisonnotrae (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: He's back at it, this time with a hashtag especially for you! How fun. Godspeed. Addisonnotrae (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Being paid by h3 podcast

It is not legal for you to vandalize my page because you are being paid by Ethan Klein and h3. Please cease 2603:8001:9301:737:30FE:B0F7:7DAB:3587 (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly a defamatory claim with zero evidence and coming from a user with self-reported conflict of interest (i.e. "my page"). - Popoki35 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

you deserve an award

thank you! for the incredible work you've done cleaning up the ryan kavanaugh wiki from the edit history its been used as a promotional piece for him for awhile now. 79.70.189.157 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I also want to thank you, Throast! Your attention to accuracy and veracity is evident in all your editing. You've helped me improve, and the Wikipedia community is lucky to have you. - Popoki35 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Throast: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Justiyaya 23:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Request for advice

Hi Throast, I believe you're aware of the sock puppet investigation and block on Thetruthisthere13. On his talk page, he's continued make baseless and defamatory claims. (I guess talk pages still remain open for the user even after blocking for sockpuppeting?) Do you have any advice for dealing with the defamatory claims he's making? Thanks, Popoki35 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35: Yes, I reported him to the sockpuppet noticeboard and have seen his comments. Blocked users can still edit their talk pages so that they have the ability to appeal their block. I believe all you can do is open an inquiry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and request a sitewide block (see WP:OPTIONS). From personal experience, I don't think they are going to do that though but I might be proven wrong. My advice to you is just not to engage with him at all. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the info, and I'm going to take that advice. Popoki35 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thetruthisthere13 confirmed himself to be Kavanaugh?

It seems this recent edit confirm it's Kavanaugh himself, as he states that the article "creates a false image of me". Should the SPI archive be updated to reflect this evidence, or is that unnecessary? Currently the account sits at "Posslikely" status but should probably be "Confirmed". I'm unfamiliar with the process so I'm asking here. --Swift502 (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Swift502: At the point of the sockpuppet investigation, there apparently was not enough evidence to confirm him to be a sockpuppet of RK777713, but the diff you're providing should be sufficient evidence to confirm that. Of course there's always the possibility that someone might impersonate him but who are we kidding? I don't have the necessary user rights to change any of that, so you might want to follow up with Mz7 who closed the investigation. I'm not even sure if Wikipedia considers RK777713 to be Kavanaugh officially, but the evidence obviously clearly points in favor. I've opened a discussion at the noticeboard regarding this issue. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Threat against you by Ryan Kavanaugh

Hi Throast, just in case you weren't aware of this tweet. The saga continues! --203.18.35.200 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Throast, I hope you have e-mailed the meta:Ombuds commission to investigate the claim in Ryan's tweet that someone has provided him with the IP and e-mail used by this account. He could be lying or have been provided bogus info, but there is a credible claim that your private info was leaked by a checkuser and that deserves investigation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I was not familiar with this tweet. I just looked at Kavanaugh's Twitter account and can't find such a tweet. Has it been deleted, and if so, how do I report deleted tweets to the Ombuds commission? Thank you for letting me know. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: here is it archived [1] -- although to be fair it's not really about the tweet itself, it's about investigating whether your private information was accessed illegitimately, which the Ombudsman Commission can do by verifying local and global CheckUser logs and such. If I had to wager, I'd bet someone just fed bullshit to Kavanaugh, but you can never be too safe -- 5,000$ is a significant bounty and it's not unimaginable a volunteer CheckUser might want to collect. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Thanks for cluing me in, I've let them know. This is serious stuff. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Not sure if you saw, but there is now another tweet with an higher bounty of $25,000 set for info on you. https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/s4l03l/i_really_think_we_should_all_report_this_tweet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Hahahaha at this point you might as well send him your name yourself and collect the cash. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your recent work in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of a high-profile article and the ongoing exposure you're experiencing as a result. The community owes you! Rustic / Talk 21:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

H3 made merch about you

You have your own merch now, thanks to h3h3. Congrats! https://h3h3shop.com/h3h3-throast/?variant=82594922&kw=store Perfecnot (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hogyncymru (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You received the Purple Barnstar!

		The Purple Star
		Purple is one of my favorite colors and it means peace. You have endured a lot of baseless accusations thrown at you with the intent to discourage you from standing for Wikipedia principles and holding true to what is in line with Wikipedia policy. For that you deserve this barnstar and my solemn hope that peace is just around the corner. Thank you for standing up and being counted. ARoseWolf 15:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi throast

Keep doing the gods work love you 2A01:4B00:850E:B200:5413:168D:4188:3E16 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Throast, would you like your talk page semi-protected for a bit? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Yes, please. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hi Throast, thank you for your comments. Sorry that I wasn't logged in. I haven't logged in for a long time. These days I usually just do quick fixes on small mistakes that I notice without logging in. On this occasion, you seem to have misunderstood that the content came from the Brahma Kumaris main article. So it's not correct that I "copied or moved text from List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events into another page". It was the reverse.

I generally find if Wikipedia articles are internally consistent, it raises the quality of Wikipedia's content. So the purpose of my edit was to bring some content from the Brahma Kumaris main article, which talks about the organisations views on apocalyptic events, and to make this article consistent with that content. I don't think such a small edit raises any issues of attribution, however to try and satisfy your concern, is there a way of linking to a subsection in an article? The relevant subsection has the sub-heading "Cycle of time" in the Brahma Kumaris article. Please let me know what you think. Cheers CP Alokibees (talk)

@Alokibees: Exactly, I might have phrased it wrong in the warning message but I meant copy-pasting text from the Brahma Kumaris article into the List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events article. We are of course allowed to copy-paste within Wikipedia but per Wikipedia's licensing we have to attribute that content to the page it was copied from by linking to it in the edit summary, which you didn't do in this edit. You might as well make the same edit again linking to the article or, even better, to the subsection you copied it from. Sorry for the misunderstanding and happy editing! Throast (talk | contribs) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alokibees: Sorry, you were also asking how to link to a subsection. In your case it would be Brahma Kumaris#Cycle of time. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh

Hi Throast, I will like to know why my recent edit indicating Ryan Kavanaugh birthday and using a reliable source like Rotten Tomatoes was deleted. Rotten Tomatoes mentioned a day, month and year unlike BFI that mentioned just a year. Swankeyy (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Swankeyy: I refer you to Pabsoluterince's comment at your talk page. Edit warring is disruptive and nonconstructive and will get you blocked if you keep this up. Throast (talk | contribs) 07:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Source request

I noticed this diff and was wondering if you could share the source. I didn't get very far with Google, but maybe I was searching it incorrectly. Thanks! Popoki35 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35: Sure, Bloomberg Law uploads court documents of the cases it covers. You can't access them without a subscription but the descriptions include the key points. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I claimed that the case was dismissed which is incorrect. It was just transferred. Still, I think we should wait to include that lawsuit in the article until sources report on the verdict. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. I think you're right about waiting. Popoki35 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Popoki35: No worries. In case you're curious and haven't found it already, you can track the transferred case here. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

JUSTICE FOR DAVID FIRTH

You best replace that article lest the Hubert Cumberdale and his chaps are dispatched! 2601:988:C202:B920:ACE0:83EB:7C74:A8FF (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Really though.

It would be ideal to keep that page intact along with a list of his works. Even if the page hasn't been frequented or the sources aren't up to wikipedia standards it could be edited and tended to by users interested in his youtube and new grounds creations. Many are familiar with Salad Fingers and even the show Smiling Friends in which he had a cameo, so the notoriety of Firth is certainly enough to warrant a wikipedia page. 2601:988:C202:B920:ACE0:83EB:7C74:A8FF (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You're welcome to read through the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination) to understand why it was deleted. If you disagree with the conversation, you're welcome to create the article yourself. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ignorant

People like you will be the downfall of Wikipedia. BigOnAnime (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, mate. There's only one of us who's been blocked for violating BLP policy. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

David Firth

Hello, I just noticed that David Firth complained on Twitter about the suppression of his Wikipedia page. He seems pretty upset, and his followers too. Just to keep you in check so you can take the right measures to prevent any potential disruption on that field, like asking for creation protection on that page or something like that. Shouldn't be too bad, but better safe than sorry. Larrayal (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I came here to do this - It looks like people with no understanding of how WP works are already posting deranged comments on this talk page. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 03:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Larrayal, request for protection has been declined cold. Draft:David Firth (animator) is currently being worked on, but if the sourcing doesn't improve before it's moved back to mainspace, it should certainly be challenged again. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

David needs better

Put it back or Hubert Cumberdle will rise from the rust. 107.127.7.103 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for David Firth

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Firth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RexSueciae (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the record, not affiliated with the ignorant IP editors who don't seem to understand how wiki works. Anyways, just wanted to let you know I submitted a deletion review. RexSueciae (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

explanation

hello yes the ping was by mistake. sorry also please see the situation about the page, I realized you undid my edition. either Daily mail, guardian, independent, etc are reliable or not. sincerely Freethinker6799 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Freethinker6799 I don't exactly know what is at issue, but as I understand it, Generalrelative already explained to you that The Guardian and The Independent are considered reliable, which means they are perfectly good to use, see the non-exhaustive list of reliable sources on Wikipedia. Daily Mail on the other hand is considered unreliable, which means it cannot be used to verify information on any article (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Hope this helps.

Please discuss any further content disputes at the article talk page. Thanks. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Radical feminism

Hi Throast, I am new here, but this is an edit I want to make as I think it is very misleading to what the argument from gender critical people actually is, I don’t want to get kicked off for making multiple changes, yet as this is an observation that I made from reading forums / twitter, I don’t think I’ll easily be able to find a reference, if I try rephrase to include the original text would that be ok? Thanks for any guidance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CockyRobin (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(moved to bottom and heading added by me) Justiyaya 14:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

CockyRobin, all claims on Wikipedia articles must be verified by a reliable source. As you correctly conclude, forums or tweets are generally not considered reliable. But, if what you want to include is a widely-held belief, I'm sure you'll be able to find a reliable source for it. You can rephrase the sentence as long as your proposed phrasing is still in accordance with the source cited. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Backstroke of the West

Is there any sincerity behind NPOV and WEIGHT or are they just convenient? If there is, could you briefly point out how? The Backstroke of the West rose to immediate prominence when exposed on the Winterson website a decade before it became fashionable to misunderstand Dawkins's brainchild and mislabel everything one does as being "a meme". Is breathing in and out a meme because so many people do it and because it increases their chance of surviving long enough to pass on the habit to others? Apparently so. Zero Wing didn't just lurk obscurely until a critical mass of people decided to get confused about Dawkins's "meme" idea and then suddenly overnight All Your Base become a world-wide phenomenon; likewise the Backstroke of the West didn't lurk in obscurity until such a time either. The poor English in both of them were parodied for a decade or more before that time. Backstroke of the West became so well known so early on because Winterson's website made people aware of its existence and content in a way that was quick and easy to promote to associates. No doubt there are countless similar bootlegs which have been made but never received the same attention because they were bought and disposed of in disappointment rather than showcased on the web. Winterson was rare in having both access to the material and also the technical know-how to operate a website, putting him in a unique position to spread some humour. So many people accessed the page that the images were blocked due to bandwidth limitations. It's difficult to imagine how anybody today would have ever become aware of an obscure knock-off disc in Shanghai had Winterson not taken the time to set up the page and made the effort to maintain it throughout its heavy traffic. That Winterson's page suggests a dubbed edit and YouTube obliged 12 years later segues nicely. 203.220.235.49 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

WEIGHT as to the fancrufty detail you added to the article (also exemplified by your lengthy talk page message). NPOV as to the term "incompetent". If such a value judgement were to be included, it would have to attributed and backed up by a reliable source. Throast (talk | contribs) 02:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Weight due to "because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."? In that case, certainly the link to the derivative YouTube work needs to be culled as fancruft too, since it could not exist without Whitesun's exposure in the first place. And this is the first time I have seen any message so brief labelled as being a wall of text. I would have expected people at an encyclopaedia to be open to reading... or else they wouldn't be here. It makes sense that thresholds are subjective; my perspective is calibrated based on usenet, email and forum post length but I concede someone used to telegrams or the restrictions of SMS would find anything over 140 characters excessive. I see your point with "incompetent"; I was going with WP:BLUE. 203.220.235.49 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not only that the message is lengthy, it's that it is unnecessarily so. I responded to you based on the very first sentence of your message; anything beyond that is irrelevant to this discussion. I'd probably remove the passage about the YouTube dub too but then again, that sentence is supported by two secondary sources, whereas yours was supported by a single primary source. Certainly a worse case for inclusion there. If you want to see your passage included, you can start a discussion at the article talk page and get other editors' input but, for the love of god, keep it brief. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Carlo Bonomi

A warm welcome to Wikipedia, Throast! Could you detail exactly why you reverted my edits and could you also refer to the part of the manual of style my edits contravened? Many thanks, Overtone11 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Overtone11, taking another look, the punctuation you added wasn't incorrect at all. Whenever the backlog at pending changes gets very big, I tend to want to churn out reviews as quickly as possible, which obviously makes my reviews more error-prone. I should slow down. Thanks for letting me know.

I see you removed a comma after who, introducing (what I believe to be) a nonrestrictive phrase. Don't you think the comma should go there? Throast (talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I find the user interface to review differences is cumbersome, which makes it difficult to see what's going on!

And, yes, this is a restrictive phrase. Although I suppose the sentence is maybe a bit long now. I'll think about how to improve it.

Cheers. Overtone11 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty sure it's nonrestrictive. Both phrases can stand independent of each other. I'm not too invested in that particular article though, so I'll let it go. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV on see also section.

Hey, could you revise or suggest a modification for my edit on the See Also section on Andrew Tate? I'm not looking to right a wrong here, and I'm neutral towards this topic, but on particular consipcuous consumption seems like a great categorization that explains the phenomenon. All of these references are linked to sources I believe.

Sources suggest, and the subject doesn't deny, that a lot of his wealth comes from the porn industry, so even if it would have a negative connotation, I don't think this is a NPOV violation, as it reflects the truth. It's perhaps a NPOV violation to consider the subject negative enough to warrant its inclusion. Damned if we do, damned if we don't include it.

Finally parasocial interaction might be removed and replaced by influencer or something like that.

Regards. TZubiri (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

TZubiri, having looked into the subject quite a bit myself, I totally see where you're coming from. In my opinion though, topics such as conspicuous consumption are not (yet) sufficiently backed by the article body. Porn industry, as another example, isn't particularly helpful imo since webcam modeling, which is a subtopic of sorts, is already linked.

Generally speaking, see also sections are risky (especially in BLPs) because they tend to incorporate editorial biases or lend certain ideas undue weight. With a subject as topical and controversial as Tate, I'd opt to leave it out entirely for now. I usually prefer incorporating links to relevant topics into prose, where readers can easily verify them via inline citations. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. Webcam modelling is indeed linked. I'll be on the lookout for a source that supports linking to conspicuous consumption, if any appears I'll add it to the body directly.--TZubiri (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Please do not edit my comments to change the meaning. I did not forget to indent this, or did I forget to indent this. By indenting, you changed who it appeared my reply was too. In the former case I was not replying to the IP, I was replying to you. In the latter case, I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to the IP. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FrederalBacon, sorry, I didn't think much of it. In my experience, talk page comments are usually indented to separate each comment visually regardless of which user is addressed. I worry that readers are more prone to overlook certain statements if multiple comments are written below each other because then, the only separating feature is the signature, which often gets drowned out in the text. Alternatively, users can be directly addressed either by pinging them or simply mentioning their name at the start of the response. Either way, I will refrain from editing your talk page comments from now on. Keep up the good work at Andrew Tate. Cheers Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I didn’t mean to imply you did it intentionally, if I did, I sincerely apologize, I understood what you were trying to do, was just stating that the edits did change the meaning.

Also, you as well. It’s a controversial subject, but one that is consistently in the Top 25 most viewed pages for over a month now. It’s a shame how little verifiable info is available there is to put in the article, because it is so short for such a high visibility BLP. I’d expect him to be top 5 this week with the new social media bans as well. FrederalBacon (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You have received the Teamwork Barnstar!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your continued work on Andrew Tate, an article whose subject is highly controversial, and which is currently highly visited, being in the Top 25 Report for almost a month straight. Askarion ✉ 13:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Considering how controversial (and popular) the subject matter is, I'm frankly surprised how peaceful it has been editing over there. Grateful for every editor who's contributed over the past few weeks. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

All I can say is that I thank whoever put the page at EC protection. Really cuts down on the direct disruption to the article. The talk however....whew..... FrederalBacon (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty rough over there, but I guess that was to be expected. His demographic are "boys and young directionless men" after all. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

3 days later we're at ANI -_- FrederalBacon (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory page

Hi! I had two questions about the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory page.

1. I have a lot more information I can add regarding the film's soundtrack. Considering the "Music" section on the film's page is already quite lengthy, do you think that the film's soundtrack should receive its own page?

2. Last year, I tried citing the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory crew book, but it was deemed an unusable source because it was never published. I recently uploaded the crew book in it's entirety to the Internet Archives, would this change anything or would it still be unusable? (https://archive.org/details/Charlie-crew-book/mode/2up)

Thanks! Ethanhart129 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ethanhart129, thanks for reaching out! 1. would depend on how much information is added and which sources it is based on. It is important to note that Wikipedia does not include all verifiable information on a given topic but a curation of its most notable aspects, so there is a cut-off point when adding to articles. The issue with 2. is that, even though you've made the book publicly available, it has nevertheless never been formally published. We'd have to treat it like a personal diary of sorts, which we can't use on Wikipedia in the way you intend to use it, unfortunately. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Fucked up references on Andrew Tate.

I'm not sure what it looks like on your browser, but on my browser (Firefox), when you click on the citation "[5]" in the "Criminal investigation" section, it takes you to Reference 7 in the References section. Not to Reference 5. It works that way for every single reference on the page, except for Reference 1 and Reference 2, which work correctly. I assume that's because two additional references have been snuck in the backdoor of Reference 2. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Bueller 007, not for me. Seems like something you need to get figured out. {{unbulleted list citebundle}} is used as intended. If you have a better solution for compiling three citations into one footnote, go right ahead tho. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Gandul

Gandul's article is from 2 days ago, not from your discussion on 16th of September. .karellian-24 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me see how I am editing it, I will remove Gandul if it's linked to tabloids.

The Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism is investigating this, it must be mentioned because it's more serious. I will bring other source saying that. Then I must mention also there is a case opened. I will also bring a different source than Gandul. Regarding the 41th source, what about it? And the championships are as like per any UFC fighter. talk 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

.karellian-24, please carefully read my edit summaries in order to avoid needless back-and-forths. Your editing is disruptive. When your edits are challenged, you should initiate a discussion about any contested information, see WP:ONUS. It is rarely appropriate to simply revert back to your preferred version. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Throast, yes I removed the Gandul source. But it must be said there is an open case in rem. And that DIICOT is involved in this, it's like FBI. Also a Romanian student was also alleged victim, with her mother in front of their house crying and declaring to the news. Then a report is a report, Antena 1 is a reliable source. Must be mentioned the girls were tattooed, that they own a studio there plus one in LA. SEE NOW. Thanks! .karellian-24 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Throast, Ok mate. Sorry, I did read it now since I was in editing! My plan was to improve the article. I had the best intentions. .karellian-24 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

.karellian-24, that's fine. Editing on Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative, meaning once another editor raises genuine concerns with your edits, you are required to engage with them in a productive manner and work towards a solution. This is not achieved by forcing your edits into existence via repeated reversion but rather by raising the issue at the respective article talk page. I see you've done so at Talk:Andrew Tate#Edit war & Romanian source quality, which I appreciate. Btw, you don't have to {{ping}} users on their own talk pages; users are automatically notified whenever another editor edits their talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Another one bites the dusk.

TheRealSerenaJoy. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, no freaking way... After all this time, we've yet to encounter a single good-faith editor sticking up for Ryan Kavanaugh. Incredible. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Oh well, another to name and shame in the talk page header. The socking and UPE has made no material difference to the content of the page, it's just kept everyone who edits on their toes, and resulted in the WP:ECP on the page. The only cost is to the time and patience of the good-faith editors. You and @Popoki35: were right to be very skeptical from the beginning . Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Heads up

I've edited my wall of text over at Talk:Andrew Tate to be more concise so newcomers don't get discouraged from joining the discussion, as you've said. I've added a link to the old revision since the last thing I want to do is to mislead people; and I've tried to keep the content as identical as possible so that your response doesn't look out of place in any way. Felt like I should let you know; tho I'm posting here and not there to avoid digressing even further. Cheers :) DFlhb (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for taking the advice to heart! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Longest Living Dogs

HI - Wilma is my dog - she is 20 today - What can I use as citation - I have her Kennel Club certificate Harleyyab (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Harleyyab and thanks for reaching out. Ideally, the age of your dog would have to be covered in secondary sources. Alternatively, if the kennel club certificate has been published, e.g. online, you can add an inline citation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I just assumed it would be posted as a "citation required" like some of the others. I have nothing I can use as the only records online at Kennel Club are password protected. I just wanted her added to the list as she has reached the 20 year milestone Harleyyab (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Harleyyab, I'm sorry, material that cannot be verified should not be added. If the certificate is released elsewhere or covered in secondary sources in the future, feel free to restore the information and add a citation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OK - I won't bother but how does the dog ranked 17 remain

also there are 12 dogs listed as "The source is purported to be GWR however no edition or page number is provided. Editors are encouraged to find and update entries for each dog if they have access to past editions: " Again there is no consistency Harleyyab (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I will try to find sources for number 17 and if none can be found, it will be removed accordingly. As I understand it, the 12 other dogs are supposedly featured in GWR books, which are published; the precise editions and page numbers just need to be specified. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)