Wikipedia

User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 19

< User talk:Toa Nidhiki05
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Firefangledfeathers in topic Edit warring at Republican Party (United States)
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is   The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

  1.   The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
  3.   Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
  4.   Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
  5.   Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
  6.   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
  7.   Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
  8.   Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Party edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Toa, hope all is well since we last talked (If I remember right, we were the ones who reached a consensus on removing the political position from both Dem and GOP infoboxes years ago!). Just wanted to note that I've done some further research into the page history and discovered that while "left-wing populism" is longstanding, sourced content (my bad for the removal here), "Democratic socialism" is not. It was added over the objections of many other editors and continually reverted by its original editor since they first added it three weeks ago. The latter should come to the talk page. I've also proposed the removal of "left-wing populism" as a whole on the talk page. Hope you can join the discussion. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
 
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1.   Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2.   AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3.   Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4.   Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5.   Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6.   Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7.   Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Casting Crowns

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Toa,

It's a pleasure to meet you. I've known you to be active in CCM related music for a while, but I don't usually edit in that particular area. Your work with CC is impressive, and I recently began working as an intern with WCTL. In their office, they have an RIAA gold award for their self-titled record, as well as an award for "If We Are the Body" - I don't remember if that one was a number-one or an RIAA award. I have never uploaded a photo to Wikimedia before, but would you welcome a shot of these to add to the articles? dannymusiceditor oops 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to correct myself. The gold award is for Until the Whole World Hears. The self-titled award is platinum, and "If We Are the Body" is a #1 award. dannymusiceditor oops 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey DannyMusicEditor! Glad to see someone likes my articles, ha! That seems very cool and would absolutely be welcome I would think - if you have a picture of the record certifications, that would be a really nice touch for the articles I would think! Could also be a good fit on their main artist page. Let me know when they're uploaded and I'll give them a look. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay so here is my first upload - I have no idea how to license it. Do you know what I'm supposed to do with it? EDIT: After following another example, I think I got it? Let me know what you think. I was thinking we could stuff it around "Release and sales" on the album. dannymusiceditor oops 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

reverting

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please stop reverting a change the the independent party usa wiki page as this does have fact compared to fiction and if you wish for wikipedia to be a creditable source you should leave political bias out. Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  •   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  •   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  •   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  •   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  •   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  •   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  •   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  •   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  •   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  •   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Morbius

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Let's discuss this instead of edit warring. The fact that Leto's and Smith's performances received some praise is determined by reliable sources rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. They are not mentioned as praiseworthy, as you said, but just as better received in relation to the overall critical response to the film, and this is reflected in the reviews included in the article. The sourced material you removed has had a consensus through editing, so please discuss on the talk page and seek a new consensus if you disagree.--Earthh (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure would have been nice if you had done this before reporting a report, but sure. As I've mentioned, there's been no consensus for your edits - no fewer than six unique editors have reverted your wording for Leto's performance being praiseworthy. You reverted each time to force the current wording, and then claimed WP:EDITCON - that's what I object to. If you have a better wording that does not mislead readers into thinking this - or that clarifies that Leto's performance was, in fact, received negatively by many critics as well, that would be preferable. My primary concern, which I've stated many times, is that the current wording misleads readers. If you can correct that, fantastic. A secondary concern is, of course, your removal of reliable sources from the critical reception section, but that's a different story altogether. Toa Nidhiki05 03:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

[1] It's not my place to butt in, nor do I intend to, but I think you should consider asking for some guidance from administration to be sure you aren't creating a toxic environment. If you do bare even the tiniest bit of responsibility, you should not want it to get worse, or blown out of proportion. You may want to think about how many times in the last few months have you been in arbitration over similar issues. Considering you have been warned about this type of thing somewhat recently [2], and are now seemingly at ANE over something, perhaps similar, perhaps not, as I said I'm not looking to get involved. Maybe you should consider the possibility that your demeanor and conduct possibly tends to rub some editors the wrong way. Your recent interactions with me might not have been as funny or pleasant and conducive to a collaborative & constructive project environment as you may think they are [3]. Best of luck. Hope things improve. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Last Jedi lead

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering how many critics included Star Wars: The Last Jedi on their 'best of' lists - to the point where it was listed on Metacritic as the 22nd-most mentioned film on 'best of the decade' rankings and 25th on 'best of the year' rankings - I feel like it'd be better to change 'some critics' to 'many critics'. What do you think? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Republican Party

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

[4] I think you should take a step back, and try not to take this so personally. I have been there, and I can assure you I am trying to act in good faith. DN (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) WP:AGF Please...DN (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reworded that to more clear about what I meant. Apologies if it looked like I was accusing you personally of acting in bad faith - I simply disagree with what you're suggesting. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you decided to remove the tag without consensus I have decided to notify Bishonen [5], and I have tagged you in my message to them. I will be taking a break and will be back tomorrow to continue the discussion. DN (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

[6] [7] These types of comments and personal criticisms seem unproductive in trying to work towards some kind of consensus. [8] I have already asked you to keep these kinds of comments out of the discussion there, and take them to my talk page. [9] I have also already asked you to AGF. There are (seemingly) many other editors there that have shown support for adding something to the info box. I wasn't even the one that raised this issue. It seems you are only focusing on me. At this point I am only focused on researching RS to see what sources say in order to find some consensus. I do not wish to engage with you in such an unproductive manner. I also prefer not to have to keep dragging admins into this because you refuse to disengage. Let's start over with a clean slate and just try to disengage for a while, so that we can both be more productive. Agreed? DN (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
 
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

White House press sec

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In controversies can you please add the word falsely claim? Thank you. People are white washing 47.203.28.160 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Edits at Karine Jean-Pierre

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Toa Nidhiki05. Just a heads up: you're right at three reverts for this 24 hour period. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My apologies

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion

It was inappropriate for me to bring up your behavior in an edit summary like that. My apologies. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, but I would also appreciate clarification as to how changing "attacked" back to "criticized" is a blockworthy offense. Toa Nidhiki05 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I hope we can let this rest, or at least cool down. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hipal: Not that I've been involved in the dispute at the KJP article at all, but it's laughable to refer to the content Toa added back as "unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory . . . content". Regardless of whether you think including it in the article is undue, the Times of London is a reliable source, and no one has disputed the veracity of the claim, so I'm not sure why you suggest it's defamatory. Accusing someone of defamation without any suggestion that what they have written is untrue is the very definition of a bad-faith accusation. Seems like you and Toa might want to take a step back from the discussion for a day or two. Wallnot (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a standard message for repeated BLP violations. We all know that. Let's not pretend otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Toa has committed any cut and dry BLP violations. At worst what he has added back gives undue weight to the event. But it is verifiable, as your repeated references to WP:ONUS concede. It doesn't matter that it's a template; it's inappropriate to use a template that accuses an editor of defamation where, as here, they have not said anything defamatory. Wallnot (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
We disagree. My apologies for not taking the time to give a final warning more fit the situation. Let's focus on what we're here for, to build an encyclopedia. --Hipal (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
It's hard to build an encyclopedia, let alone engage in good faith, when you are being falsely accused of defamation. Toa Nidhiki05 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

word of advice

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Viriditas seems to be getting very worked up about this. They lashed out at me the other day merely for pointing out that their reasoning for exclusion was not grounded in policy, and they seem eager to accuse you of bad faith, disruptive editing, BLP violations, etc. I would suggest keeping a cool head. I don't see how the reverts help your case at all.

For the record, I'm not sure I agree with you that the memoir etc. ought to be cut (though I have no interest in getting involved). I'd just hate to see you get baited into another ban when you seem to be arguing in good faith. Wallnot (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try. To say this has been insanely frustrating is an understatement, and frankly the degree of vitriol and veto behavior has severely hampered my faith in the benefits of rational discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bennie Thompson

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes, the 2021 CNN source says "invalidates". The 2005 CNN source is superior for content about the 2004 election. It includes the text, The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection. The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. That directly contradicts "invalidates". Let's not go down this road of edit warring, again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunger67 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Bionicle Heroes Page's Modding Section Reversal

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I edited in the section regarding the game's modding scene this afternoon and saw it has been reverted. With tens of thousands of hits and coverage through fan-sites, and with modding for other games on the site mentioned, what would be your bar for notable? Considering the game's niche appeal and audience anyway, even on release, this level of attention being paid to the game again by Bionicle fans as a result of, largely, the modding scene, seems worthy of note. There's also a few YouTube videos with a few thousand hits covering various mods. 82.39.243.28 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Has this been covered in any reliable sources? It seems very interesting Toa Nidhiki05 18:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
If you're referring to the numbers, those can be seen by visiting the ModDB mods tab of the Heroes page here https://www.moddb.com/games/bionicle-heroes/mods and viewing the publicly available analytics. ModDB is a reliable modding platform that has been around for 20 years with about 5 million visitors a month as of June 2022 and originally hosted monolithic mods like Black Mesa prior to their standalone releases. I can vouch for the modding scene itself as an active participant in it, and would be happy to introduce you to the Discord where discussion takes place so you can see for yourself the community basis. I'm also ModDB's editor and community manager (a role I inhabited last year in June 2021, so my Bionicle Heroes modding scene interactions predate that employment but I've continued them since), which is part of the reason I took an interest in documenting the game years ago and can vouch for ModDB's reliability as a platform. Happy to elaborate however is necessary for yourself. Also happy to take this onto another platform if you'd like more info and/or to verify the credentials I've outlined above (if so, my Discord is Kralich/David#0901). I don't have a Wikipedia account as this was a somewhat off-the-cuff edit, but felt this was also worth fighting for a little given how much work (and how much reception, relatively) getting modding going for the game has been. Thanks for the consideration. 82.39.243.28 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey again - have you considered what I've mentioned above? Any points you'd like to verify? I'm keen for the modding scene that has been built and evolved over the last two years to get some recognition. I think giving a mostly-forgotten tie-in game a second lease of life over 15 years later deserves a mention.82.39.243.28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  •   Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, you reverted but didn't explain, please understand that is not cooperative and that explanations should always be given so that the issue can be discussed. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to explain please? Altanner1991 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I would report you but I'm too cool like that. But this goes on. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements...

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I didn't add those (such as the Pittsburgh Mayor), but I can't figure out what about them violates WP:ENDORSE, could you please enlighten me?Naraht (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements need to be from notable people, cited to independent reliable sources, and specifically use the word "endorse" or a very closely related synonym in the source. The Pittsburgh mayoral ad is of a notable person... but it's cited to YouTube (not a reliable source) and is simply a campaign ad from the Shapiro campaign; it would be like copy-pasting the endorsement page from a campaign site here, which is also not allowed. The Pittsburgh mayoral one fails both 2 and 3. If a reliable news outlet has reported on this ad, however, then the endorsement would be able to be added. Another great example is the Ben Nelson "endorsement", which if you read the article could not possibly be construed as such; Nelson was simply giving a vague comment about bipartisanship and needing to build coalitions. He never once expressed support for Fetterman, let alone an endorsement. Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert of my edit to the Democratic Party page

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You recently reverted my edit to the Democratic Party page on the grounds that references to European parties "didn't make sense here." I would like to state that my reasoning for this edit was that it provides a comparison of how far left the Democratic Party has shifted for the reader to get a better sense of how the party currently stands in the ideological spectrum with a concrete example rather than just saying "more to the left." I believe this improves the article considerably. Furthermore, if this comparison to European parties was the grounds for my edits' removal, why was the additional sentence after that which had nothing to do with European parties also removed? BootsED (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Claims that the Democratic party was center-right in 2008 are fairly demonstrably false. Toa Nidhiki05 22:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello again. You did not answer my question as to why you removed my edit beforehand and gave the reasoning that you did. The claim that the Democratic Party was center-right in 2008 was not in the second sentence. Lastly, my source is the Manifesto Project Database and The Economist. If you believe that these sources are "demonstrably false" then please make your case. BootsED (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
As it has been a day since you last responded I will take it that you have conceded your point. I will add my edit back onto the page, however, as a gesture of good faith to your concern, I will remove the assertion that the Democratic Party was center-right in 2008, as I can see how the claim can be confusing to the reader without a greater familiarity with the methodology used by the source itself. If you still object to my edit, please let me know and we can continue discussing my changes. However, please do not undo my edit again or I will involve wiki administration to arbitrate this dispute. Thank you. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Just saw you removed audience reviews from the noted article. While I tend to agree with you, there has been some coverage of them in reliable sources, and I think it would be useful if you were to engage on the talk page, if you can spare the time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this, the audience details discussed in the article don't fall under USERG because we are giving them full context and commentary. We are not saying that they are reliable or that they represent all audiences, but we do need to mention them to give context to all the discussion about online responses to the show. And the lead needs to reflect what is in the article so removing all discussion of the audience response section is not helpful. If you still have concerns with the wording used then we can discuss that here or at the article's talk to try clear that up. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice username

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's always fun to see a bionicle reference in the wild 69.11.93.154 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Surprisingly you're one of only a handful to get the reference. :D Toa Nidhiki05 05:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully requesting that you remove 2nd revert violating 1RR, WP:AGF, WP:REVONLY, and engage in discussion of actual content on Talk page

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You appear to have violated the 1RR restriction on the page Center for Immigration Studies. Furthermore, in my edit summary, I specifically and politely requested that my edits be discussed on the article Talk page and not be subjected to wholesale reversion, per WP:REVONLY. Instead, you've made no comment on the content of my, editing, and instead:

  1. Wholesale reverted an edit with the explanation: "No."
  2. Wholesale reverted that edit and additional material with the explanation: "We're not doing this again. There are repeated attempts to shill for this organization. Take it to the talk." [emphasis mine]

Your actions are unacceptable, for several reasons:

1. I haven't attempted to "shill" for CIS, but rather to thoughtfully improve the article—and to fail to WP:AGF is unacceptable.
2. I specifically pointed out the WP:REVONLY guidance, and by wholesale reverting, you've undone a number of changes, including:
  • Naming a reference.
  • Putting the SPLC's response to CIS's lawsuit before the opinion of a legal expert.
  • Citing an investigation by a highly respected secondary source (Politifact) which evaluated the claims of the SPLC—rather than relying solely on the primary source of the SPLC's website.
  • Using quotation marks to properly attribute the SPLC's accusations against CIS, because most of the beginning of the section I edited had simply been copied, almost verbatim, from the SPLC website—yet presented in Wikivoice.
Surely none of the above-listed changes—along with at least half-a-dozen other obvious improvements—were "shilling" for CIS? How did your reverting, say, my naming a cited RS, or properly attributing quoted material that was in Wikivoice help to improve the article or meet any of the other guidance in WP:REV or WP:REVONLY? That guidance is critical, as it requires an editor to actually be familiar with the material he reverts, and not simply destroy the hard work of other editors because he simply doesn't like it and/or makes a false accusation of bad faith.
3. You violated the 1-revert rule—in less than 2 hours.

I'm eager to engage on the substantive content of the article—but you have failed to do so and your conduct makes it impossible. I would respectfully ask that you:

  • Undo your last reversion, which violates the discretionary sanctions in place.
  • Assume good faith.
  • Do not wholesale revert, but do a partial reversion wherever possible.
  • Explain any reversions—substantively, not by making false accusations of bad faith. I've articulated the reasons for my edits—there's no reason I should have to go to the Talk page to restate them, simply because you revert without taking the time to actually discuss the changes and why you believe they make the article worse.
  • Sincerely work to improve the article and to achieve consensus.

Thanks kindly! ElleTheBelle 21:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    • User:Ekpyros, it seems to me that the citation to Jacobson is at the least somewhat deceptive. It took me a while to figure out what was going on since there was an error with the named references, but the Politifact article indicates that the quote you put into the article is cherry-picked and one-sided: "On the other hand, Cornell Law professor William Jacobson, author of the conservative Legal Insurrection blog, has criticized the hate-group list for years." So, Jacobson, whom you cited without any designation other than "Cornell professor", is actually a virulent right-winger who, says Politifact, has been going after the SPLC for years--in other words, what's his opinion worth? I note that in your lengthy edit summaries, and your very lengthy post here, you do not address that matter. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor Bullying

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Toa Nidhiki05 I noticed your interchange with Hipal. The editor appears to be a WikipediaBully in addition to the other editing done. Bbachrac (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 was blocked for the behavior. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
What are you on about? Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. I shouldn't have responded here. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Objection to "restrictions on voting rights"

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You have an issue with that wording as non-neutral, yet right before it we use "restrictions on abortion". How is one neutral and the other not, especially when supported by reliable sources in the body text? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Because restrictions on abortion is objectively what they are and what Republicans agree they are, whereas "restrictions on voting rights" is patently non-neutral, inflammatory wording. It's self-evident. Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to the article talk page, but our article on the subject actually does refer to them as actions to "restrict". How can wording we use in one context suddenly become non-neutral in another? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Republican Party (United States)

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Toa Nidhiki05. You're way past 3RR at Republican Party (United States). Can you please self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're willing to correct the change after I revert, then sure. I wouldn't consider a minor change to a piped link to be an edit war, though... Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it correcting, as I honestly prefer the piped section link, as "centrism" means different things. Maybe someone who agrees with you will come along and re-do the change? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05/Archive_19&oldid=1134711556"