User talk:Throast

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)

File:Gabbie Hanna Genius interview.png

The youtube video doesn't appear to be under a free license. Is there something I'm missing?©Geni (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Geni You're right, I thought I'd checked for it but must have confused it with another YouTube video. Sorry for the inconvenience. Throast (talk) 10:40, 11 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)

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)