Hi, I have significantly updated the Helmuth Nyborg article with reliable sources [1]. I believe that "far-right" is warranted for a description in the lead. Would you agree with this? 51.6.193.169 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article talk page. Please consider the compromise made by the other IP. Also, while acknowledging that you were not the instigator, I ask you to refrain from personally attacking other editors. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give your opinion about the latest attempt to add the "far-right politician" label in the article's first sentence? On the talk page, we seemed to agree for a while that the wording I proposed here [2] was the best summary, but now there is another attempt to restore the 51.6.193.169 IP's original change. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The label should not be included pending consensus, so feel free to remove it for that reason. I've stated that I'm opposed to the "far-right" label in the lead sentence and have proposed a compromise which nobody (neither IP nor other participants) have commented on. However, I don't feel passionate either way and will probably not comment any further. If editors keep restoring the label without discussion, WP:RFC might be the way forward. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article talk page, I think additional RFCs or noticeboard threads would not be appropriate after the existing noticeboard thread already failed to make a consensus for inclusion. Of the two people who came to that article from the fringe theories noticeboard, there is one (you) who opposes including it in the first sentence, and one (Joe Roe) who thinks it should be mentioned in the lead section, but also supported my proposed compromise. But I also think I shouldn't revert the additions more than three times, even though BLP issues are an exception to the three-revert rule. My next revert will be my third in about 24hrs. Can you suggest any other solutions, if the material in the first sentence keeps being restored after I next remove it? 84.212.187.87 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should try hashing it out with Generalrelative first. They've interpreted my "bottom up" comment to be about the "far-right" label, which it was not, so there seems to be major confusion/miscommunication there. The label is clearly contentious, and a single editor's judgment should not override the discussion on the talk page. If it gets restored again, I suggest requesting full protection (of the version without the "far-right" label in the lead sentence) at WP:RFPP pending consensus. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 08:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think reverting again and then requesting page protection is the right solution? The user now restoring the material in the first sentence is the same one who added it there recently. [3] It looks to me like someone also is using a blatant sock puppet to try to poison the well for undoing this change, and I'm not sure what's the correct way to react to that. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest requesting full page protection and briefly describing the content dispute + linking the version without the disputed content. That way, an admin can decide the appropriate course of action, and you're in the clear regarding reverts. However, looking at how the talk page discussion is developing, consensus seems to be turning against you. If your RFPP is declined, which it very well might be, I strongly recommend moving on from the article altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the version of the article 166 Medium Regiment (India) before editing by ODSTsog. As far as I could see, edits made by other editors, including you, during the period when ODSTsog was active, were essentially reverts of ODSTsog's editing, rather than substantially new edits, but if I have inadvertently undone significant contributions of yours then please accept my apology, and, of course, restore the contributions. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, that's perfectly fine, I would have done the same had I looked at the edit history. I think one of these edits popped up at recent changes, and I reverted without looking into it further. Thanks! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Throast. In the recent discussion about "Release history" table, Andrew318 said that those are distributors, not labels. So if you have any further comments. Regards. 2001:D08:2910:FB3C:17E0:D15C:D305:FC85 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, my dear friend: the war was started by others who did not provide that important information about this Marvel villain. What does it matter if he appeared or not in cancelled installments? The information has its respective sources. Please think about it. 2800:484:738A:43F0:31D8:D8A3:9F9A:11F (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have skin in the game. I was just patrolling pending changes and saw that you were edit warring. Please discuss the issue with other editors on the article talk page and do not restore your revision until you have reached a consensus. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already listened to you, you just have to see the reaction of those bitter people who complain that since the character didn't appear, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. 2800:484:738A:43F0:31D8:D8A3:9F9A:11F (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of editors agree that the information is trivial, there is not much you can do unfortunately. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial if there were the former Trivia section, which in any case has its exception if the corresponding sources are shown. 2800:484:738A:43F0:31D8:D8A3:9F9A:11F (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because information is verifiable does not mean it should automatically be included. Wikipedia is limited in scope, and editors decide on a consensus basis what is and isn't appropriate to include. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this IP is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Barry Wom (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast You wrote: "redundant as the prior sentence conveys the same thing"

The prior sentence in question: "Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins dismisses the theistic argument as "deeply unsatisfying" since it leaves the existence of God unexplained, with a God capable of calculating the fine-tuning at least as improbable as the fine-tuning itself."

My addition: "Against this claim, it has been argued that theism is a simple hypothesis, allowing theists to deny that God is at least as improbable as the fine-tuning."

I am completely unsure why you think that they convey the same thing, when my addition is arguing against what Dawkins said in the prior sentence, not in favor of it. Brent Silby (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry about that. I have to say, I'm not sure how [theists being able to deny God and fine-tuning are equally improbable] follows from the fact that theism is a simple hypothesis. I can't access the source either to verify your addition. I'll restore it and leave it to other editors to hash it out if they want. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Throast, a couple years ago you reviewed edit requests related to the StubHub article. I have a request of my own up for the article in case you are still interested in working on it. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lone Star Funds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlyle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Throast. I am reaching out to you as an editor who reviews COI edit requests. I have been collaborating with the Wikipedia editing community to implement substantive changes in the Energy Capital Partners article, as can be seen on the Talk page. Recently, an editor removed some content that others had deemed worthy of inclusion, see here and here, and I'd be grateful for your assistance in reinstating it. Encoded, who was the one to add those specific details, informed me he is too busy at this time. Thank you for your time and attention, Californiabri19 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Californiabri19, did you already discuss these edits with the editor themselves? I agree with this edit you linked; these companies are not independently notable, and without further context, I see no reason to include these. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Throast! You commented on my proposal to amend the article Tawanna Dillahunt and I was wondering if I can get more context about why academic institutions are not considered viable secondary sources in this particular situation. I reviewed WP:Academic pretty thoroughly so I'm a bit confused. Thanks! Aley77 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I responded on the article talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Throast, I am writing to you regarding your significant contributions to the Ryan Kavanaugh article. In light of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) and Paid Contribution Disclosure policies, I would like to ask for a formal clarification of your relationship with Ethan Klein and the H3H3 Podcast.

Specifically, there are public records and media reports i.e. LA Weekly, Tech Times alleging that you had direct coordination or instruction from the H3H3 host regarding edits to the Ryan Kavanaugh page. And also the creation of commercial merchandise by the H3H3 brand using your specific Wikipedia username.

If there is a material connection, whether through gifts, merchandise, or specific direction, it must be disclosed on your user page under the Terms of Use. Maintaining transparency is vital for the neutrality of an article currently involved in active legal disputes.

Could you please confirm if you have any such affiliation? Luciee254 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such "public records and media reports" that I know of beyond the baseless accusations published in Kavanaugh's own op-eds. If you know of such records, you must present them, otherwise this constitutes a personal attack for which you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've answered this question before, the answer is no. I have never communicated with anyone associated with Ethan Klein let alone received any sort of compensation. I have never been compensated for any of my editing on Wikipedia in my ~13 years of contributing here, and I will never accept compensation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. Infact The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Tealives (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I am neither party to a "significant controversy" nor do I consider myself an "avowed rival" of Kavanaugh's. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]