User talk:Throast/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ak 102 service

Ak 102 service date is 2000- present

Please read the source properly:

https://freelancersconflictblog.wordpress.com/2020/09/06/guns-of-nusantara-the-ak-101-and-102-in-brimob-service/

122.177.179.204 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello 122.177.179.204, blogs, unless published by subject-matter experts, are not reliable sources. Besides, this is not the same source you continue to try to include in the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Throast. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Too many sub sections?

Given the severity of the claims of fraud and sexual harassment it would seem for the sake of truth in information that the results of those claims should be as bold and important as the claims. It looks like only the negative information is being made bold. Thanks for your consideration TessNYC (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TessNYC, oversectioning is explicitly discouraged by our guidelines, and I personally don't think the formatting hurts the article's neutral point of view. You are of course free to discuss the issue at Talk:Benjamin Wey and get other editors' input. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Amourath - model

It's important to describe Amouranth as a model as that represents a significant amount of her regular income, as well as what people know her for. Her modeling career is discussed in the article which mentions her onlyfans popularity. Not sure why you removed it. I can get more sources if you want. Lmomjian (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmomjian, I encourage you to read edit summaries and pertinent guidelines and policies cited within them; this would have helped you understand my reasons for removal. MOS:ROLEBIO lays out how we choose descriptors in BLP lead sections. Amouranth would have to be "commonly described" as a model in reliable sources, which does not appear to be the case. After having a brief look at some RS, if anything, there seems to be a better case for adding "OnlyFans creator". Please also note that reverting without explanation outside of clear cases of vandalism or BLP policy violations (as you've done here and here) is inappropriate and in itself constitutes disruptive editing. Once material is disputed, it is upon the user seeking inclusion (you in this case) to engage with dissenting editors and reach a consensus before restoring any disputed material.

Looking at your contributions, I see that you already have a history of edit warring. I urge you to cease such behavior as it might result in a block. Thanks for considering. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try not to do that in the future. And I'll add edit summaries when reverting. I will change that to onlyfans creator as you suggested and add some sources to back that up. Thanks. Lmomjian (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Unproductive reverting and rigidity

I think you’re failing to assume good faith, and being very rigid with citing endless bureaucracy regarding to the mention of Angry Grandpa’s parents and sister on the page. A significant amount of info from the page comes from the official channel to begin with. Regardless, his obituary also mentions his parents and sister, will rewrite the source. Don’t want to bring this to the arbitration committee, but feels like are being very rigid and unreasonable. Will see here this goes. StevenBjerke97 talk 20:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves” and naming his parents and sister aren’t “exceptional claims”. -StevenBjerke97 talk 20:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, his parents are mentioned in The Post and Courier, Charleston’s primary newspaper as well. -StevenBjerke97 talk 21:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

StevenBjerke97, I have in no way suggested that you acted in bad faith. Aside from this edit summary, this is my first interaction with you. I cited WP:ABOUTSELF (in particular claims about third parties, i.e. the existence of specific relatives) and WP:BLPNAME as reasons for removal. WP:BLPNAME states that relevance of non-notable family members' names is subject to editorial discretion. I am not convinced that his family members' names, and especially each individual birth/death date, is encyclopedically relevant. The fact that you'd even consider moving this to arbcom at this stage is frankly baffling and seems like a gross overreaction. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In the video regarding his mother, it’s Charles Green himself at her grave side talking about her, not a family member. His parents are mentioned by name is the newspaper obituary I provided as well. Virtually all bios of individuals will mention if they have parents or siblings, that’s absurd. Yes, the claim about owning the restaurant is from his son, but his parents and sister are very well sourced.

As a compromise I would suggest to perhaps remove the aspect about owning the restaurant but retain his parents and sister (especially considering there’s an independent newspaper that mentions them by name). -StevenBjerke97 talk 21:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Angry Grandpa#Parents and sister for continued discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz

Too bad you cannot recognize constructive edits. Maybe you should attempt to read them.2603:8080:B200:5CDE:2186:139B:91AD:F458 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, note that I actually reviewed and accepted your initial edit. However, once another editor has objected to your edits, it is inappropriate for you to simply revert back to your preferred version as you did here, especially without using an edit summary. This constitutes edit warring. Thanks for considering. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Notice

Hi..Can you help me on the problem of Edit Notice. I edited my Edit Notice. But it still shows the previous one. Is there any way to refresh it. Eagle Site (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Eagle Site, I would love to help out but I don't exactly know what you're referring to. Could you elaborate? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Eagle Site/Editnotice

This is my Edit Notice (A message boxes shown if any one tries to edit my userpage - I think you know about this).

I edited this today (You can see in its edit history). But it still shows the previous one. Not edited one (when anyone tries to edit my userpage). I hope you understand this. Eagle Site (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Eagle Site, I understand now. I can see the current version of the message box when trying to edit your user page, so it seems to work now. See here. It correctly links to your talk page. Maybe you just need to empty your cache and refresh the page for it to display the current version. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Responded on my talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. An easier way to notify other users here is to simply use the {{ping}} or {{u}} templates in your response. That way, users automatically receive a notification that they have been mentioned. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Pied Hornbill, Ironically, I forgot to ping you in my response... Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello Throast! I'm sorry to bother you on your talk page. I notice you also responded to this users talk page, and wanted to make sure I handled that particular situation correctly. What you said makes more sense, but even three years into being here, I still sometimes struggle with situations like this (even though it seems clear cut.) Let me know if I was being too snarky since they were a newcomer, or if I could have handled it better. Thanks again!! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spf121188! Oh not at all, I think you handled it very professionally. If anything, I was the snarky one out of the two of us. Since I originally added what they removed, I felt inclined to respond directly to their assertion that the material was of editorializing nature. Feel free to reach out if you need a third opinion or have any questions! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough! I try to tow the line with newcomers, it's just in a case like this is seems obvious they they're creating an account just to change something they feel strongly about, and ignoring/removing the note stating not to change seemed a bit reckless, so I had to respond to them. I'm glad you did too, you explained it much better than I did. I do appreciate it, and hopefully I'll see you around! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for helping explain errors to a newcomer with me! I wasn't sure which barnstar to give, so this one made sense. I always appreciate when others are willing to work together and I want to make sure you know that! Thank you again! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I certainly try. :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

RAS Syndrome

DC comics is not a redundant acronym.

DC = company

comics = product

If you bought two copies of Superman, you wouldn't say "I bought some DC" 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I frankly do not care about the content dispute. All I did was revert your disruptive editing while patrolling recent changes, which you've now been topic-banned for. Please make an unblock request before continuing the content dispute on other editors' talk pages. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking action on this, Throast. Also, feel free to ignore this user right now as they are fully blocked on another account, which they are WP:EVADING. - wolf 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I see. Thanks for letting me know and no worries. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Way to be a buzzkill ;-þ

You old fuddy-duddy. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 00:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanisaac hehe Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wednesday

A premise shouldn't contain the summary of the story, this is literally why there is an "episode" section where every episode is detailed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise_(narrative) Putting end of the show spoiler, while not disrupting WP:Spoilers or other policies, does not correspond to what is considered a premise. 74.56.194.96 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTV, it is custom to include a summary of the overarching plot, whether it be called "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview". Combined, the episode summaries are about 1,500 words long; I'm sure many readers would appreciate a more concise summary of the plot. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, you're right. Buried in MOS:TVPLOT, it says an article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary. I've already self-reverted. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Your comments on my talk page were perfectly stated. Hooray! Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

The Episodes section of Wednesday is not conforming to the very large size of the Infobox, which causes a large atypical blank separation gap between the section title "Episodes" and the fixed size table format which prints out the episode summaries after it. When I moved the Production section higher in the TOC, the 'blank separation space' problem was resolved. Other solutions, if you don't like that one, is to shorten the Infobox entries (for example, does Danny Elfman really need to be listed twice), or expand the Premise section to include more detail by adding 2-3 more lines. Either of those would help the page format problem currently displayed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I see, I'm using Vector 2022, so I'm not experiencing this issue. It really isn't a matter of personal preference; the structure is outlined at WP:MOSTV. If we cut anything from the infobox, I'd say we start with the list of mostly non-notable production companies. The premise section could aslo be expanded substantially. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, also, I do appreciate your contributions, but your most recent edit appears to be WP:OR, as you're using the primary source for analysis. I'd be happy to keep the section, but replace the YouTube clips with actual secondary sources, if you can find any. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no NOR intended and if you want to shorten the edit then go ahead. The Music section and the soundtrack will need to eventually get into the article, and I have verified the Rolling Stones and The Cramps being in the soundtrack. Regarding the 'blank space' format problem, then your idea to shorten the Infobox section by 4-5 lines might be useful; if you try it then I can let you know if the format problem of 'blank space' gets better. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I have verified the Rolling Stones and The Cramps being in the soundtrack, this is exactly the issue. You, as a Wikipedia editor, identifying these songs, as obvious as it may be, constitutes OR. I'm sure better sources are out there; I might go looking for some later. Regarding structure, I'd actually prefer expanding the premise section, as it would need to be expanded anyway. If you'd like to do that, please go ahead. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I've expanded the premise a bit. Do you still have the issue? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: This has been quite a learning curve for me, as I've never substantially contributed to TV series articles before. I've since learned that, per MOS:TVPLOT, relatively comprehensive plot summaries, as I had written up here, should not be included when plot summaries of individual episodes are already included. If your issue persists, we should move this discussion to the article talk page and consider other solutions there. Sorry for the back-and-forth. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice going over the busy week-end. Some things I'll try to get to later or for your attention; you can adjust and alter as you see it to improve the article. My current list:

(1) Might be nice to see a choreography section wit RS which I have found.

(2) The comments on "Premise' from the IP seems a little bit off center; "Premise and pitch" during development is very different from "Plot and episode summary" since they are not synonymous. I'd say that if needed then your expanded Premise section actually does work, especially if it is related to "Pitch to production management" rather than Plot summary. The 'blank space' problem from the week-end appears solved on my 13" laptop screen, though its still an issue on 18" desktop screens because of Windows formatting protocols; I'll look at it further if time permits.

(3) There are also RS available on the pop songs which appear in the episodes which I'll try to link for you.

(4) I'd reconsider somewhat removing what happens to Hyde at the end, since without it he seems like he might be dead after being shot and laying still on the ground the last time he is seen. Its not sequel baiting to want to state that he is alive at the end of the season in the closing scene.

(5) Also, Production can be hatted in the Infobox to 'shorten' the very large appearance of the Infobox in its current format.

Judging from all the editors on the page from over the week-end, then that must have been a busy holiday week-end for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, It was busy indeed, but I do enjoy the grind. Perhaps we should move the premise issue to the talk page. I think MOS:TV is pretty clear here, but other editors might disagree. Regarding Tyler's fate, I intentionally chose the word "defeated" to imply that he has survived. In other instances in the series where characters are killed, I either used the word "murdered" or "killed". In that context, it should be sufficiently clear that he is not dead. If you disagree, we can move that to the article talk as well. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Choose images that you feel are best for the article; leaving the article bereft of images is usually not a good idea. The reverts against your episode summaries over the week-end I think were improperly stated regarding the desire for removing spoilers. Wikipedia does not censor its articles, and your original versions of the episode summaries was better before the deletions were made. I'll support you if you would like to restore the original versions of these episode summaries. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, Yes, I'm looking for some fitting images. Sorry to revert you, but we just cannot use non-free images in articles not included in the fair use rationale. Regarding spoilers, I've given up at this point. The push to exclude them, however illegitimate it may be, is just too big. I've attempted to work toward a consensus at the talk page but, as per usual, nobody really seems to care about that. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to request extended higher protection for the article for the next month to help preserve your episode summaries as written, then I'll support your request to do this. Ping me from the request page and I'll add my support to the request when pinged. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, well, I don't think I can request extended protection while it is still protected. When current protection expires and disruptive editing resumes, I can request again. Thank you for your support though! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading this again, I think you're confused about the episode summaries. The episode summaries specifically have remained relatively untouched ever since I published them. Removal of spoilers has mostly concerned the cast section, Wednesday (TV series)#Cast and characters, (specifically removal of spoilers contained in character descriptions) and the premise section, Wednesday (TV series)#Premise. Before requesting extended higher protection over these issues, I think it would be helpful to get more editors to participate in the relevant talk page discussion in order to reach a consensus. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The revert being discussed is this one [1], with one editor, User:OneMoreMike, adding comments on the Talk page about removing spoilers. Wikipedia does not censor articles or remove spoilers; in fact, if a reviewer sees the film in another country with an earlier release date than English releases, and then writes an English Wikipedia plot summary or character summary before the film is released then that is ok. Its up to you if you want to request an upgrade for page protection which you can do at any time. You don't have to wait the remaining 11 days for current pp to expire. If you decide to ask for extended pp then I'll try to support, and just ping me when you put in the request. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, as I've stated above, at this point, I think the issue is best solved through dispute resolution rather than page protection. If you see a good reason for extended higher protection, feel free to make the request yourself. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Those were reliable sources for the type casting edit which I used; and I didn't use the NYPost. Are you sure you want to completely delete it since there are a large number of sources reporting it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, My reasons for removal are a bit more complex. In my edit summary, I explained that the Blackenterprise.com source merely cites a New York Post article, meaning they did not do original reporting, but completely base their facts off of that article. Since the NYP is unreliable, we shouldn't include an article using it as its basis.

The India Today article documents viewers' (not critics) comments on social media. I'd argue that inclusion of such fringe opinons is undue. And to add my two cents, I believe this type of fake outrage never belongs in Wikipedia articles. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to see if the NY Times or Boston Globe picks up on this topic then that's probably reasonable; you have already mentioned Ortega's Latina background (and Guzman as well) which might be relevant. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation at Kanye West

Hey. So, I count 4 reverts in 24 hours that are not subject to 3RR exemption: [2][3][4][5]. Please ensure that you follow the exemption clauses closely. That means that beyond obvious disruption, WP:BLP vios (though not invoked directly by you) need to be stark; i.e. watch the edges where BLP becomes a legit content dispute. Thanks. El_C 14:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

El_C, Thanks for notifying me, I did revert too liberally there. I initially viewed [6] as clearly exempt due to its potentially libelous nature, but then again, the quote "I am a Nazi" is reliably sourced in the article body, which I was not aware of. I apologize and will correct my behavior. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool, appreciate that. See also my concern about the long quote that wasn't (long). Thanks again. El_C 15:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you throast :)

RoseWaterSkies (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

RoseWaterSkies, no worries! :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Spinoff

Hello

I am messaging you regarding my edit about Ja Rule being a spinoff of Irv Gotti. I have used articles such as Estelle and Bobby Valentine and they list that they are spinoffs of John Legend and Ludacris, so why can't Ja Rule be a spinoff of Irv Gotti? JuanBoss105 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

JuanBoss105, I suggest you raise the issue at Talk:Ja Rule and get other editors' input. I might be missing some music industry jargon, but describing a person as a "spinoff" of another person doesn't make sense to me at all. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. JuanBoss105 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe spinoff in this situation is who put the artist on. I don't know why spinoff is the word used. JuanBoss105 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit Rejected

Hi

This is regarding the edit Kubra Khan page regarding her name. I think I forgot to give citation. Just for reference here is the citation from Dawn newspaper. Hope this citation is acceptable. Ali Najum (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ali Najum, it's been a while but that source looks good to me. Please feel free to add the information along with a citation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Move of Wētā companies to Weta

Hi, I noticed you moved Wētā FX and Wētā Workshop to names without the macrons, citing MOS:TM. I don't quite seen it as a trademark stylization since the company was originally named after the wētā, and they decided to switch to the macrons during their renaming, which has been more commonly referred that way closer to the native language: it is spelled either "weta" or "wētā", although the form with macrons is increasingly common in formal writing. It is used in reliable sources for the companies but not universally, similar to something like Löwenbräu Brewery or Citroën where we include the diacritic even if it's not universally used in English sources.

So I guess first off: I wonder if you'd reconsider or explain a bit more your rationale for moving them. Happy editing! (Feel free to move this to a different talk page if you'd rather.) Skynxnex (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Skynxnex, MOS:TM encourages us to choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Out of "wētā" (spelling originating in the Māori-language) and "weta" (absence of atypical macrons), the latter is preferable. Additionally, having just a cursory look at some recent RS, the former is used in the vast minority of cases. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten that in the case of Weta Workshop, there was a RM on 9 September 2021 that successfully moved from Weta Workshop to Wētā Workshop, without opposition, so there probably should be a full move request process to move it back. (Edited to add: and that RM was what I based my move of WetaFX to Wētā FX without discussion on 23 May 2022‎.) Skynxnex (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Skynxnex, whoops, my bad. While I disagree with the move, that was obviously not the way to go about it. I did review Talk:Weta FX and didn't see any discussion about the name change, so I thought it'd be uncontroversial. I obviously should have looked at Talk:Weta Workshop as well. Feel free to move it back yourself on the basis of the RM and revert all of my related spelling changes. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I had missed the rest of the thread at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Getting_a_Wikipedia_page_correctly_indexed_by_Google_Search which makes it seem like the wider consensus may be to keep it macron-less. I may let it sit for a bit and perhaps file a new joint-RM when I have more time to compose it well-enough. Thanks for your thoughts. Skynxnex (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Skynxnex, sounds good. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Change in the article by Marzena Ozarek-Szilke

Hello, I changed from a paleontologist to a paleopathologist because Marzena Ożarek-Szilke neither has courses nor conducts palontological research, she only studies mummies and conducts paleopathological research. I also know she has a big problem because someone created an account for the sole purpose of defaming her and publishing the controversy about her and the team's research. Is there any way to block this person - XEillisx,? 88.156.137.68 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What you claim does not contradict the article. As I said in my edit summary, the article says that she took many courses in anthropology, anatomy, and paleontology. This is directly supported by the source, which says, Marzena completed numerous courses and workshops on physical anthropology, anatomy and paleontology. As your version is not supported by the source, I will revert again and ask you to refrain from edit warring.

Regarding your concern about defamatory content, you can report the editor at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you choose to report the editor, please closely follow the instructions at the top of that page. However, note that, as Wikipedia articles strive to be neutral and unbiased toward the subject, controversies may be included as long as they are supported by reliable sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Multiple edit reversions of good edits & lying about facts. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Robbins/Wonder Woman

Hi. You reverted my Trina Robbins edit. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do here. The original sources currently being used are clearly incorrect. Jan Duursema drew issue 300 of Wonder Woman in 1983. Trina Robbins drew Wonder Woman in 1986. One of these clearly comes three years before the other. Is Wikipedia of value if it cites sources that are clearly false? I included a source that mentions Duursema's contribution chronologically (1983). This demonstrates it occurse before Robbins contribution. If the books are not sources - as they are the highest form of accurate information we have - than how can any of the other sources have credibility? 2603:3024:1043:B100:40CA:30C0:2224:DDA4 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there must be no original research on Wikipedia, i.e. editors may not provide their own analysis in articles. That's exactly what you've done here; you conclude that Trina Robbins must be the second woman to draw Wonder Woman based solely on the fact that a source lists another person as the first. Because Trina Robbins isn't explicitly mentioned in the source as the "second woman to draw Wonder Woman", you're conducting original research. If you're convinced that the Vancouver Sun is incorrect, you can remove the information altogether. However, please don't restore your revision unless you can find a source that explicitly supports your claim. I hope that clears things up. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I started with a simple deletion of the incorrect information as you suggest, but it was reverted as I was deleting "verified" information. Verification from an external source is only of value if the external source is correct. We can see from the publishing dates and the actual book credits (a primary source of information) that the secondary sources of information being used are incorrect. That said, again I am fine with simply deleting the incorrect information - but that will (I suspect) just be reverted).

I get what you are saying about the interpretation of sources. That's stated clearly in guidelines. But guidelines for sourcing also say "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

The fact that Duursema has a credit drawing Wonder Woman (and that this credit IS posted on official, secondary sources - https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman_Vol_1_300) clearly shows that the information about Robbins (through third-party news sources) is wrong. This just falls under the idea that we is used here should be dictated by common sense first and foremost. 2603:3024:1043:B100:40CA:30C0:2224:DDA4 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I get your point. Still, that's no excuse for adding original research. I'll go ahead and remove the "first woman" claim. If someone restores it again, you can start a discussion at the article talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Saw your edit. A good way to handle it. Thanks for your patience. 2603:3024:1043:B100:40CA:30C0:2224:DDA4 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually didn't mean to remove what you just added; this was due to an edit conflict. Nonetheless, I would choose to remove it altogether because Salon doesn't specify that it was a "mini-series", just a "series". It's all a bit murky, I guess. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I agree. Your edit was more clear. Thanks. 2603:3024:1043:B100:40CA:30C0:2224:DDA4 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Grzegorz Braun's political standings.

Hello, you have reverted the changes that removed the claims that Grzegorz Braun was a far-right politician. Although the citations that were meant to prove that only claimed that he was far-right, but never argued for why he is so. In one of the citations, it was said that he fought pro-LGBT propaganda and was against Jewish restitution claims, although those aren't distinct far-right positions, as you can be against both while at the same time holding non-extreme political views, as for instance you can be against Jewish restitution claims not because of the fact that those claims were pushed by this specific group, but because legitimacy for those claims has already expired - making it independent from the group pushing the claim. So this is the part that I don't understand, why were those sources used to prove that he was far-right, when they didn't prove it but only claimed that he was far-right? Is a claim from a popular news article sufficient evidence for wikipedia? Ekcja (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ekcja, to answer your last question, if the publication is deemed reliable, then, generally, yes. Sources don't have to "prove" anything. If reliable, independent secondary sources commonly describe Braun as "far-right", then Wikipedia should reflect that. If you find that individual sources contradict themselves or are otherwise flawed, you can raise the issue at the article talk page and seek other editors' input. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Sapna Pabbi

I didn't add a reference cause if you click on the movie link that I added, you can see that her name is included in the cast list.

Almost Pyaar with DJ Mohabbat Lopa33 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Lopa33, I addressed this exact issue in my edit summary. Because the credit is unsourced in the film article, you need to provide a source in her article. Cameo appearances are rarely listed in film credits, so the film as a primary source often needs to be supplemented with reliable secondary sources in order to support cameo appearances. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

How was my edit disruptive?

You claim my edit was disruptive? how so? I think flybe editors just kneejerk reverted stuff without having any expertise in the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.174.24 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This marked the second time you restored your edit after it was twice reverted, first by CycloneYoris for violating WP:NOR, and then by me for essentially the same reason. Restoring disputed content without discussing the issue productively on other editors' user talk pages or the article talk page is what we call edit warring, which is a form of disruptive editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Jerry Nadler

Hey, you reverted my change a few months ago and I never got a response as to why. It literally makes no sense. He literally is the ranking member, and other chairs are described as being a ranking member, so i dont know why you reverted my change LordEnma8 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

LordEnma8, I reverted it for the same reason I gave in my edit summary. I see that an IP subsequently re-reverted, and Silikonz eventually added a citation, something you should have done in the first place. Please always add a citation to a reliable source when adding new information, especially if the information relates to living people. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

my recent removal

Hi, i don't know how to add the citation, however there should be one on the target page, where the actor's birthday is listed 2600:4040:5163:C500:3F5:A3B3:F1A:2BA9 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, as you can see at the top of the page when trying to edit the article, it says, Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidance on citing sources. If the target article contains a reliable source for their birthday, you can just copy-paste it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RE: Shrek

Your "edits" were absolutely, 100% and unequivocally vandalism. I ask you, what you find wrong with the 100,000 bytes of information you removed? If you see statements that are false, remove/correct those statements ONLY, thank you. Yuotort (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As a piece of advice, you're not going to last very long accusing good-faith editors of vandalism just because you disagree with their edits. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your "edits" were NOT good-faith; you DELETED THE ENTIRE FUCKING PAGE, and are NOT to do any such thing again, thank you. Yuotort (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please remain civil and assume good faith. I did not "delete the page", and had you read my edit summary, you would have known that I had genuine policy concerns. Content removal in and of itself is not prohibited nor is it inherently disruptive. Restoring content, as you did, without discussing the issue productively, is in fact disruptive. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

ryan kavanaugh

Hello, you can revert my edits on this page as much as you want, I am not going to get into an edit war with you. However, him trading stocks at 6 years old is completely irrelevant and you are abusing the revert button, for your information. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's your opinion that the information is irrelevant. I argued to the contrary in my edit summary. It's rare and unusual for a 6-year-old to trade stocks, and considering that he would become an (arguably) successful businessman later in life makes it relevant, imo. It's well sourced too. I don't think you would object to such information at Warren Buffet for example. Where do you draw the line? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hensel twins

Hi is Reddit a reliable source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/130ncpd/conjoined_twins_britt_and_abby_are_now_married/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Mostafa.noori (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not, unless it is her own Reddit account. See WP:REDDIT and WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Freddie Gibbs

Freddie has 4 kids. His first child which is his daughter. His second child is his first son. His 3rd child is his 2nd girl and his 4th is due any time now. CoolPants617 (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

CoolPants617, that might be true, but you need to provide an inline citation to a reliable source to support this information, especially because it relates to a living person. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s on his Instagram lol 24.91.155.9 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Arudou Debito

Hello. You reverted a small addition of critical information in the first paragraph of the Wiki page, explaining that Arudou Debito, who has had several names and now is called Debito Beamer, has apparently reclaimed his American citizenship. (A call to the San Bernardino Board of Elections at +1-909-387-8300 should confirm the general registration.)

So the amended entry simply points out that Mr. Beamer has since reacquired his American citizenship. He can vote.

When you consider the entry itself, why this person is even significant is that he went to Japan, did some social protests or advocacy or litigation, that gained notoriety in a small community of expats, and then gave up his U.S. citizenship. But then, you want to hide the fact that he later returned to America and reacquired his U.S. citizenship?

What does Wikipedia stand for, exactly? Are these self-promotion pages, or ones that accurately chronicle the lives of the supposed significant noteable personages?

Make the call. An actual call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofit (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Blofit, please always read edit summaries. I provided some links in my edit summary to help you understand why your addition can't be included. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the problem, though. You say, you can't use a public record. However, the evidence, the truth, is in the public record. This seems to leave Wikipedia, which you edit, in the position where it puts forth something that isn't exactly true. And then the reader, like myself, has to do the actual digging to discover that, in fact, Wikipedia is spreading falsehoods. Many expats who live in Japan believe that Mr. Beamer gave up his U.S. citizenship. But he went and got it back. That's valid for the entry, isn't it? What exactly is the whole Arudou Debito entry supposed to increase our knowledge about? How isn't it just self-promotion by someone who gets to selectively edit what other people bringing objective criticism have to say? Perhaps that's why the entry itself is controversial? Blofit (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not write the policy, but I adhere to it because the community has agreed to it. There really isn't much more to add. I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page; you might have a case to omit his citizenship altogether in light of your research. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Except, there isn't anything on the link you offer that says that publicly accessible information can't be used on Wikipedia. It only says about "edit warring", which anymore seems to be that one person proposes and edit, and someone else decides to revert, without doing any legwork. What good does a discussion on the talk page do (and there is one)? It really sounds like the winner in Wikipedia is the loudest screamer, and that will always be the insignificant person with a wiki page, using it to promote how they look at themselves in the mirror. Blofit (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents [like voter records], to support assertions about a living person. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see, here is the problem. I go to what you reference: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." It's clear that what the rule means to control is assertions that arise out of things like trial transcripts or other court documents. And also, public records that offer information which is somewhat very personal. In this particular instance, though, the noteable feature or notoriety of the candidate is that he went to another country, became a civil rights activist, and gave up his original citizenship. Now, there is a record, which is a public record, that he went back and got his old citizenship. I think that is a little different than "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." In fact, the primary source (evidence that the subject votes in America and is therefore an American citizen) is actually your best evidence as an editor. Are you going to wait until some third-party journal happens to print that the subject happens to be voting back in his native country? This is different than saying "it was alleged in court documents that the subject was in fact near the address of 777 East Rialto Avenue in San Bernardino California where the Board of Elections is located." The subject actually registered and had it accepted. So I am at loss in what to say. So much of Wikipedia is based off records available to the public that are not trial transcripts or court records. Blofit (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You continue to make poorly sourced assertions about a living person despite several warnings, which is prohibited even on user talk pages. The policy I cite in my previous comment is unequivocal. You're free to reject Wikipedia's policies, but that also means that you can not contribute here. Add any further comments to the article talk page. I have nothing more to add. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitalism : misunderstanding

Hello, I think you've misunderstood my assessment over Piketty's condition to tackle down the rise in inequality; I didn't claim that regulation and free-market economies were compatible, on the contrary: according to Piketty rises in inequality occur naturally if there is no regulation, thus the only way to strike down these rises is through regulation and taxation.

Thanks in advance for giving me a reply and have a nice day. MDCCCC (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

MDCCCC, the quote you cite does not directly support the text you added. It seems that Piketty simply made the observation that "high taxation progressivity made gross-income distribution more equal" in the 20th century, not that taxation and "state intervention" are a means to tackle wealth inequality generally. If you want to include the information, you need to rephrase it to more accurately reflect the source. I propose adding Piketty observed that "high taxation progressivity made gross-income distribution more equal" in the 20th century. However, I don't speak French, so I'm not sure if this is a faithful translation of the quote. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, I'll come up with a better quote next time, thank you for having time to respond me. MDCCCC (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Michael Malloy - Unreliable source?

Was the IMDB link to the Bizarre Murders episode considered an unreliable source? I saw that source #14 cited IMDB in a similar way. I had just seen the entire episode on Pluto TV and, though they'd changed some details (NYC : Chicago; et al.), the story was clearly based on Michael Malloy. Thx! Knoxbox01 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Knoxbox01, yes, IMDb is an unreliable source because it contains user-generated content that is poorly vetted by IMDb's editorial board, see WP:IMDB. It should therefore never be used to reference information in articles. Its only acceptable use on Wikipedia is as an external link. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Candy Crush page edit

Hi, you removed my edit about obtaining rewards in Candy Crush through watching ads, requesting a source. Here is a source, please restore the edit.

https://digiday.com/marketing/how-the-designers-of-candy-crush-maintain-the-balance-between-monetization-and-fun/

Thank you 2604:3D09:348F:D000:A9A1:C80D:C1DE:D1CF (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You may restore the edit yourself. If you need help citing sources, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ballinger talk page

Hi. Would you kindly fix the indenting at the bottom of the Talk page so we can see who is speaking? I'm afraid to do it, since I have been accused of various things on the Talk page. I don't want to be accused of improperly moving people's comments around. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, oh, I assumed that's how it should be done since I was not responding to the comment right above me but to Nemov's comment. I.e. when there are multiple editors responding to a single comment, all of them should be on the same level of indentation so to speak. At least that's how I've seen most talk pages formatted. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer for each response to be indented chronologically, so it is easy to see who spoke, and in what order, but some people do it your way, so OK, if you so prefer it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This article says that he met Ballinger when he was 13, and she sent the gift to him when he was 15, just to illustrate how these "sources" are just repeating stuff they see on social media. BTW, I have never found Insider to be a bastion of fact-checking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, yikes! Misrepresentation of the facts would be an argument to discard that particular Insider article. Then again, I'm not sure we should take The Sun at their word either. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, none of these gossip sources has actually looked into the story. They are just looking at the videos posted and sloppily summarizing them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion of the brackets. MOS:ELLIPSES does not call for any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

main article

Just to let you know that you're at 4 reverts and should participate in this BLPN discussion[7] if you see anything that should be reverted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, and three of those (1, 2, 3) were poorly sourced, contentious BLP content removals, one of the exemptions outlined at WP:3RRNO. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The BLP exemption is never guaranteed, and that's why it's better to get others involved. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm well familiar with 3RR and trust my judgment regarding exemptions. Thank you. I don't care to participate in frivolous discussions that paint me as biased right from the outset. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rainbow flag: Andean Indigenism

On the page for Rainbow flag you removed my edit. I edited the text because the cited "source" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag#cite_note-Fotw-IncaEmpire-18) does neither state that Tupac Amaru used the rainbow flag nor can be even called a "reliable" source since it is a collection of flags posted by users. In all the wikipedia articles about Tupac Amaru you can see this flag: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandera_de_la_rebeli%C3%B3n_de_1780.svg The wikipedia article about the Flag of Cusco also confirms that the rainbow flag was only associated with the Incan Empire in the 1970s without any evidence. (Flag of Cusco) So Tupac Amaru did most certainly not use the Rainbow Flag for his rebellion. Therearesusamongus (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Therearesusamongus, if the source cited does not support the text, the correct course of action should be to either correct the text to conform with what the source says or to remove both the text and the source entirely. You should never change cited text in such a way that introduces new information not supported by the source that's already there. In that case you should replace the source with one that does. Regarding the bottom half of your message, note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)