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.
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. ToaNidhiki0515:42, 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. ToaNidhiki0514:08, 1 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. ToaNidhiki0518:50, 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)
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0504:07, 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. ToaNidhiki0514:57, 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. ToaNidhiki0515:28, 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. ToaNidhiki0515:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0500:40, 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. ToaNidhiki0503:43, 30 May 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)
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. ToaNidhiki0515:38, 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. ToaNidhiki0516:31, 23 August 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. ToaNidhiki0514:23, 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 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)
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. ToaNidhiki0514:30, 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). ToaNidhiki0514:41, 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)
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. ToaNidhiki0514:46, 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.
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0501:58, 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. ToaNidhiki0502:19, 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. ToaNidhiki0502:25, 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)
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)
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0523:20, 20 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. ToaNidhiki0523:24, 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. ToaNidhiki0520:54, 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)
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! ToaNidhiki0516:47, 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. ToaNidhiki0517:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
You forgot to post a message on the talk page of the admin who initially sanctioned you. The appeal can't continue unless you do that. I'm not a clerk or anything. I just see how wordy the templates can be and understand how that could be missed. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!09:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In the New York Times article about republican house members voting for same sex marriage that I put as a link for cultural liberalism, there’s a list of representatives. The vast majority of them, or all, are from this caucus. Maybe 1 or 2 representatives are from the republican study committee but I don’t think so. I can find links about cannabis, I consider them proves or reasons of what can be called “cultural liberalism”. I’m sorry if my English isn’t the best, my mother tongue is Spanish. Bye. Johnymin (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Republican governance group
In the New York Times article about republican house members voting for same sex marriage that I put as a link for cultural liberalism, there’s a list of representatives. The vast majority of them, or all, are from this caucus. Maybe 1 or 2 representatives are from the republican study committee but I don’t think so. I can find links about cannabis, I consider them proves or reasons of what can be called “cultural liberalism”. I’m sorry if my English isn’t the best, my mother tongue is Spanish. Bye. Johnymin (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Going issue-by-issue is not sufficient. You need to actually find a source that describes the caucus as culturally liberal. ToaNidhiki0503:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
AE appeal
Your appeal at WP:AE ([1]) was granted. Accordingly, the editing restriction from editing biographies of living persons in the area of post-1992 American politics is lifted. I hope that you will take appropriate care in returning to the topic area, and that you will be successful in doing so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
