If you came here to inquire about why I reverted one of your edits, please read my edit summary and any links to relevant policies, guidelines, or talk page discussions provided first. Any message that clearly neglects my edit summary will not be answered.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
Hi, I know I'm going out on a limb here by just asking you to let me edit Kanye's Wikipedia article. But I've noticed that the people in charge on editing have left out a lot of information in the sections about 2016, which was a pivotal moment in his life. If we can work together to come to an agreement then that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronfa (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tronfa, nobody is in charge of any article on Wikipedia. It so happens that some editors who probably have the article on their watchlist are more willing to respond to edit requests than others. That said, if you'd like to add anything specific to the article and don't yet have the necessary user rights to edit it directly, feel free to make a request on Talk:Kanye West following the steps here and using this template. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Campbell
Hi
I edited and removed information on Kevin Campbells Wikipedia page because a. It was untrue and gives a false impression of the relationship with Mark Morrison and b. There was no court injunction or dispute with Mark Morrison. I know this as a fact because I was in the room with both Kevin and Mark at that time advising them both. I would be grateful if you would remove once again that which I edited. Thank you. Robert 90.247.92.2 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I advise you refrain from editing any articles on Wikipedia about subjects you have personal or professional relationships with as this presents a conflict of interest. The information you removed seems to be supported by reliable sources. I suggest raising the issue on the article talk page using {{Edit COI}} and providing independent reliable sources to support your claim. Note that these sources need to be published; your own testimony does not count as a reliable source. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:04, 15 June 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]
166 Medium Regiment (India)
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]
