User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 10

Republican and Democratic Party political spectrum positions
I would like to know why you removed my edit that said that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are Centre-right and Centre-left, respectively. Undertaker5000 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Undertaker5000
 * I removed them because there is a consensus not to include political positions on either page.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason that there is a consensus against this? Undertaker5000 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Undertaker5000
 * The reason for this was twofold: there was significant disagreement on what the label of the parties should be, and there was disagreement on what 'political spectrum' meant (the US one, or a hypothetical global one). The consensus was, more or less, to just refer to them as 'liberal' and 'conservative' rather than 'center-left' and 'center-right'.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in here: that reason sounds poor. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things around the world, as you well know.  On the other hand, the terms "center-left" and "center-right" are quite clear and avoid the semantic ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In a typical European multi-party system, sure. People generally understand what American conservatism and American liberalism are, and there is no dispute the parties hold to those views, respectively. But the use of the term 'center-left' and 'center-right' themselves was routinely debated, with conservatives arguing the Democrats were left-wing and the inverse with liberals (although in my experience, it was much more likely to see a liberal seriously demand the GOP be labeled 'far right' than likewise). By committing the terms entirely, those disputes have essentially ended.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean "omitting" those terms? Wikipedia is an international project; preferring US-centric usage which deviates from the understanding of others not only confuses people, but contributes to problems for our readers.  I don't think in terms of "conservatives" arguing this or "liberals" arguing that, and I've found that most people who identify as such in RL, often share similar values.  This kind of polarizing rhetoric doesn't help the situation.  Normal, reasonable people do not consider Democrats "left-wing"; in fact, if you compare their positions to similar political positions in other countries, American Democrats are center-right. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed an international project, which is why both articles refer to the 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' as being the American variant, with a link to the appropriate article. Using those terms is not US-centric.
 * As as to your last point, no, they aren't center-right. That's frankly a silly thing to say. They are a standard social liberal/progressive party, which places them in the center-left even on the global spectrum. They aren't as far left as social democrats, but they are by no means centrists.
 * Once again though, this discussion demonstrates the problem with the left-right labeling. It would certainly be unreasonable to describe the Democrats as 'center-right', both within the US spectrum and outside it, as their views fall, by any definition, left of center. It would be just as unreasonable to describe the Republicans as 'right wing' or 'far right', both within the US spectrum and outside it, given Republicans don't endorse traditional right-wing or far-right ideas on religion, monarchy, social structure, or consolidation of power. And it would be difficult to use the terms 'center-left' or 'center-right', as nobody can agree on what they mean or even if they are appropriate.  Toa   Nidhiki05  04:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Far from being "progressive" as you claim, the majority of Democrats hold positions similar to what are described as "moderate Republicans". There are very few, if any "progressives" in politics.  On the other hand, the positions of mainstream American Republicans today are appropriately classified as "far right" based on their own platforms. This is easy to source. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are pretty blatantly letting your political biases show. Thats' incredibly naive, given the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus holds a majority of Democratic house members. There are virtually no genuine moderates left. And no, Republicans are not far-right. Do you even know what far-right means? It means fascist. Unless you think Republicans are white supremacist elitists who oppose democracy, support having a single authoritarian leader, and endorse Keynesian economics, that doesn't fit.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is "politically biased" to describe a duck as a duck. I have a hard time finding anything "left-wing" on the cpc.grijalva.house.gov website.  Perhaps you are using the term "left-wing" differently?  I would like to suggest that the term is passé, and can only be found in wide usage in mostly fringe publications and pundit talk shows.  There is currently no active "left-wing" in the United States with any political power.  History shows that right-wing extremists have pushed their parties so far to the right, that current Democrats in power have positions on par with moderate Republicans.  Are the far-right extremists in power in the US considered "fascist"?  Many sources have made the case for that argument, with people like Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore coming to mind.  Wolf makes a cogent case in  The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.  Other sources have pointed to the popularity of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and the Tea Party movement, as more of a neo-fascist undercurrent of the Republican party, particularly beginning in the 1970s with rise of Nixon, the Moral Majority and the politicization and mobilization of the Christian church in the Reagan era.  According to Martin Lee, scholar Christopher Simpson of American University has traced a direct connection to European fascism and American conservatism and how their proponents  eventually made their way to the GOP and influenced the direction of the party.  There's actually a lot of good sources showing how the Republican party has become fascist over time, so despite your skepticism, I suggest you start doing a bit of research. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you expect me to treat partisan hacks like Michael Moore as reliable sources you are mistaken. I would suggest you do a bit of real research into what fascism is, rather than make ignorant statements about it. Fascism of any form stands in fundamental contrast to American conservatis,.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are reading things into what I wrote that aren't there. I said " Many sources have made the case for that argument".  I did not say "Michael Moore is a reliable source".  On the other hand, I did point you to at least one academic source on the subject, Christopher Simpson.  Furthermore, I did not say all conservatives are fascists.  What I said was, far-right extremism has taken over, and there is ample historical precedent for this.  I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you of anything.  I believe that terms like "liberals" or "conservatives" are inaccurate terms as well as artificial constructs used to promote division and discord, in an us-against-them discourse which polarizes the electorate.  I think there is much greater accuracy in using center-left and center-right, especially in regards to US politics.  I find the arguments against using the established left-right spectrum to be lacking in good evidence.  History shows that the American Republican party has moved from the center, to center-right, to far-right and back over the years.  I believe the literature shows that Reagan got elected, for example, by moving from the far-right to the center-right.  It's a commonly reported notion, for example, that Reagan could not get elected in the far-right GOP of today, since he was far too centrist.  In any case, reputable political scientists have studied the rightward movement of the GOP, so it's supported by the best academics and sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what you said, and what you said was malarkey. The BNP would laugh at you if you tried to say the Republicans were similar to them in policy. The modern GOP is strongly individualistic (the opposite of fascism), strongly neoliberal (the opposite of the Keynesianism fascists prefer), strongly supportive of gun ownership (the opposite of fascism), and strongly opposed to centralized power (the opposite of fascism). If you want to make a silly claim, back it up.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, I just did in the link above. Conservative political scientist Keith Poole of the University of Georgia and Howard Rosenthal of New York University:
 * "...since the late 1970s starting with the 1976 election in the House the Republican caucus has steadily moved to the right ever since. It's been a little more uneven in the Senate. The Senate caucuses have also moved to the right. Republicans are now furtherest to the right that they've been in 100 years...Ronald Reagan was so successful because he made all these deals with these huge blocks of moderate legislators. That's why he had overwhelming majorities for the 81 tax cut, the 82 tax increase, where they had to go back and adjust the tax bill in 82 and the Social Security fix in 83. Then in 86 you had Simpson Mazzoli, which included amnesty and tax simplification. All that stuff passed with very large majorities. You cannot imagine anything like that happening now. Which is why the country is really in the tank...It is true that the Republicans have moved further to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. That's absolutely true."
 * Other researchers also agree that Democrats have moved center-right while Republicans have moved to the far-right. Something tells me you will continue to argue about semantics no matter how much evidence you are given. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one arguing semantics - you are. You've not given a single policy position shared by Nazis and Republicans, and even if you were to that has no more bearing than me saying one Democrats and communists share. And, notably, the person says both parties have moved left and right. This is because there used to be genuinely moderate, conservative, and liberal factions in each party. Over time - specifically the 1980s, when the Republicans were recovering from the decimation of Watergate and seeking to develop a unique identity - the Republicans managed to attract most of the conservatives, either formally or informally, and the Democrats absorbed most of the liberals, either formally or informally. The shift both parties made from big tent, centrist parties to fairly liberal or conservative parties wasn't due to basic political realignment - a party that absorbs conservatives and ditches liberals will obviously shift right, and a party that absorbs liberals and ditches conservatives will obviously shift left. It's fairly basic stuff.  Toa   Nidhiki05  04:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the political history. I just want to point out that your straw man argument "all Americans on the far right spectrum are Nazis and/or fascists" is inherently fallacious.  The American Republican party has moved to the far right over the last 20 years.  This statement is supported by an enormous number of reliable sources, including a bevy of conservative political scientists, including Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, Norm Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann.  You can't argue that these people lean left or are liberals, because they self-identify as conservative.  Former liberals, such as scholar Jonathan Haidt, have studied this closely with their colleagues.  Haidt finds that
 * "After 1965, our political parties have undergone a process of realignment and purification. In Eisenhower’s time, for example, most Republicans were centrists. Since the 1980s, Republicans have moved “far Right,” especially in the House of Representatives."
 * Please forgive me, but I'm going to go with the learned conclusions of scholars in their relevant fields rather than the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation please. The only source I can find for that is someone paraphrasing what he said in a public speech. And yes, I'm going to continue to ridicule the concept that you are seriously comparing Republicans to Nazis and refusing to justify why. You've not responded to any of my fascism questions, so I'm going to assume you don't plan to or simply cannot.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I finally understand your confusion. You don't seem to be aware that the radical right in the United States is on the far right political spectrum.  Thanks for clearing up your confusion.  Since this is now resolved, this will be my final comment.  I assume that you will reiterate in your forthcoming reply that you refuse to acknowledge that the radical right in the US is on the far right spectrum.  I hope you now understand why we see this issue so differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't see to be interested in having a conversation here. First, please demonstrate to me that the John Birch Society/Alex Jones segment of the population consists of any more than a negligible percentage of the GOP. Last I checked, that element is widely ridiculed and mocked by everyone (including Glenn Beck) and not endorsed by a single elected Congressman or Senator. Second, please explain to me how the modern GOP is linked to fascism and white supremacism - which are considered key parts of the 'radical right'. I eagerly await your non-response.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This conversation is replicated across many articles about political parties. The problem is that while there is general agreement about relative positions in the political spectrum, there is none about absolute positions.  We all agree the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats, but there is no agreement in how far to the right of center they are, if in fact they are right of center.  So it is better to leave those insoluble disputes out of party articles.  Let the readers decide where they think they are.  TFD (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Carolina Panthers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Olsen. 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) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

American football
Toa, I've edited Wikipedia sports articles for almost six years, and I sincerely appreciate the great efforts that you have made to improve this article. I've actually read the Good Article and Feature Article reviews. I'm not a rookie editor with an America-centric agenda. Yes, I understand Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And, yes, I understand "American football" is a disambiguation title, made necessary to distinguish the American sport from association football/soccer, which is the predominant sport in the rest of the English-speaking world. But 300 million Americans do not call the sport "American football"; they simply refer to the sport as "football." Moreover, no one in the United States calls the sport "gridiron" -- no one. No one. If we cannot acknowledge that 300 million Americans -- two thirds of the people on Earth who speak English as their native language -- call this sport "football" then the problem is the editors who write the lead, not the fact that Wikipedia is a "global encyclopedia." I am not wedded to any specific language, but it is not unreasonable to recognize what Americans actually call the most popular sport in America in an article written in American English. Frankly, to do otherwise is not encyclopedic and more than a little bit bizarre. Am I missing something here? If so, please explain why the actual name of the sport is not relevant information to be clearly stated in the article's lead section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be acceptable to keep the lede intact, but just add something along the lines of "referred to in the United States as football"near the front end?  Toa   Nidhiki05  16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By "lede," I assume you mean the first sentence, and not the lead section of the article? Look, Toa, I'm not trying to make your advancement of this article to FA status harder, but we need to clearly and succinctly acknowledge that Americans do not commonly call this sport either "American football" or "gridiron," or even "gridiron football."  In the country where the sport is played, it's just "football."  In the absence of a WP:COMMONNAME article title, we need to explicitly say that.  The lede as presently written is misleading, and I would gladly support any reasonable compromise language that acknowledges actual American usage and reliable sources.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I completely understand - it's not my article. I think had put a similar line into the lede at one point and it was removed at some point, although I'm not sure if it was a random edit or a suggestion from either review. I'll go ahead and add something along that line, and tell me what you think.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Toa. That would be great.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Toa, I've had five days to contemplate your revised first sentence of the article, and it's grown on me with time. I think it's satisfactory compromise language that addresses my primary concern: recognizing that Americans call the sport "football," thereby correcting the misimpression any reader may derive from the disambiguation title of the article.  Thanks for your patience.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup - The Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An article which you edited has been reported at WP:AN3
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The article in dispute is Democratic Party (United States). Perhaps you have a suggestion for how this can be resolved. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
OK, what's your point in the reversion? If fair treatment of the conspiracy theory discussions is not wanted, why not just delete the whole page? Or do you hold that the Wiki should to present only the weaker ideas, with each one firmly rebutted by an opposing "authority"?Slade Farney (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with NFL collective bargaining agreement?
Hi there Toa Nidhiki, last year you were able to help my former colleague, User:ChrisPond with some suggestions he had for a couple of NFL-related pages, including the Health issues in American football article, so I'm reaching out in the hopes you'd be able to take a look at an article that I've written (also on behalf of the NFLPA). Earlier this year, the article I wrote for National Football League collective bargaining agreement was created via AfC, however the reviewing editor added a tag after taking it live. I've been able to resolve one of the tag issues with her, but it looks like she's busy on other things and hasn't been able to return to look at my suggestions for the other two issues. The big one is the introduction, which she felt wasn't long and detailed enough. I've put together a new draft for that, and proposed it on the Talk page. Would you have a bit of time to take a look at this and see if it can be moved into the article? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fox News
Wikipedia is a non biased site that hold no political direction. The author writes that he is concerned about the effects of the network on his father, and that has nothing to do with "left wing" or politics. It is genuine and authentic. Please do not apply your obvious biases here, and if you have a issue with something use the talk page, don't revert using the same belligerent's that the network delivers to these elderly victims to justify your reverting this contribution. Thank you! talk→  WPPilot   18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by your tone it seems like you are the biased on here, not me - I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces (WP:RSOPINION). The source's author is giving an opinion piece, not facts. Moreover, he is not an unbiased author - he, along with the website, is a liberal. All of these combine to make that an unreliable source. If you can find a scientific study or factual source that reaches the same conclusion, bu all means add it. But that source is not appropriate by any means.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My bias is for improvement of anything I touch, so your way off base here. According to you, anyone that is deemed a liberal (by you?) creates a unreliable source? Why is that? Does Wikipedia deny "users deemed a liberal (by you?)"? The first amendment allows for free speech, and if that user, as the other people that I know whom are suffering from this same thing are deemed an unreliable sources, that makes this Wiki a biased page that leans to the right, no??? The author is correct, elderly people are being manipulated by the network and it should be addressed. talk→   WPPilot   19:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being liberal does not mean you cannot be reliable, no. That bias does need to be accounted for, however, especially in opinion articles that have little basis in factual investigation.  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is more then enough to provide foundation for a section on this matter..... talk→  WPPilot   19:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/FoxVoteQJEAug07.pdf
 * http://smartremarks.lancasteronline.com/2014/04/23/the-fox-news-effect-and-why-propaganda-works/
 * http://www.frumforum.com/fox-geezer-syndrome/
 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281040/-I-also-lost-my-father-to-Fox-News#
 * http://www.thenation.com/article/173748/gop-fox-circus-act#
 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1244584/-The-Brainwashing-Of-My-Dad-By-Limbaugh-Fox-GOP-Media

TFL notification
Hi, Toa. I'm just posting to let you know that List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 30. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)