User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

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

• From the team: A changing of the guard

• News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections

• Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections

• Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency

• In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more

• Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• In focus: Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articles

• Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited

• Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis

• Featured content: Featured content of April

• Interview: Wikipedia's pride

• Serendipity: Those thieving image farms

• Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed

• Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows

• News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced

• News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?

• Video: How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editing

• Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day

• From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia

• Essay: How not to write a Wikipedia article

• Humour: A new crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

White House press sec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks

• In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down

• Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?

• Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, BLPPROD drafting bid pulled

• Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it

• Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose

• Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?

• Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed

• Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals

• Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit that keeps on giving

• Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter

• Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

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

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...

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

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

• From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something

• News and notes: Information considered harmful

• In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap

• Op-Ed: The "recession" affair

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)

• Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

• Community view: Youth culture and notability

• Opinion: Criminals among us

• Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement

• Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country

• Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us

• Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July

• Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists

• Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot

• In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool

• On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories

• Essay: How to research an image

• Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed

• Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia

• Gallery: A backstage pass

• From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened

• Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)