Jump to content

User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdaniels15 (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 21 September 2012 (→Bionicle Userbox?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paul Ryan GA

Hola Toa!!! (don't you just love the sound of that?, hahaha) Look, I am putting together a team to bang out a GA at Ryan. It's not gonna be easy--I completely undertand if you take a pass--I just wanted to make sure I kept you in the loop. Sign up – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, this needs to get to GA before the election. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Read the lead.

When you do, you'll see why there's a problem with your edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism =/ Christianity. Mormons are Christians but most standards, but many Evangelicals (the primary membership of the CR) disagree. They also oppose Catholics often. Regardless, the GOP is not Christian right because it accepts people into leadership that the Christian right doesn't - Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and even gay state legislators such as former Massachussets Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei. Christian right is a poor, and inaccurate, descriptor of the party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the lead says:
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly made up of evangelicals with some politically-conservative Catholics and Latter-day Saints. The Christian right is strongest in the South, where it replaced the core of the Republican Party.
I think that's very clear. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Conservatism Collaboration: Welcome to Team Ryan GA

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Paul Ryan needs our help!!!'s talk page.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election

Hi Toa...well, I am not surprised to see "newbies" show up and march immediately to articles where they can try and force their political agenda...but more disheartening is to see seasoned admins who are templating the seasoned editors such as yourself and Arthur Rubin, and turning around and being supportive of troublemakers. In fact, that makes me sick. Be careful with the civil POV pushers...and its best to not argue with idiots.--MONGO 05:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject, sometimes worse is better. That is, an obviously slanted article is less misleading to our readers than a seemingly balanced page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for If We Are the Body

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input please?

Taylor Swift discography#Can we get a consensus please? ^_^ Swifty*talk 23:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my input, hopefully there can be some good discussion. Featured lists need to have their categories right so it is important to get outside input. Toa Nidhiki05 23:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I hope we can get it done, it's a pain trying to figure out LOL! May have to open it up to higher input. ^_^ Swifty*talk 00:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this gets sorted out on a Wiki-wide basis - identifying questionable singles is very hard, particularly for discographies. I've had a case where a song was released to a radio format but it wasn't regarded as an official single by the record label - I have no clue how to classify it since it isn't a song, but isn't a single. Further, Christmas singles aren't always counted as official singles, unless they attain a high chart position. It's a real mess to classify them. Toa Nidhiki05 01:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yeah that is for sure, I think it should be kept simple. If it's released to radio it's a single if it's not and is only available for digital download then it's a promotional single. LOL! Only the artist really know what songs they've released as singles or not. ^_^ Swifty*talk 02:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems alright to me, that's the way I'd prefer it. Exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, obviously. The record label and press releases are also good resources to identify singles, particularly if they identify a radio adds date. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but for now we are going to have to see where that debate goes cause as of right now the stand is that promos are free and not payed for so that makes digital downloads a single. doesn't make sense to me but I'm done commenting for now and waiting on a wider band of people to comment. ^_^ Swifty*talk 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make much sense to me, either... it would really clutter up the singles section given just how many download-only singles she releases. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention iTunes, Amazon.com, etc. allow you to buy the songs individually, without having to buy every song on the album, so that would make every song a single technically. ^_^ Swifty*talk 02:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd be a virtual mess at that point seeing as pretty much everything she released has charted. Hopefully a good idea can come from broader involvement from the community. Toa Nidhiki05 02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can hope this will probably go on for months. ^_^ Swifty*talk 02:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together

I thought I should make you aware of this. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, also you should see my reply to the whole mess. LOL! ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issue, I should say not mess. LOL! ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'd prefer to have discussions over reverts but it is hard to do when the other doesn't discuss. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I do think it was unfair of him to go and do that just to get his way it's like poking a bear in the eye. I think my advise to him of not editing on "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" was not out of line as he has caused problems with me as well as you now over things he doesn't like and doesn't want to seem to handle just by bringing it up on the talk page and discussing it. Hopefully he will take my advise and walk away but we shall see. Oh I also took the courtesy of letting him know we replied to him. I hope that wasn't a problem that I did that. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess he isn't check his reply. I have already replied. I am making you aware in case you want to comment. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replied, hopefully we can work something out. I've suggested he add the citation rather than remove the info entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 18:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I wouldn't hold my breath on it on it being resolved. This is the second time he has caused an issue over this page and was told how to handle it. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully he agrees. I think it works for everyone, hopefully. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I struck his uncivil remarks on both pages and let him know that personal attacks, like that, that are directed at editors is not allowed on here. ^_^ Swifty*talk 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I am off here now until this is resolved see here as to why. ^_^ Swifty*talk 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He replied and he's running his mouth at both of us. ^_^ Swifty*talk 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your file move request

Hi. This is just to let you know that the file you requested to be moved, File:This is the cover art for the soundtrack Irvine Welsh's Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes by the artist Various. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Toolroom Records, or the graphic artist(s), Mark Blamire.jpg, has been moved to File:Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes cover art.jpg. Happy editing! —JmaJeremy✆✎ 01:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

I was told that we are to keep an eye on him and if he continues to be disruptive on the We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together talk page to report him to ANI he has been warned that if he is to continue he is to be reported and will be blocked for his disruptive editing on the talk page. So if I'm not around keep an eye on him okay? ^_^ Swifty*talk 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't have anything else to do really. :P Toa Nidhiki05 18:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see he wants to continue in my absence so I am going to do what is suggested and just report him to the ANI before that whole thing gets out of hand. ^_^ Swifty*talk 22:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is if you want to have any input on it. ^_^ Swifty*talk 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have sock! Look at the talk page and look here. ^_^ Swifty*talk 22:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think he'd go that far. Toa Nidhiki05 23:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Cause it's funny after the ANI gets a report on him all of a sudden this IP shows up? NOT! lol ^_^ Swifty*talk 23:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser will tell if it is an IP but I really hope that people wouldn't suckpuppet on such a trivial issue as succession boxes. Toa Nidhiki05 23:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows and sorry to get you involved in the ANI. ^_^ Swifty*talk 23:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, its alright - probably would have headed there eventually if things kept going the way they were. Toa Nidhiki05 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look alright now? ^_^ Swifty*talk 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, although I'm not frequent at DR so I don't know how it is supposed to look. Toa Nidhiki05 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just told I shouldn't have been directed there in the first place and did you see what that IP said about me? ^_^ Swifty*talk 00:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really your fault, you asked for advice and followed it accordingly. The IP certainly isn't being too nice and I noted that - personal attacks are really unwarranted, particularly over a really minor issue. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa, my apologies for coming on a bit strong--you are a longtime editor here and probably deserve a raise. My problem (if that wasn't clear) is with editors being brought up in the ANI court at the drop of a hat (being given bad advice is one thing, but listening to it is another) and the immediate sock accusation simply because someone else agreed with the opposition. I personally don't care about the SPI--first of all because I don't know Star and have never worked with them, second because an SPI won't tie an IP to an account, and third because no admin in their right mind could conclude that we are making the same, or the same kind of, edits. I do care about Star's reputation: being accused of socking is not a good thing, and I'm glad the thing was closed. Take care, 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, everything seems fine then. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa – I, too, want to apologize for labeling you as the same type of fanatic that Swifty appears to be. I believe Swifty came off as a bit irrational in some of his comments, as, if I may infer, you seem to agree somewhat in this case when you said "I've found in past experiences he is generally a level-headed, reasonable editor". In regards to the verification issue, if you want to use "chart highlights" update as a source (I know you didn't make this particular edit but you did revert mine), then don't use the singlechart template in those articles. That way there is no issue with improper verification. Thanks and happy editing. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your apology, thanks for offering it. I prefer not to use the template for the very reason you mention, as well as the fact you can't actually use the created citation anywhere else in the article. As for Swifty, we all make mistakes and get caught up in a dispute - I had it happen on the same page just a while back, actually, with genre changes by an anon IP. Swifty was able to come in and gave a solution that was rational and immediately solved the dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa, I've been having a look into this whole situation from a conduct point of view. Overall, I don't have any issue with your editing at all, I think the heart of the problem lies elsewhere. WormTT(talk) 11:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan GA nomination

Hey, you may want to see the suggestions I have made at the review page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

^_^ Swifty*talk 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Conradh na Gaeilge 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. Wisconsin 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. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
  4. Scotland 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. Wales 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. New York City 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. Michigan 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. Canada 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: Russia GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), England Ealdgyth (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), North Carolina Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), Cherokee Nation The Bushranger (submissions) and North Macedonia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

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.[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ok, I'll take your word for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I just hope it doesn't happen too often. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05&oldid=513898903"