Jump to content

User talk:Soni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Inamos)




Holiday Greetings

[edit]
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. It's been a while. Hope all is well! ―Buster7 

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin October Issue 2

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

talk page comment conventions

[edit]

Regarding this edit: note by changing from a bulleted list item (starting with *) to an unbulleted list item (starting with :, you are closing the bullet list and opening an unbulleted list, which gets announced by screen readers. I edited your comment to use paragraph breaks to avoid these extra announcements. You can see User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup for some more detail.

Also note by choosing to start your comment with a bulleted list item, you are ending the preceding list (an unbulleted one) and starting a new one, which also means extra announcements. Some people feel it's really important to start their comment with a bullet list item, so I don't typically change that. However, if you aren't strongly opinionated about that, I suggest changing it to be an unbulleted list item (without leaving any blank lines between your comment and the preceding one), to avoid extra announcements. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Isaacl somehow I missed this section earlier. Thank you for the info, I will attempt to keep it in mind (and possibly fail). Soni (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
275 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Opinion polling for the 2024 Indian general election (talk) Add sources
255 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Azamgarh (talk) Add sources
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Mubarakpur, Azamgarh (talk) Add sources
552 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Adventure game (talk) Add sources
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Korum Mall (talk) Add sources
90 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Delhi School of Economics (talk) Add sources
1,920 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA 2024 United Kingdom riots (talk) Cleanup
19 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Yarm School (talk) Cleanup
11 Quality: High, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: GA Opinion polling for the 2014 Indian general election (talk) Cleanup
722 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Mexico–United States border crisis (talk) Expand
2,834 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub 2024 Lebanon pager explosions (talk) Expand
29 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B 2021 Nandigram Legislative Assembly election result controversy (talk) Expand
734 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B 2009 Indian general election (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,404 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Sister Abhaya murder case (talk) Unencyclopaedic
481 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Massively multiplayer online game (talk) Unencyclopaedic
413 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war (talk) Merge
164 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Musical isomorphism (talk) Merge
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Land drainage (disambiguation) (talk) Merge
858 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Flour (talk) Wikify
196 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Venezuelans (talk) Wikify
17,051 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) (talk) Wikify
13 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Ultra International Music Publishing (talk) Orphan
132 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Demetria Obilor (talk) Orphan
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rajiv Shekhar (talk) Orphan
3,085 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Butch Ware (talk) Stub
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Alice & Smith (talk) Stub
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start How to Talk Minnesotan (talk) Stub
74 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Subhankar Sarkar (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Medawara Kala (talk) Stub
69 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts (talk) Stub

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin November Issue 1

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrator recall has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Administrator recall has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, Soni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 13:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Recall

[edit]

Hey, I noticed you modified the wording on the recall closure.

Don't you think "25 signatures of extended confirmed editors were gathered in time" is also a bit of a weird way to say it? It makes it seem as though the recall was out canvassing and up against a deadline, rather than simply open for signatures.

Thanks, -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OXYLYPSE Probably, but I'll leave that consideration to User:Alalch E. and Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Concerns_about_the_word_"successful" as the best person to reword their own comment/best place to figure out this wording.
Once we decide on a consistent wording to use in certified/non-certified RRFA petitions, it should be easy to make the template for closed RRFAs with said wording/retrospectively change the wording to match best practices. Soni (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. @OXYLYPSE: How would you have said it if you were the closer? —Alalch E. 11:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Alalch E.. Probably something really dry and neutral, like you'd get back from the government if you complained to them: "Petition upheld. 25 extended confirmed editors signed this petition within thirty days." For the opposite, "Petition not upheld. 25 extended confirmed editors did not sign this petition within thirty days." OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"25 extended confirmed editors signed this petition within thirty days" seems like the optimal way to put it for the future. —Alalch E. 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering scheme

[edit]

Hello, On the ArbCom Candidate question page for Liz, you inserted a follow-up that broke the numbering scheme for the questions. I attempted to fix it here [1]. Does this look right? I'm not confident with wiki markup. Closhund/talk/ 02:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closhund It did work, thank you Soni (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heading levels

[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure why you changed some level 2 headings to level 1 headings at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs. Level 1 headings are virtually never used, except when a page is transcluding multiple other pages in their entirety. Also, it lead to a confusing organization, as "Current RfCs" was a subheading of "Former RfCs and discussions". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby I was not aware of Level 1 headings virtually never being used, thanks for that heads up. As for the mess, apologies; it's a bit too late at night and I probably shouldn't have been doing the heading stuff now.
I will suggest though, that we should use a separate heading for RFCs and Other discussions. RFCs are far more binding and the level of detail/importance is valid there. Other discussions, less so, and will continue to happen with way more frequency. I recommend clubbing "Early closure discussions" and "Early workshopping" as subheadings under "Former discussions".
Additionally, I recommend "Policy status discussion" being a subheading of "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) RfC" or just straight up merged. It was effectively a close challenge of that discussion, so clubbing makes sense.
Generally my rule of thumb is minimal details necessary, simply because we'll have a lot more RFCs and reworkings about recall as the months go on. So I was trying to fit the heading format in a way that's easy to expand away. Soni (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if RfCs are technically more binding, I don't think that in itself justifies breaking chronological order, especially since some other discussions also tried to reach a binding consensus. I tried to make a separate heading to discuss each RfC/discussion, especially since people visiting this page likely want to look for a specific discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACE 2024 Questions

[edit]

Hello, Soni,

It looks like you made a comment to me in the middle of my Questions page but one day, I saw it, then I couldn't find it. Could you add your comments as a specific question in the format designated for this at the bottom of the page? I might otherwise not see it, as right now it is buried between other questions. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]