Wikipedia

User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 10

< User talk:Toa Nidhiki05
Latest comment: 9 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 11 March 2015
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Republican and Democratic Party political spectrum positions

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to know why you removed my edit that said that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are Centre-right and Centre-left, respectively. Undertaker5000 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Undertaker5000

I removed them because there is a consensus not to include political positions on either page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason that there is a consensus against this? Undertaker5000 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Undertaker5000

The reason for this was twofold: there was significant disagreement on what the label of the parties should be, and there was disagreement on what 'political spectrum' meant (the US one, or a hypothetical global one). The consensus was, more or less, to just refer to them as 'liberal' and 'conservative' rather than 'center-left' and 'center-right'. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If I may jump in here: that reason sounds poor. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things around the world, as you well know. On the other hand, the terms "center-left" and "center-right" are quite clear and avoid the semantic ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In a typical European multi-party system, sure. People generally understand what American conservatism and American liberalism are, and there is no dispute the parties hold to those views, respectively. But the use of the term 'center-left' and 'center-right' themselves was routinely debated, with conservatives arguing the Democrats were left-wing and the inverse with liberals (although in my experience, it was much more likely to see a liberal seriously demand the GOP be labeled 'far right' than likewise). By committing the terms entirely, those disputes have essentially ended. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean "omitting" those terms? Wikipedia is an international project; preferring US-centric usage which deviates from the understanding of others not only confuses people, but contributes to problems for our readers. I don't think in terms of "conservatives" arguing this or "liberals" arguing that, and I've found that most people who identify as such in RL, often share similar values. This kind of polarizing rhetoric doesn't help the situation. Normal, reasonable people do not consider Democrats "left-wing"; in fact, if you compare their positions to similar political positions in other countries, American Democrats are center-right. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed an international project, which is why both articles refer to the 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' as being the American variant, with a link to the appropriate article. Using those terms is not US-centric.
As as to your last point, no, they aren't center-right. That's frankly a silly thing to say. They are a standard social liberal/progressive party, which places them in the center-left even on the global spectrum. They aren't as far left as social democrats, but they are by no means centrists.
Once again though, this discussion demonstrates the problem with the left-right labeling. It would certainly be unreasonable to describe the Democrats as 'center-right', both within the US spectrum and outside it, as their views fall, by any definition, left of center. It would be just as unreasonable to describe the Republicans as 'right wing' or 'far right', both within the US spectrum and outside it, given Republicans don't endorse traditional right-wing or far-right ideas on religion, monarchy, social structure, or consolidation of power. And it would be difficult to use the terms 'center-left' or 'center-right', as nobody can agree on what they mean or even if they are appropriate. Toa Nidhiki05 04:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Far from being "progressive" as you claim, the majority of Democrats hold positions similar to what are described as "moderate Republicans". There are very few, if any "progressives" in politics. On the other hand, the positions of mainstream American Republicans today are appropriately classified as "far right" based on their own platforms. This is easy to source. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are pretty blatantly letting your political biases show. Thats' incredibly naive, given the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus holds a majority of Democratic house members. There are virtually no genuine moderates left. And no, Republicans are not far-right. Do you even know what far-right means? It means fascist. Unless you think Republicans are white supremacist elitists who oppose democracy, support having a single authoritarian leader, and endorse Keynesian economics, that doesn't fit. Toa Nidhiki05 13:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is "politically biased" to describe a duck as a duck. I have a hard time finding anything "left-wing" on the cpc.grijalva.house.gov website. Perhaps you are using the term "left-wing" differently? I would like to suggest that the term is passé, and can only be found in wide usage in mostly fringe publications and pundit talk shows. There is currently no active "left-wing" in the United States with any political power. History shows that right-wing extremists have pushed their parties so far to the right, that current Democrats in power have positions on par with moderate Republicans. Are the far-right extremists in power in the US considered "fascist"? Many sources have made the case for that argument, with people like Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore coming to mind. Wolf makes a cogent case in The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. Other sources have pointed to the popularity of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and the Tea Party movement, as more of a neo-fascist undercurrent of the Republican party, particularly beginning in the 1970s with rise of Nixon, the Moral Majority and the politicization and mobilization of the Christian church in the Reagan era. According to Martin Lee, scholar Christopher Simpson of American University has traced a direct connection to European fascism and American conservatism and how their proponents eventually made their way to the GOP and influenced the direction of the party. There's actually a lot of good sources showing how the Republican party has become fascist over time, so despite your skepticism, I suggest you start doing a bit of research. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you expect me to treat partisan hacks like Michael Moore as reliable sources you are mistaken. I would suggest you do a bit of real research into what fascism is, rather than make ignorant statements about it. Fascism of any form stands in fundamental contrast to American conservatis,. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You are reading things into what I wrote that aren't there. I said " Many sources have made the case for that argument". I did not say "Michael Moore is a reliable source". On the other hand, I did point you to at least one academic source on the subject, Christopher Simpson.[1] Furthermore, I did not say all conservatives are fascists. What I said was, far-right extremism has taken over, and there is ample historical precedent for this. I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you of anything. I believe that terms like "liberals" or "conservatives" are inaccurate terms as well as artificial constructs used to promote division and discord, in an us-against-them discourse which polarizes the electorate. I think there is much greater accuracy in using center-left and center-right, especially in regards to US politics. I find the arguments against using the established left-right spectrum to be lacking in good evidence. History shows that the American Republican party has moved from the center, to center-right, to far-right and back over the years. I believe the literature shows that Reagan got elected, for example, by moving from the far-right to the center-right. It's a commonly reported notion, for example, that Reagan could not get elected in the far-right GOP of today, since he was far too centrist. In any case, reputable political scientists have studied the rightward movement of the GOP, so it's supported by the best academics and sources on the subject.[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what you said, and what you said was malarkey. The BNP would laugh at you if you tried to say the Republicans were similar to them in policy. The modern GOP is strongly individualistic (the opposite of fascism), strongly neoliberal (the opposite of the Keynesianism fascists prefer), strongly supportive of gun ownership (the opposite of fascism), and strongly opposed to centralized power (the opposite of fascism). If you want to make a silly claim, back it up. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, I just did in the link above. Conservative political scientist Keith Poole of the University of Georgia and Howard Rosenthal of New York University:

...since the late 1970s starting with the 1976 election in the House the Republican caucus has steadily moved to the right ever since. It's been a little more uneven in the Senate. The Senate caucuses have also moved to the right. Republicans are now furtherest to the right that they've been in 100 years...Ronald Reagan was so successful because he made all these deals with these huge blocks of moderate legislators. That's why he had overwhelming majorities for the 81 tax cut, the 82 tax increase, where they had to go back and adjust the tax bill in 82 and the Social Security fix in 83. Then in 86 you had Simpson Mazzoli, which included amnesty and tax simplification. All that stuff passed with very large majorities. You cannot imagine anything like that happening now. Which is why the country is really in the tank...It is true that the Republicans have moved further to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. That's absolutely true.

Other researchers also agree that Democrats have moved center-right while Republicans have moved to the far-right. Something tells me you will continue to argue about semantics no matter how much evidence you are given. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one arguing semantics - you are. You've not given a single policy position shared by Nazis and Republicans, and even if you were to that has no more bearing than me saying one Democrats and communists share. And, notably, the person says both parties have moved left and right. This is because there used to be genuinely moderate, conservative, and liberal factions in each party. Over time - specifically the 1980s, when the Republicans were recovering from the decimation of Watergate and seeking to develop a unique identity - the Republicans managed to attract most of the conservatives, either formally or informally, and the Democrats absorbed most of the liberals, either formally or informally. The shift both parties made from big tent, centrist parties to fairly liberal or conservative parties wasn't due to basic political realignment - a party that absorbs conservatives and ditches liberals will obviously shift right, and a party that absorbs liberals and ditches conservatives will obviously shift left. It's fairly basic stuff. Toa Nidhiki05 04:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the political history. I just want to point out that your straw man argument "all Americans on the far right spectrum are Nazis and/or fascists" is inherently fallacious. The American Republican party has moved to the far right over the last 20 years. This statement is supported by an enormous number of reliable sources, including a bevy of conservative political scientists, including Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, Norm Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann. You can't argue that these people lean left or are liberals, because they self-identify as conservative. Former liberals, such as scholar Jonathan Haidt, have studied this closely with their colleagues. Haidt finds that

After 1965, our political parties have undergone a process of realignment and purification. In Eisenhower’s time, for example, most Republicans were centrists. Since the 1980s, Republicans have moved “far Right,” especially in the House of Representatives.

Please forgive me, but I'm going to go with the learned conclusions of scholars in their relevant fields rather than the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Citation please. The only source I can find for that is someone paraphrasing what he said in a public speech. And yes, I'm going to continue to ridicule the concept that you are seriously comparing Republicans to Nazis and refusing to justify why. You've not responded to any of my fascism questions, so I'm going to assume you don't plan to or simply cannot. Toa Nidhiki05 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I finally understand your confusion. You don't seem to be aware that the radical right in the United States is on the far right political spectrum. Thanks for clearing up your confusion. Since this is now resolved, this will be my final comment. I assume that you will reiterate in your forthcoming reply that you refuse to acknowledge that the radical right in the US is on the far right spectrum. I hope you now understand why we see this issue so differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't see to be interested in having a conversation here. First, please demonstrate to me that the John Birch Society/Alex Jones segment of the population consists of any more than a negligible percentage of the GOP. Last I checked, that element is widely ridiculed and mocked by everyone (including Glenn Beck) and not endorsed by a single elected Congressman or Senator. Second, please explain to me how the modern GOP is linked to fascism and white supremacism - which are considered key parts of the 'radical right'. I eagerly await your non-response. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This conversation is replicated across many articles about political parties. The problem is that while there is general agreement about relative positions in the political spectrum, there is none about absolute positions. We all agree the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats, but there is no agreement in how far to the right of center they are, if in fact they are right of center. So it is better to leave those insoluble disputes out of party articles. Let the readers decide where they think they are. TFD (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Integrity
For fighting (and winning!) against political zealots that just "don't seem to be interested in having a conversation," and reminding us all, once again, of the kind of politics that is still possible in our world. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA Cup - Round 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3
 

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4
 

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Carolina Panthers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Olsen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

American football

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Toa, I've edited Wikipedia sports articles for almost six years, and I sincerely appreciate the great efforts that you have made to improve this article. I've actually read the Good Article and Feature Article reviews. I'm not a rookie editor with an America-centric agenda. Yes, I understand Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And, yes, I understand "American football" is a disambiguation title, made necessary to distinguish the American sport from association football/soccer, which is the predominant sport in the rest of the English-speaking world. But 300 million Americans do not call the sport "American football"; they simply refer to the sport as "football." Moreover, no one in the United States calls the sport "gridiron" -- no one. No one. If we cannot acknowledge that 300 million Americans -- two thirds of the people on Earth who speak English as their native language -- call this sport "football" then the problem is the editors who write the lead, not the fact that Wikipedia is a "global encyclopedia." I am not wedded to any specific language, but it is not unreasonable to recognize what Americans actually call the most popular sport in America in an article written in American English. Frankly, to do otherwise is not encyclopedic and more than a little bit bizarre. Am I missing something here? If so, please explain why the actual name of the sport is not relevant information to be clearly stated in the article's lead section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to keep the lede intact, but just add something along the lines of "referred to in the United States as football"near the front end? Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
By "lede," I assume you mean the first sentence, and not the lead section of the article? Look, Toa, I'm not trying to make your advancement of this article to FA status harder, but we need to clearly and succinctly acknowledge that Americans do not commonly call this sport either "American football" or "gridiron," or even "gridiron football." In the country where the sport is played, it's just "football." In the absence of a WP:COMMONNAME article title, we need to explicitly say that. The lede as presently written is misleading, and I would gladly support any reasonable compromise language that acknowledges actual American usage and reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I completely understand - it's not my article. I think had put a similar line into the lede at one point and it was removed at some point, although I'm not sure if it was a random edit or a suggestion from either review. I'll go ahead and add something along that line, and tell me what you think. Toa Nidhiki05 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Toa. That would be great. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Toa, I've had five days to contemplate your revised first sentence of the article, and it's grown on me with time. I think it's satisfactory compromise language that addresses my primary concern: recognizing that Americans call the sport "football," thereby correcting the misimpression any reader may derive from the disambiguation title of the article. Thanks for your patience. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA Cup - The Finals

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final
 

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [3] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Good luck to all our finalists!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA Cup Feedback Form

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback
 

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An article which you edited has been reported at WP:AN3

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DD2K reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: ). The article in dispute is Democratic Party (United States). Perhaps you have a suggestion for how this can be resolved. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, what's your point in the reversion? If fair treatment of the conspiracy theory discussions is not wanted, why not just delete the whole page? Or do you hold that the Wiki should to present only the weaker ideas, with each one firmly rebutted by an opposing "authority"?Slade Farney (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up
 

The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!

Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.

We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.

There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader   Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as   Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with NFL collective bargaining agreement?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there Toa Nidhiki, last year you were able to help my former colleague, User:ChrisPond with some suggestions he had for a couple of NFL-related pages, including the Health issues in American football article, so I'm reaching out in the hopes you'd be able to take a look at an article that I've written (also on behalf of the NFLPA). Earlier this year, the article I wrote for National Football League collective bargaining agreement was created via AfC, however the reviewing editor added a tag after taking it live. I've been able to resolve one of the tag issues with her, but it looks like she's busy on other things and hasn't been able to return to look at my suggestions for the other two issues. The big one is the introduction, which she felt wasn't long and detailed enough. I've put together a new draft for that, and proposed it on the Talk page. Would you have a bit of time to take a look at this and see if it can be moved into the article? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fox News

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia is a non biased site that hold no political direction. The author writes that he is concerned about the effects of the network on his father, and that has nothing to do with "left wing" or politics. It is genuine and authentic. Please do not apply your obvious biases here, and if you have a issue with something use the talk page, don't revert using the same belligerent's that the network delivers to these elderly victims to justify your reverting this contribution. Thank you!talk→ WPPilot  18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Judging by your tone it seems like you are the biased on here, not me - I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces (WP:RSOPINION). The source's author is giving an opinion piece, not facts. Moreover, he is not an unbiased author - he, along with the website, is a liberal. All of these combine to make that an unreliable source. If you can find a scientific study or factual source that reaches the same conclusion, bu all means add it. But that source is not appropriate by any means. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
My bias is for improvement of anything I touch, so your way off base here. According to you, anyone that is deemed a liberal (by you?) creates a unreliable source? Why is that? Does Wikipedia deny "users deemed a liberal (by you?)"? The first amendment allows for free speech, and if that user, as the other people that I know whom are suffering from this same thing are deemed an unreliable sources, that makes this Wiki a biased page that leans to the right, no??? The author is correct, elderly people are being manipulated by the network and it should be addressed. talk→ WPPilot  19:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Being liberal does not mean you cannot be reliable, no. That bias does need to be accounted for, however, especially in opinion articles that have little basis in factual investigation. Toa Nidhiki05 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is more then enough to provide foundation for a section on this matter..... talk→ WPPilot  19:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Toa. I'm just posting to let you know that List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 30. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05/Archive_10&oldid=1139340252"