User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

Dara Maclean, again

I have once again reverted your edits to Dara Maclean. Please, will you stop removing the COI tag, as it is evident that HotHat (talk · contribs) has a COI with this article. I must admit that you do seem unfamiliar with this condition, and I suggest that you read the page if so. I have signified this to you a few times in the past and cannot understand why you are still persisting in doing this, but on any occasion, please don't. I am going to open a case about this at WP:COIN soon. Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't understand it. COI is almost exclusively reserved for paid editing, citing your own book/publication, promoting a political candidate, or something similar. At most, HotHat is a fan, but most of the GA or FA music articles we have here are because of 'fans'. Unless he is being paid by MacLean to make articles, COI does not apply here since he isn't citing himself or creating an article about himself. Are you going to report me because I work on articles for bands/artists I like? Toa Nidhiki05 16:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight here, but you seem unfamiliar- COIs can be developed per information obtained from one's family, organization, etc, and creating articles per one's "personal" interests or pleasures (I could give you an example, but I'd be choosing from a sea of COIs); they are never "exclusively reserved" for anything. I have found evidence there of no NPOV, and POV pushing. I must also admit that he has made more "COI evidential" edits (as we'll paraphrase it as) to this article than any other articles, even though I have seen some at other articles created by him. THere are many more possibilities that have occurred than those mentioned at the page. I'm planning on reporting HotHat at COIN, not you, as I am not so sure what artists you are referring to. Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You will have no luck whatsoever. People with interests will edit in their interest area and it is stupid to accuse them of a COI because of it. You'd be laughed out of the room if you filed one on me for 'COI violation' and I doubt the reaction would be any better to filing one on HotHat because he has not been promoting the artist. Interest is not a COI violation. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... you don't understand it. I suggest you read WP:COIU, which is the best explanation. And have I accused you of a COI? I didn't think so. I'd have warned you about it if so. Anyways, they haven't edited in those areas lately, and we'll only file one if the pushing continues. I have previously, however, referred you to the guidelines for the maintenance tag. Do not remove it.Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read it and I understand it, you don't. And I can remove any tag I want - per removed, I can remove pretty much any comment from my page, including tags. I don't need to see false 'edit-warring' tags, thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 23:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC) orphaned fair use-notice --> Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Kanohi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echolocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Easy4me

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's talk page.
Message added 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Audio samples, etc

Template:Extra music sample is a template intended to place audio samples within the infobox of the corresponding song, and I think more articles use this than you realise. And no, there is no advantage, this is just the standard template for infoboxes. Please, do not change the template until a consensus is reached. It also might be a good idea for you to step away from this article, as you may be close to an ownership.Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not frequently used any more and it belongs in the composition section, where it fits with the overall message. The infobox drags it away from where it belongs. I don't know why you are wanting to get in a dispute over this. Toa Nidhiki05 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tags, etc

Sorry about the tags- if you are not content with them, I suggest you remove them. I have re-tagged the files with F7, as F6 was incorrect, and the FUR is actually disputed. But I noticed you uploaded an audio sample for practically every Casting Crowns song, which might be too many, considering the fact that there are very few audio samples throughout WP:XM, which we should probably focus on first. We can keep one or two, but we should probably focus on more audio samples for various other artists throughout this WikiProject before we upload a sample for every song by a specific artist or an artist we are a fan of.-Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Audio samples improve articles, that is fact. I only add samples for singles, as well as one or two album cuts per album - this is because singles are often not representative of the entire album, and samples provide an audio aid to reader understanding. As such, I am not sure why you are upset I am improving articles; you are not being constructive in tagging these as you have no actual, policy-related concern. As such, I will revert them again.

I have no problem with adding other audio samples for other songs, and there are not very many articles in the WP:Christian Music scope that have them; the project and topic area as a whole are weakly covered. However, when I improve or create an article I intend to make it the best it can be - and that includes adding samples when possible. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 01:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Christian right article

On the Christian right article, I didn't quite see at first why you tagged it as "failed verification" since the statistics were in the news article. However, I do see that I used a direct quote which I thought had been from the article when it was actually from the Pew study. So I added that as a reference as well and removed the tag. I hope that takes care of the problem.

On the Tea Party information, I'm aware it's not a party and did include it as the "Tea Party movement." Since it's been influential the last few years it seemed useful to include it. Do you have any suggestions for how it might be used in the article that's acceptable? Psalm84 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the citation because the citation only supports the claim for 'white Evangelical Protestants', not 'Christian right'. I know plenty of liberal white Evangelical Protestants, the term is not equal. As for the Tea Party, it is not a party so it simply doesn't belong there. You wouldn't put Occupy Wall Street on a list of 'liberal parties', right? Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On the citation question, we are talking about the Christian right, though. If someone is a liberal white evangelical Protestant they aren't Christian right, but left. If they're liberal, then how many of the white evangelical Protestants that you know are Republicans? In another place in the article I also reported more from the same poll that 9% of white evangelical Protestants are Democrats. I also added the numbers on mainline Protestants, as some of them could think of themselves as "evangelical."

Polls have to be taken with a grain of salt, but if they're done well they do reveal something. And this poll fits with many other polls and the general knowledge that the Christian right is closely associated with the Republican Party. That is shown in the article and accepted as fact by scholars and the media. One of the boxes with wikilinks at the page bottom already links to the Republican Party, too.

On the Tea Party, it is closely associated with the Christian right too, and political candidates have actually made themselves a part of the movement and taken on the "Tea Party" label.

The article also already lists the Republican Party in a smaller— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm94 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, I don't ask everyone their ideology. I do know several vehement liberals, including staff and (former) pastors at my own church. 'White Evangelical Protestant' /= Christian right, and your efforts to combine various polling results amount to little more than synthesis. Once again, the Tea Party is not a party, it is a movement. Toa Nidhiki05 21:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Psalm84 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TPG and WP:MINOR

You removed my edit comment and claimed it was vandalism. This is a violation of, among other things, WP:TPG and WP:MINOR. Please do not do this again or I will be forced to report you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It was an accident, didn't intend to do so at all; I reverted it by accident and I thought I rollbacked it to what you added. It was a legitimate talk page comment, not vandalism, and did not need to be reverted. Sorry, my bad. Toa Nidhiki05 01:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Twinkle can get in the way sometimes, which is why I disable it on mobile; unfortunately, Twinkle is really hard to stop if you accidentally click on it. Sorry again, my apologies. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, stuff happens. (I came here to send you a message, only to see that it had been cleared up already (to my delight). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (white evangelical Protestant who considers Obama pathetically conservative)

Yeah, I just hope it doesn't happen too often. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback links can be a pain when you're poking at the 3.5 inch screen on your smartphone. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eye On It

Can you please revisit this review template and indicate with an icon where the nomination currently stands? The wording isn't clear enough to allow the assumption of full approval, and an icon is needed; at the moment, it's in limbo. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe I forgot about that - thanks for reminding me. I've responded. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism WikiProject

In all honesty, I have to say that your response to my comment, particular regarding the completely hypothetical "demands" of a parent project, does not in any way speak well of you. Trust me, as someone who has gotten together, as far as possible, all the projects related to Christianity into one group, through one banner, and as someone who has seen the same be done quite successfully with WikiProject Military history, basically, that is all that is done. Your comments, and rush to a completely unfounded judgment, may well be one of the biggest objections to your group. WP:OWN seems to be a problem as well. Also, if you had actually read my comments, which I cannot assume based on your responses you did, I think you would note that this is pretty much what I said in them. Paranoia is not an appealing characteristic around here, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a major difference between merging all the projects related to Christianity in one WikiProject (which I am a member of, incidentally) and merging all the projects related to any type of political ideology into one WikiProject. I would really hope you realize that, because what you are suggesting is essentially akin to taking all the religion WikiProjects and merging them into one mega-project. There are a number of issues with doing that, as there are with politics projects. And yes, merging makes a project makes it subservient to the main project. Why else would you merge it if nothing changes?

Incidentally, WP:OWN applies only to articles - WikiProjects are not articles. I've been very vocal about being willing to talk about, discuss, and implement changes, and have been taken up on that offer a total of once - the proposal, discouraging POV requests for comment, got my support, incidentally. The main issue here is that there has not been any sort of concrete example of issues or ideas - we get radical ideas like your merging proposal and an RfC, but no practical ideas on how to solve any issues. I have been very civil in these discussions and I ask that you refrain from calling me paranoid and accusing me of not reading your comments. Toa Nidhiki05 23:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bionicle Userbox?

I think it would be a GREAT idea if we made a BIONICLE userbox(s)! Just a thought... ToaJuaraevo (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, certainly. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift singles

These users and IPs who keep changing Taylor's singles to promo singles are looking a lot like the same person. I'm unsure what to do with this. Taylor Swift discography got protected because of several IPs labeling singles as promo singles, and now, a user has done the exact same edit. I've seen you reverting them previously. Zac  14:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are all making the same or very similar edits, requesting someone checkuser the accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations would probably be the right thing to do. At least with the semi-protect on someone would have to register to vandalize it, but that will only stop so many people. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Kanohi...

Please check the talk section under the List of Kanohi article. ToaJuaraevo (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)