User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Your WP:AE appeal.

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. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 09:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I accidentally write the same message with the subject above. I can’t delete it. Sorry. Johnymin (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going issue-by-issue is not sufficient. You need to actually find a source that describes the caucus as culturally liberal. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'll be sure to do that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to ask your thoughts about adding statistical analysis on educational polarization for both parties.

I'm planning on adding my own statistical plots in the next few weeks over the complete realignment of those with less education shifting from the Republicans to the Democrats, and those with more education shifting from the Democrats to the Republicans. Some good examples include the close 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992, 2008, and the Trump elections (2016, 2020, and 2024).

Lots of research, including by Thomas Piketty, Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins, and exit polls has shown the biggest realignment, particularly among White voters, is educational polarization. The realignment of the Northeast and Southern United States is another example of this, with the Northeast always being more educated than the South, with the two parties changing their geographic bases. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm waiting until after the 2024 United States presidential election to publish plots of educational polarization. Polling appears to indicate that educational polarization will further increases, but to what extent is unknown.

Looking back at the 2020 results, Biden was largely unable to significantly erase Trump's gains among White voters without college degrees, who predominate in rural areas. Biden mainly won by increasing support in educated suburban areas outside core metropolitan areas, where he often outperformed Obama in 2008. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best idea. Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added an entire section to the demographics section of the Democratic Party on educational realignment--I bought and read the entire book Polarized by Degrees by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins. Some statistics, some of which I'll add soon:

Barry Goldwater nearly won a majority of voters with college degrees in 1964, despite losing in a landslide.
Before the 1980s, whites without college degrees were a Democratic-leaning group. This ended with the victories of Ronald Reagan.
Until the 2000s, whites without college degrees were no more likely than whites with college degrees to vote for Democrats.
Voters with college degrees as a whole were Republican-leaning until the 1990s. Since then, Democrats have consistently won a majority of voters with graduate degrees.
Whites with college degrees were a Republican-leaning group until Trump's election in 2016, and in 2020 Joe Biden won a majority of whites with college degrees for the first time since 1964.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems good to me! Toa Nidhiki05 12:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green Party of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Hi; could you please restore the paragraph on 2004 United States election voting controversies that you removed? [2][3]

I initially didn't realize this myself, but the page is under WP:1RR, and you reverted the content twice in 24 hours (added by two different editors). JSwift49 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this either, but I’m not sure what the solution is? Does it need to be added or removed? Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to avoid violating the rule is to self-revert (ie. re-add it). Since a third editor agreed it should be added, we can discuss more in Talk. JSwift49 19:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also need to self-revert, as the page clearly states reverted content needs consensus to be re-added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page notice was wrong, which I fixed (as a non-privileged uninvolved editor). Per WP:CTOP#Enforcement of restrictions an editor may not be blocked for violating a page restriction unless an uninvolved administrator has placed editnotice in the article. I.e. when you click the edit button, the editnotice should enumerate the restrictions. That being said, please avoid edit-warring, folks. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I've reverted the deletion. The words in place on the 2004 United States election voting controversies page are remain relatively short, hopefully satisfying comments from @Muboshgu. Chumpih ^t 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting; per WP:BRD, you should ne be re-adding disputed content during an ongoing discussion you're a part of. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Chumpih ^t 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get yourself blocked again

I need someone to blame when Trump inevitably destroys the country in the next four years. If you're not around, I won't have anyone to point the finger at. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't blame me lol, I didn't vote for him - or the black Nazi guy, either. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess it's back to blaming the DNC again. Thanks for nothing! Let me guess, you voted for Kodos? "Twirling, twirling, towards Freedom!" That's my all-time favorite line from The Simpsons. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, not quite. You'd be surprised who I did vote for, though, let's just leave it at that heh. Toa Nidhiki05 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]