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.
For some reason, I thought it was a good idea to start and do another project. What do you think? I basically did the entire article, as it was mainly just focusing on the Pussycat Dolls version of the song; which I moved to a separate article. Statυs (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, nice job. Pretty long article for a song that wasn't a single (albeit the Pussycat Dolls one was a charting song). ToaNidhiki0519:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it did receive an Oscar and a Grammy, so he discussed the making of the track in several interviews. Do you think that I would be able to nominate it for DYK, since 31 of the 40 bytes the article was before I expanded it belonged solely to the PCD version, which now has a separate article? Statυs (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to try but I don't think it would be able to get through despite it being essentially a new article; the Pussycat Dolls version might be able to be nominated, but I don't think the main one would pass. ToaNidhiki0502:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Lifesong (song) in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold . You can see the comments I left about the issues concerning the article by clicking here. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes or debate ones you believe do not affect good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)05:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
All of the issues have been addressed, so I feel confident passing the article into good article status. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211(talk2me)22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold . You can see the comments I left about the issues concerning the article by clicking here. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes or debate ones you believe do not affect good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to help. Rp0211(talk2me)
All of the issues have been fixed, so I feel confident passing this article. Thank you for continuing to create good, consistent work. Rp0211(talk2me)05:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, I will do my best to help you. Rp0211(talk2me)18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
References 24, 27, and 37 should not be wiki-linked, as they were earlier. Once these issues are addressed, I will feel confident passing the article. Rp0211(talk2me)19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)19:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Since you have addressed all of the issues, I have passed the article. Continue the good work that you are doing with Wikipedia! Rp0211(talk2me)01:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold . For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)02:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. 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) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Catholic bishop
Hi Toa, long time no see. I'm in the middle of expanding an article on a Catholic bishop (draft here) but am worried that I'm not using some of the terms correctly. Could you help me, or point me at someone who has a pretty good understanding of the topic? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I am allowed to add my comments. Only once did I edit another's comments and after that I added my own. You have removed my comments on FAQs 1, 2, and 4 and thus committed the same violation you accuse me of, disruption and vandalism.
How and where can I reply to your comments on my message "Massive violation of Wikipedia Five Pillars on this page"?
The WikiGrail Trophy is hereby presented to Toa Nidhiki05, the winner of the First Annual WikiGrail Contest 2012. Thank you for your outstanding contribution to Christianity-related articles. Congratulations on a job well done, – Lionel(talk)09:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't remember you - I reviewed the DYK hook because it was a Body of Proof hook. Regardless, nice to see you again. Keep up the work on the Body of Proof articles - newer TV shows seem to have weak coverage on here. ToaNidhiki0518:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hardly any people edit Body of Proof articles, its just me! A few other users have come and gone, but no major edits are made to the episodes. Desperate Housewives has got a whole task force! ;) Anyway, nice talking!— M.Mario (T/C) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:So Long Self.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Homesick.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold . For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Praise You With The Dance.ogg)
Thanks for uploading File:Praise You With The Dance.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you can give me a review, as you offer on the Request an RfA nomination. I'm not certain I am qualified to be one, let alone if I would pass, but I want to receive advice on areas I can improve on and how my chances would be in a prospective adminship bid. ToaNidhiki0521:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Toa. I've moved this to your talk page as I thought it'd be better to answer here, less high profile! First things first, it's good to meet you - I've seen you around but we've not really interacted (except a little at Straight Pride). Per my "magic formula", you've got more than enough content contributions behind you. I've had a look through your last few 1000 contributions, and I think you would probably (in general) make a good administrator. However, I do have a few concerns, which would prevent me from nominating.
I don't see a lot of admin related work. I would generally hope to see some time spent at UAA, AIV or a good CSD log. For example, I think you've only voted 22 times at AfD. It's not essential, but the "need for the tools" part of the formula is generally quite important. Your contributions to ANI seem to be popping up when you want to have a dig, or shout for a block, something that does happen all to often at the board and is one of it's largest problems.
This regarding Malleus concerns me a lot. On a technical level, it doesn't appear that you fully understand the difference between a ban and a block, banning for one week is not sensible.
Furthermore, it implies to me that you do not comprehend the effect of blocks on editors, especially civility blocks - something so subjective. Civility is something we do need to manage, but I have yet to see an example of blocks being an effective method for improving civility. Indeed, we allow editors a certain amount of leeway in the civility code when they are blocked, venting off steam, therefore we must accept that blocks reduce civility.
You claimed Bwilkins was "enabling" Malleus. I can't say I know the history between the two, but in that conversation, I see that he was trying to reduce drama. Taking certain editors to ANI only increases drama, baying for blood and general escalation of the situation. It's not the right way to handle it. ANI has it's place, this wasn't it.
In case you think I'm one of the "WP:GANG" - I've rarely interacted with Malleus, and I get the impression he's not keen on me from those interactions, but I did a lot of investigation into his edits back during the civility case.
this regarding TDA, I won't comment on too much, because I'm not familiar with the whole 9/11 pages here, but there is yet more misunderstanding about blocks and bans, and cool down blocks are not looked upon positively. (Check back through some old RfAs questions for "cool down" blocks)
This comment worries me, "Regardless of what he thinks he's doing it could be classed as vandalism" - well, no. WP:Vandalism is very specific that it's about the intent of an edit, not about the quality.
Your ANI report of User:Qxukhgiels56, again shows a choice to escalate the situation to ANI, rather than persuing conversation and other dispute resolution.
I also think you'll struggle due to the edit warring and blocks in your past - though if you explain that well enough, you may get away with it :)
So overall, I'm not confident that you have a strong enough grasp of policy and handling disputes that you'd make a great admin at the moment. That's not to say you never will, as I can see you've improved since last year. I wouldn't want to take you away from content creation, we don't have that many great content creators, so I wouldn't be pushing you towards adminship! However, if that's really where you want to go, I think you'll need to spend the next year (maybe less, but I do think it might take that sort of time) experiencing areas where admins work. For one thing, that will mean tedious patrolling, pages for CSDs and other tagging, vandalism for AIV and UAA and so on and so forth. I think you could could do with spending some time at boards such as ANI, WQA or DRN, just to watch how different editors handle disputes, and trying to get into your head which way the best handling would be. Finally, I really think you should get your head out of "blocking" mode. Blocking should be an absolute last resort, if there is no other option. There's so many other ways to handle situations - I'd really like to see you considering blocking less.
I don't mind, its good to have a long list of stuff to improve on. The post pretty much confirms what I was thinking, which is that I have a good record of content contribution but I tend to get incivil at times and I don't have a great grasp on some policy.
I'm not going to respond to most of the post because it is all very reasonable and well thought-out. I will say my block log is a stumbling point. I wish I could go back and purge all that but that isn't how life works. As for Malleus, I'm not sure why I asked for a ban; they are two different things. I think I meant to ask for a block and mixed up my language.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time and looking at it. It helps to get outside feedback so I can know where to improve. See you around sometime ToaNidhiki0513:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the biggest thing you need is time and experience. I'm sure you'll get there one day, if that's really what you want. I've got to say, as a content contributor, you're worth 10 admins in my book. I could probably even name the 10 admins ;) WormTT(talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And reliable content is worth a lot more to the pedia than anything else. For what it is worth, as a former admin, I know where I went right, where I went wrong and...being an admin isn't really any fun anyway! The few times I need the tools, I am always able to find someone else to take care of those tasks.--MONGO22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to help out in whatever way I can. Right now, and for the near future at the very least, I want to focus on editing and improving my understanding on policy, with maybe some CSD stuff mixed in. ToaNidhiki0500:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Worm has done a very commendable review here for you, that does highlight the kinds of oppositions you would face at Rfa. It really is important to not go after people, even if they do deserve sanctions. I am on the fence regarding civility blocks, but if any editor has a long history of incivility, then that does need to be addressed. Obvious incivility should be reported to AN/I. To be an admin, one truly needs to demonstrate a need for the tools, a clear understanding of what INVOLVED means and repeated demonstrations of nonpartisanship. Some editors such as Malleus can be very polarizing to take a stand on for any potential Rfa candidate since the community is roughly split in half on whether his demeanor is or isn't to be tolerated. So if you take a stand on that sort of issue, then you risk having opposers. To be frank, you'd have to ask yourself if you're prepared to spend the next six months coddling any recent antagonists, or speaking you own mind freely. Were you to run for admin now, you'd get my support. It may be worth it to put yourself up for consideration in 90 days, see how it goes, and if it fails, address the opposition's issues and try again six months later. In success or failure, being unemotional in the outcome would be best. MONGO11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you MONGO, I appreciate that. I do my best to help those who want to be admins know what they're up against at RfA, I've spent far too much time looking at them, and I've seen many good editors demoralised by failing them. Toa, I don't think MONGO has bad advice for you there, no one can predict with 100% certainty how an RfA would go, and even if you don't pass, you could get some excellent feedback from the community in areas I didn't even start to consider. So running in 90 days may not be a bad idea, as long as you are aware of what you are getting yourself into. WormTT(talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
90 days isn't a bad idea; adminship isn't a big deal and I probably don't need it at the moment, but it is never a bad idea to get input from the community on what I can improve on. You guys have been a big help here. :) ToaNidhiki0514:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hat at Sarah's RfA
I've done a partial revert with explanation in the edit summary. I think that editor should have probably just been asked for supporting diffs, and then the entire thing dropped at that point. The way the community got riled up doesn't speak well for polite discourse. I went ahead and re-hatted the debate, as your edit did, with a mild change to the wording of the hat to be more neutral in tone, and undone the strikethrough. The thing that is surprising to me after looking deeper into this is that the editor seems like they might have been inappropriately blocked after their comment, which speaks paradoxically to the very comment they made at the RfA. While it seems Sarah has a lot of popular support, a single comment in opposition should have been able to be tolerated better by the community, and if it was hatted, it should have been for the legitimate reason that it was not supported after support was requested, not because they were later 'convicted' of socking, especially for a fairly mild comment. -- Avanu (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 31 July 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! 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) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty good article - very interesting topic, but Reagan was a very interesting person. Great work there, it is a very good read. I've reviewed it and noted a sole concern.
BTW, I responded to your concerns on the Revelation article. I need an answer to one of them so I can figure out what to do. :) ToaNidhiki0519:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine anyone would believe the no-plane-theory...in fact, it's so preposterous that I automatically assume that any "new" editor that shows up to promote such stupidities is just an internet troll. It's also interesting to see how these newbies know about Wikipedia terminology like "vandalism" and have a decent grasp of wiki-markup right off the bat.--MONGO19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
They are all clearly blocked or banned sockpuppets, I think. The no-planes 'theories' are so stupid that even the Truthers don't like them (even though many of these same Truthers believe a cruise missile struck the Pentagon), and that is saying something since the 'movement' has no clear ideology or even agreement on main points. Aside from that fact, there are people that were inside the building that can clearly attest to a plane striking it, including Brian Clark, who had to navigate through the stairway that the plane had severed at an angle, and Stanley Praimnath, who was on the exact same floor the plane hit and was almost hit by a wing. Cruise missiles explode and don't slice things, let alone at an angle. It is a pretty stupid conspiracy if you have people on the inside, let alone above the impact zone. ToaNidhiki0503:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The only thing to do with those kinds of talkpage distractions and bogus edits is to revert on sight. They usually disappear and then come back a month or two later with further nonsense. The worst offenders are the more subtle and polite...since those less familiar with their motives fail to enforce actions that might more quickly eliminate their POV pushing and wikilawyering.MONGO17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat belated I know, but thanks for your recent participation in my RfA. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and I hope I continue to see you around in the future.
Oh, and I'd also like to say that I hope I get the opportunity to support you at a future RfA whenever you're ready to take one on. Having read Worm That Turned's assessment above, I think you're probably not too far off from the point where you could be a great admin — although heavily expanded on, none of the things he raised are especially huge issues, but it would definitely help to develop a more nuanced approach to dispute resolution. I have a feeling you'll be ready for the bit in a few months time, actually. =)
Well thanks, I'm glad that they were appreciated. I'd love to see you around as well. I really hated to vote neutral but I would love to be able to support at some point in the future. It certainly looks like your activity has picked up tremendously, which is a good thing both for Wikipedia and any future RfA's.
Thanks, I'll probably try sometime in late October or November if I decide to do it. I agree, DR is certainly not my strong point but I try to avoid having to go there at this point. It simply isn't a fun experience for me and I doubt it is for those involved. Anyway, see you around sometime. ToaNidhiki0514:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. DR sucks in a big and major way sometimes, but it's a necessary evil. Sometimes I just wish people could cool their jets and talk things out, try to find common ground, and not get into heated debates that degenerate into edit wars and mutual name-calling. Kurtis (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It has to exist but I'd much prefer to avoid it at all costs. Working together is certainly more enjoyable and less stressful than filing 3RR/Edit War requests, reporting at AN/I or filing requests at Wikiquette assistance. ToaNidhiki0514:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
iTunes doesn't count. By the way Toa, hey. Just wanted to say I stepped in and gave some advice but I do want to point out to you both that claiming someone is breaking the 3RR when I noticed that they have only reverted once and you, Toa are doing the most of the reverting is not fair to the IP user. If he is not reverting and you are then you're the one breaking the 3RR and I think they deserve an apology for accusations to what they are not doing cause they are trying to make their point clear but you guys won't find a way to make this work peacefully with them and want to start throwing threats of edit war and breaking the 3RR around that will only make things worse. I don't agree that the country genre shouldn't be added myself but pretty much it would be worthless to fight it to me. ^_^ Swifty*talk17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been reverting too much, yes, and that is not a good thing. I haven't revert warred in over a year and I had no intention of starting again, but I guess that went out the window. I will say quite a few of the reverts today were of removal of the cited fact that it was released to country radio, not of addition of content.
The reverts are the reason I haven't sent Ip to 3RR NB and also why I haven't given a vandal tag - I'm involved in the dispute and am arguably pushing the limits, so I have no right to send him anywhere. I will say I don't think I have ever accused him of editing badly, only of disruptive editing when he was removing stuff to prove a point by removing sourced info. As soon as a source is found that is reliable that calls it 'country', I have no qualms with adding it. Until then, it is really a challenged claim that should be removed, or at least have a 'citation needed' tag per our policy on challenged claims. ToaNidhiki0518:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying Jim boy here decided he should look at the IP's talk page personally after that personal attack at us both it should be blocked from editing for awhile cause that was pretty foul language over something so petty. I think I have an idea though let me try this. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you agree with this? And if the IP address continues to vandalize after this then it should be blocked but I think that shouldn't be any problem. It gives both ways. It's not showing and isn't removed. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's hope. For now I am getting off Wikipedia. But I think I may return now. Not as an editor but a negotiator. Seems I do better that way then I do editing. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Yeah and I'll let Zach know about the agreement and I'm sure he'll be fine with it. I am still in contact with him so he'll be glad to know I am returning to Wikipedia as a negotiator. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that. That's a good thing. See when you find a compromise things go smoother. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw Zach thinks I should add this to the reviews. It's from my fan site and I don't mind Wikipedia using my reviews on here. That's why I started doing them. But I just don't know if I should add them... I've done from "Ours" onward and Speak Now World Tour Live. I just don't know...^_^ Swifty*talk19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to get input from other editors on whether or not to use them... I know you aren't doing it to boost your site, but some people are going to assume the worst and accuse you of having a conflict of interest. ToaNidhiki0520:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0515:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
