User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Toa Nidhiki05. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
AE stuff
Howdy. In an AE request, one's only allowed to post in one's own Statement or Comment subsection :) GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- apologies! Thank you for letting me know. I’m not exactly familiar with AE. It’s been a very very long time since I’ve been involved or participated there in any capacity. Toa Nidhiki05 15:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- No prob. It's kinda like a Westminster parliamentary system, where the potential for one-on-one direct dispute is greatly reduced. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Howdy. I know it can be a frustrating situation, but may I recommend that you 'not' edit the Abrams' page, while you're blocked from the Republican Party's page. Indeed, it would be best to come to an agreement at both those articles' talkpages. Don't forget, you've an AE report hanging over your head, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm engaging extensively on the talk page. I think both edits I made were defensible but I have no intentions to edit the main page further, of course. I do very much appreciate the advice... this is new to me. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The AE result, wasn't what I hoped for. Hope to meet you again, in other areas of the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've appealed but it will go nowhere. Nothing really can be done about it, so that's all she wrote I guess. Hope you remain a voice of reason in the field - I'm sure we'll run into each other somewhere. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey. If I may offer some advice: wait for at least six months before another appeal, and of course don’t commit any infractions, ask an admin if you are unsure if an action you plan would be an infraction. In your eventual appeal, don’t criticise any other editors. Acknowledge what wrong actions that led to your sanction, and commit to not repeating it, possibly by imposing a lesser self-sanction. Don’t need to talk about your history of doing good things, but you can commit to doing more future good things in the topic area. Be succinct, not verbose. While you’re most likely hurting, remember that indefinite is not infinite. starship.paint (exalt) 13:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and I would suggest removing any obviously affected pages from your watchlist. Maybe save a list on your computer on what you will be removing. You can always add them back when you are unbanned. Plus, try not to plot revenge. starship.paint (exalt) 13:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll consider your advice, Starship.paint. However, it’s hard to not criticize any other editors when one of them accused me of believing in a cult of Satan-worshipping pedophiles that drink the blood of infants to gain supernatural powers, and that beyond-the-pale personal attack didn’t get so much as a slap on the wrist. Apparently that’s a totally normal and acceptable thing to do here. I hope you can understand my extreme frustration here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Your frustration is very understandable, and that personal attack (plus many other comments by that editor) was way out of line. I would just add that different perspectives improve Wikipedia, and there are fewer and fewer editors with your perspective who are interested in working toward real consensus, so I'd ask/encourage you to stick around and bite your tongue in the future for that reason—not to say others have acted in an upstanding way. Wallnot (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- No guarantees I return if or when the topic ban is lifted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- That comment was indeed offensive. May I suggest reducing your frustration by treating yourself to some activities you greatly enjoy? starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll try. Toa Nidhiki05 18:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- That comment was indeed offensive. May I suggest reducing your frustration by treating yourself to some activities you greatly enjoy? starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- No guarantees I return if or when the topic ban is lifted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Your frustration is very understandable, and that personal attack (plus many other comments by that editor) was way out of line. I would just add that different perspectives improve Wikipedia, and there are fewer and fewer editors with your perspective who are interested in working toward real consensus, so I'd ask/encourage you to stick around and bite your tongue in the future for that reason—not to say others have acted in an upstanding way. Wallnot (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll consider your advice, Starship.paint. However, it’s hard to not criticize any other editors when one of them accused me of believing in a cult of Satan-worshipping pedophiles that drink the blood of infants to gain supernatural powers, and that beyond-the-pale personal attack didn’t get so much as a slap on the wrist. Apparently that’s a totally normal and acceptable thing to do here. I hope you can understand my extreme frustration here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of states and territories of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unorganized territory.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus
Are you interested in participating in the discussion of the article? Mureungdowon (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Per an ongoing topic ban, I am unable to participate. However (and I hope this is not a violation of the topic ban, as this is general editing advice), even if I were I would highly suggest you not recruit specific users to talk on talk pages; this is generally known as canvassing. It's also frankly a disservice to the two other users actively involved in discussion with you, The Four Deuces and Beyond My Ken, both of whom I know to be competent editors engaging in good faith. Toa Nidhiki05 04:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Hello, when reverting, it would be helpful for you to address another editor's edit summary directly. Note that I cited WP:SYNTH as the reason for removal. Sifting through individual reviews to identify general trends clearly combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source
as per WP:SYNTH. I will revert again per my reasoning and ask you to start a talk page discussion if you still disagree on policy grounds. Thanks for considering. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 14:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Start the discussion yourself per WP:BRD; the onus is on the person making the change. Your edit frankly feels disruptive and pointy, and removing all positive feedback from the lead simply isn’t helpful. Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS is policy as opposed to WP:BRD, which is optional. WP:ONUS states
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
, which is you in this case. I'd agree to remove the "derivative" bit from the lead as long as the WP:SYNTH is removed as well. Note that I did not remove the first part of the sentence that states that the film received positive critical reviews. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)- Onus refers to content being added for the first time; this is content that has existed here for years. There is substantial and clear WP:EDITCON for it, which means you’re in the wrong here. I’d suggest you read it again. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Your assertion that WP:ONUS refers to newly introduced content is not based in policy. Once an editor objects on valid policy grounds, the material is disputed and WP:ONUS applies. Seeing that you're unwilling to hear me out or compromise in any way, I'll go ahead and start a thread at the talk page despite not being required to. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia policy does not give free rein to remove longstanding content which has longstanding consensus and demand new, affirmative consensus to include it back. That would be chaos; I have a feeling you’re misreading policy. I’ll be happy to participate in the discussion, however - far more productive than a revert war. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Your assertion that WP:ONUS refers to newly introduced content is not based in policy. Once an editor objects on valid policy grounds, the material is disputed and WP:ONUS applies. Seeing that you're unwilling to hear me out or compromise in any way, I'll go ahead and start a thread at the talk page despite not being required to. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Onus refers to content being added for the first time; this is content that has existed here for years. There is substantial and clear WP:EDITCON for it, which means you’re in the wrong here. I’d suggest you read it again. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS is policy as opposed to WP:BRD, which is optional. WP:ONUS states
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Way of Water
Appreciate this edit of yours, but just a quick point that it wasn't TropicAces that changed that, as you can see here. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well I'm a fucking idiot. Extremely sorry, TropicAces - I thought it would have been weird for them to make that change. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- All good, my guy, no love lost haha. TropicAces (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)tropicAces
hey
I wonder, my edit on Raiders of the Lost Ark saying it is an important film has been removed, but you've just reinstated the same puffery about Star Wars. Why? ~~ Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Good topics
One IP changed the Wikipedia:Good topics/Music to add an unexistent topic on Almost There (album). It is a certain pass if it happens, given it's an FA and two GAs (see box below), would you do it yourself or at least give me permission to nominate?
igordebraga ≠ 05:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah feel free to nominate Igordebraga, forgot I’d brought the whole set here to FA/GA. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of NFL Europe
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article NFL Europe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of NFL Europe
The article NFL Europe you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:NFL Europe for comments about the article, and Talk:NFL Europe/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, Toa Nidhiki05. I'm just posting to let you know that List of National Football League rushing champions – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 13. 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) 22:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Beautiful Letdown
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Beautiful Letdown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Beautiful Letdown
The article The Beautiful Letdown you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Beautiful Letdown and Talk:The Beautiful Letdown/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Beautiful Letdown
The article The Beautiful Letdown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Beautiful Letdown for comments about the article, and Talk:The Beautiful Letdown/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK for The Beautiful Letdown
On 8 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Beautiful Letdown, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that songs in The Beautiful Letdown are "chunky", "gentle", and "nois[y]"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Beautiful Letdown. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Beautiful Letdown), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Potential topic-ban violation
Wanted to let you know that your participation in this RSN discussion about the reliability of Jacobin (magazine) (and, this article in particular) is likely a violation of your topic-ban from "from post-1992 American politics". Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to redact it, but I don't believe conspiracy theories about 9/11 or Russia-Ukraine count as an American political concern? The former is generally apolitical, and the latter is an international concern, not an American one. If it's a violation, that certainly wasn't my intention, and I'd be happy to remove my contribution. Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Just to say
As someone who's also been targeted off-site, I want to express my solidarity, regardless of the result of your appeal at AE. And also to thank you for the lolz I got reading Attkisson's description of a barnstar as "what amounts to a commendation in the strange underworld of Wikipedia." :0 Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ha, the Attkisson saga was hilarious. She actually created a fake Wikipedia on her own website called the "Wikipedia Correction Project". I think she only ever ended up making two pages, one for herself and one for Rasmussen Reports (a once-credible polling firm that has since discarded all credibility to actively support Trump). It was pretty funny to witness as it happened. Toa Nidhiki05 03:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
AE Appeal Declined
I closed your appeal as declined. As Seraphimblade says, not's not forever, but it's also not right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
File:Mariya Takeuchi - Plastic Love 1985.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mariya Takeuchi - Plastic Love 1985.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
AmPol songs and musicians
Hi Toa. It looks like you've violated your TBAN a couple times at some musician/song articles. Could you please review and self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, those are under AmPol? Ugh. Reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, now I see why you self-reverted your massive edits. I would have reverted you anyway because these 1-vendor stats were not being reported using the charts themselves as sources, but from third party WP:RS. So these weren't constructive edits. Having said that, I do think that many other contributions you have done and do here at Wikipedia are extremely valuable. Keep up the good work and be patient.XavierItzm (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- We generally don't even report from vendor-specific charts to begin with - this applies whether they're mentioned in an article or not:
- Oh, now I see why you self-reverted your massive edits. I would have reverted you anyway because these 1-vendor stats were not being reported using the charts themselves as sources, but from third party WP:RS. So these weren't constructive edits. Having said that, I do think that many other contributions you have done and do here at Wikipedia are extremely valuable. Keep up the good work and be patient.XavierItzm (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
They should never be placed in discography tables or tables of charts. They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it. "Special circumstances" include notable controversies alleging chart manipulation, or cases where eligibility requirements prevented standard charts from recognizing the sales. This would include, for example, the noted resurgence of Michael Jackson related sales at the time of his death, when many chart rules prevented any of his album sales from being credited towards a chart position. Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located
- Given these songs have actually charted on legitimate charts, and there's no special circumstances regarding either of them, I'd argue these single-vendor "charts" shouldn't even be mentioned at all. This is pretty standard across all music articles, really, but I'll avoid this area out of caution I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Look, you are misreading that policy. It is aimed towards editors who cite these disavowed charts as source. In this case, absolutely no Wikipedia editor relied on these charts. Zero. The editors relied on reliable sources. Anyway, best wishes, XavierItzm (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I’m not misreading anything - you are. Feel free to ask any other editors in the music space and they’d tell you the same thing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Look, you are misreading that policy. It is aimed towards editors who cite these disavowed charts as source. In this case, absolutely no Wikipedia editor relied on these charts. Zero. The editors relied on reliable sources. Anyway, best wishes, XavierItzm (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Given these songs have actually charted on legitimate charts, and there's no special circumstances regarding either of them, I'd argue these single-vendor "charts" shouldn't even be mentioned at all. This is pretty standard across all music articles, really, but I'll avoid this area out of caution I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Aesthetics and accessibility
Did you read MOS:TABLECAPTION or MOS:COLHEAD before you undid my edits? Why do you think that we shouldn't have accessibility features for the blind here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted it because having a gigantic block of harshly colored, single-column text stretching 16 rows looks awful. Nothing in the pages you posted mandates this, and there are multiple other solutions that don't look awful. Please do not accuse me in bad faith of hating blind people - that's utterly ridiculous. I'm going to do the work you didn't do and try to salvage something that doesn't look awful out of this. Toa Nidhiki05 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question: did you read those pages? We are required to have table captions and not abuse colspans to make internal headings. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to engage when you lead off with a bad faith assumption. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't make an assumption: I asked you two questions, neither of which you answered. Since you removed accessibility features, that leads me to believe that you think they don't belong. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- See above. I'm working on fixing your edit so it doesn't look awful, while addressing those concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- You removed them because of your personal preference? I don't think they look awful. Who told you that they look awful? Did you read that documentation on tables? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- They look awful. Moreover, the poorly-formatted "key" you added is literally redundant because the bottom of the table already has a key. Again, I am working to salvage the accessibility stuff while fixing the awful conference column you added. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's concerning to me that I've asked you the same question four or five times now. Did you read the documentation that I put in my edit summary? If so, why did you revert it anyway? If not, why did you think that reading the MoS on accessibility was just unnecessary because of your personal preferences? And the key is not poorly formatted: it is properly formatted as a definition list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not going to engage when you continue to make a bad faith assumption. I've made an edit to keep the accessibility changes while removing the bad column + unnecessary key/definition list (which already existed at the end of the table). Toa Nidhiki05 14:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not making an assumption: I'm asking which of two things happened. Either you read it, or you didn't. If you read it, you ignored it. If you didn't, then you just ignored my edit summary leading you to the MoS on accessibility for some reason. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain which one you did and why instead of assuming which one you did and what your motivation was. Which one was it: did you read it or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why would you remove the row scopes? How is that as accessible as before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not going to engage when you continue to make a bad faith assumption. I've made an edit to keep the accessibility changes while removing the bad column + unnecessary key/definition list (which already existed at the end of the table). Toa Nidhiki05 14:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's concerning to me that I've asked you the same question four or five times now. Did you read the documentation that I put in my edit summary? If so, why did you revert it anyway? If not, why did you think that reading the MoS on accessibility was just unnecessary because of your personal preferences? And the key is not poorly formatted: it is properly formatted as a definition list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- They look awful. Moreover, the poorly-formatted "key" you added is literally redundant because the bottom of the table already has a key. Again, I am working to salvage the accessibility stuff while fixing the awful conference column you added. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- You removed them because of your personal preference? I don't think they look awful. Who told you that they look awful? Did you read that documentation on tables? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- See above. I'm working on fixing your edit so it doesn't look awful, while addressing those concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't make an assumption: I asked you two questions, neither of which you answered. Since you removed accessibility features, that leads me to believe that you think they don't belong. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to engage when you lead off with a bad faith assumption. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question: did you read those pages? We are required to have table captions and not abuse colspans to make internal headings. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I've made it clear that I'm not going to engage until you stop making aggressive bad faith assumptions. I'm not even sure you understand what WP:BRD actually means (bold, revert, discuss - you were the one with the bold edit), so frankly I'm not sure there's much value in trying to engage on policy here. It seems like you are extremely committed to keeping every aspect of your edit, even if it means edit warring, which is really unfortunate. Regardless, I'm going to ask you to refrain from commenting further on my page and instead take your comments to Talk:National Football League. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
AMPOL TBAN scaled back
Hi Toa Nidhiki. As you may have seen, I have scaled back your topic-ban to cover only biographies of living people within the AP2 contentious topic. I framed it as a TBAN from articles about living people, because anything else would be very difficult to enforce. However, I wanted to remind you of the circumstances of your original TBAN and note that evidence of POV-pushing related to content about living people in articles not covered by this sanction won't look good if you want it completely removed eventually. I trust no such thing will occur. If you have questions about the scope of this sanction I am happy to answer them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Toa Nidhiki05 15:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plastic Love
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plastic Love you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ippantekina -- Ippantekina (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plastic Love
The article Plastic Love you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Plastic Love and Talk:Plastic Love/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ippantekina -- Ippantekina (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Plastic Love
The article Plastic Love you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Plastic Love for comments about the article, and Talk:Plastic Love/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ippantekina -- Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Personal comments at Republican party article
If you take issue with my demeanor, please do not use the article talk page to air your grievances. You should simply go on my talk page to do that. That said, I do not see where I made any personal attacks or cast any aspersions your way. Your reply, on the other hand, is very clearly personal in nature and not *entirely* focused on the discussion. I humbly and politely ask that you do not make that mistake again. DN (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- You dismissed what I was saying as "alt history", which seemed to me like an extremely clear insult - that what I was saying was so far removed from reality that it sounds fake. Especially when I was actually offering sources, that's extremely insulting, and my mild barb was tame in comparison to that. If you refrain from doing such things in the future, I doubt you'll experience me saying what I did again. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Second opinion: I don’t see anything wrong with your comment, but apparently DN takes it as personal for pointing out that you found it rude. Your comment looks like healthy communication to me. People need to know when someone thinks they are acting out the ordinary, we can’t just be quiet about it. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's entirely fair. Regardless, the discussion has been productive (I think?) aside from those two things, so I'd like to keep it that way. Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I was comparing on your argument to the entry Alt Wiki page, since it focuses heavily on the Free Soil party which you have repeatedly referred to. I did not comment on you personally. You also said I "chopped out" parts of the sourced context, which can be seen as implying dubious behavior on my part. I initiated the discussion in good faith to avoid reverting, and now you seem to be repaying my efforts with threats of more of the same behavior. Not a good look. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you say something I feel is rude, I will say I felt it was rude. This is a normal thing for people to do, I think? Also, I have not threatened to revert on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that what I said may have been construed as dismissive. For that I will apologize, but know that it wasn't intended that way, and that such commentary is probably best left to personal talk pages. Agreed? Truce? DN (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that what I said may have been construed as dismissive. For that I will apologize, but know that it wasn't intended that way, and that such commentary is probably best left to personal talk pages. Agreed? Truce? DN (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only reason I bring this up is because I have recently realized that I have unintentionally been extremely rude to Toa Nidhiki05 in the past without ever being cognizant of it. I think there’s a possibility others might be doing this too, I don’t know. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you say something I feel is rude, I will say I felt it was rude. This is a normal thing for people to do, I think? Also, I have not threatened to revert on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Second opinion: I don’t see anything wrong with your comment, but apparently DN takes it as personal for pointing out that you found it rude. Your comment looks like healthy communication to me. People need to know when someone thinks they are acting out the ordinary, we can’t just be quiet about it. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive comments on the Republican Party article
Hi Toa, I want to thank you for your constructive comments on the Republican Party article. Your suggestion about organizing by caucuses and creation of a mockup was very helpful to the debate and really opened up my eyes as to other ways to potentially organize that section of the page. Once I have some more time I will respond with another mockup based off of yours that I think may satisfy all sides of this discussion. BootsED (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks BootsED! I'm glad it at least sparked something - I'm hoping we can come up with a solution that pleases (most) everyone here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring on GOP article
The GOP article is on 1RR. You have already violated that policy. I suggest you get consensus for your changes instead of doing that. Cortador (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- When? I haven’t even edited the page today. Multiple other editors are fine with the change, as it is, and I’ve been careful to avoid violating any rules. Perhaps you could discuss the reasons why you think the six sources in question are bad? The others don’t seem to think so. Toa Nidhiki05 23:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted twice on June 19. Cortador (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just checked and no, I didn’t. I edited the page once that day?Toa Nidhiki05 12:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here you go: 1 and 2. Cortador (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're right - that's borderline, but it shouldn't have happened. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here you go: 1 and 2. Cortador (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just checked and no, I didn’t. I edited the page once that day?Toa Nidhiki05 12:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted twice on June 19. Cortador (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Got to admit, I was surprised to learn the GOP is center right in 2024. Any particular politicians or positions come to mind? Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources indicate at least three House factions (Governance Coaliton, Study Committee, Main Street Caucus) are center or center-right while the freedom caucus is right-wing or far-right. It’s also the smallest of the bunch. I’m just going off of the sources, though. Toa Nidhiki05 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the face of it, that’s a very interesting argument, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is. I do admit, however, that some aspects of this are likely true. I heard an NPR segment about a week or so ago that addressed this; I will try and track it down. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Followup: NPR's website used to be easy to search, but I can find almost nothing now. I did find this article, but it's not the one I was talking about. I suspect the show I'm talking about is buried within the main site. I will keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's interesting enough - I'd heard they were finally pushing some outreach there. In the meantime, here's an interesting one from WaPo on House GOP factions. There is overlap between factions, but it's a really nice look at how things actually play out - and just how out of whack the Freedom Caucus (and specifically, the hardest fringe edge) is with everyone else. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will read that article. I'm a bit unsettled by the fact that it is so hard to find archival news articles these days. I heard the segment 1-2 weeks ago, so it should be easy to find. Basically, it was a 3-4 minute interview with a GOP congressperson who was arguing (without using the words, of course) that there were still centrist Republicans willing to do bipartisan work with Democrats and get things done. Perhaps you can try to track it down. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now I'm wondering if I heard it on the BBC, not NPR. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will read that article. I'm a bit unsettled by the fact that it is so hard to find archival news articles these days. I heard the segment 1-2 weeks ago, so it should be easy to find. Basically, it was a 3-4 minute interview with a GOP congressperson who was arguing (without using the words, of course) that there were still centrist Republicans willing to do bipartisan work with Democrats and get things done. Perhaps you can try to track it down. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's interesting enough - I'd heard they were finally pushing some outreach there. In the meantime, here's an interesting one from WaPo on House GOP factions. There is overlap between factions, but it's a really nice look at how things actually play out - and just how out of whack the Freedom Caucus (and specifically, the hardest fringe edge) is with everyone else. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Followup: NPR's website used to be easy to search, but I can find almost nothing now. I did find this article, but it's not the one I was talking about. I suspect the show I'm talking about is buried within the main site. I will keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the face of it, that’s a very interesting argument, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is. I do admit, however, that some aspects of this are likely true. I heard an NPR segment about a week or so ago that addressed this; I will try and track it down. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources indicate at least three House factions (Governance Coaliton, Study Committee, Main Street Caucus) are center or center-right while the freedom caucus is right-wing or far-right. It’s also the smallest of the bunch. I’m just going off of the sources, though. Toa Nidhiki05 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2004 United States election conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Republican Party page reverts
Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the pseudo-edit war we had on the GOP page. For some reason I rushed to conclusions and automatically assumed you had completely misinterpreted my comments and had only provided a source that the ECR and GOP were both part of the IDU — thus technically making them 'global partners'. As I said in a previous edit, I had previously searched for a source showing that they were affiliates, but I came up short (guess I missed the most obvious place one could look 😅)
Either way, I just wanted to say sorry for being so rash and for making such a mess of the page's edit summary. I was definitely in the wrong! Loytra (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- All good Loytra! I’ll admit I was a bit bewildered but the fact we were misunderstanding and reading past each other makes a lot of sense. Glad this is resolved! Toa Nidhiki05 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad too!
- Btw, just wanted to say that I love your signature! It takes skill to make one so unique and visually interesting yet not distracting or overbearing. Looks great! Loytra (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I don't know how long ago I made it - probably decades at this point - but I've always loved how it looks. Probably one I'll stick with for decades to come. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)