User talk:Soni

SEMI-ACTIVE

This user needs a good long break from everything sensible and may or may not be very active on Wikipedia. He will not be available for the next few days

You are back!!!!

I have missed you so so so so so much. Didn't you leave for I said something wrong? Did you?

I feel like Abby Sciuto when Jethro Gibbs retired and he came back... I've seen you erased our page. I will have to tell you things in public. But well, anyways...

YOU are back!! Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to know if there is a problem with me and you won't talk to me ever again? Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 12:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• • No there's no problem! Its just that I've been terribly busy as of late. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what you are going throught but, you can count on me for anything you need. You are my friend. Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok sure :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't kick me out of your list of friends. :'( Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 13:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Please explain why you deleted well-sourced material from Ghulam Azam's article lead. [1]. Please engage in discussion on the talk page before further deletions of referenced material.

Many thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Aminul802,

If you notice carefully, I haven't removed it from the lead. i just rearranged it in the lead for the sake of readablity. The lead of an article is supposed to be a paraphrasing of the whole article, and not a commentary/paragraph of discussion in itself.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You did however delete the comment by the presiding judge that lends balance to the lead. What you deleted and did not reintroduce anywhere in the article, even though it was referenced is important: "The judge presiding over his case noted that “There are no allegations that he was physically present at any crime scene. And secondly, there are no allegations that he actively directed the commission of war crimes."

I appreciate your attempt to make the article more readable. Please, however, do not simply revert my edits, as you can inadvertently delete well-sourced material. I will reintroduce the comment of the presiding judge in the lead in summary, and add the full version in the body of the article. Please let me know if this is a problem for you, and if so, please explain why.

Thanks, Aminul802 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Aminul802 It is a problem. This is because the second line is not required to be in the lead in the article. Unless there are more lines explaining why the judge's statement is particularly significant, the lines do not belong there. If you wish to add that line, please add it somewhere else in the article, and not the lead. The lead is only for statements that are particularly significant for the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should seek a second opinion as I feel that it is enormously important when the judge convicting someone of war crimes appears to admit that they had not in fact committed any. This is a serious BLP violation if not cited. This article I cite [2] is relevant in this, and deserves to be read. Aminul802 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Aminul802 The current version of the sentence added is good. But once again, placing it on the first paragraph is not appropriate, as that paragraph is kept to describe and identify the person. The later paragraphs in the lead talk about his trial, and placing your added sentence there will make much more sense, especially to retain the tone of the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that seems reasonable. Thanks. Aminul802 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Welcome back, Soni. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tq :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Declining AfCs

Thanks. I should be declining more of those that are more notability issues than formatting issues (I'm more looking on notability, actually). And, anyways, welcome back! Where have you really been? みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Minna Sora no Shita, as reviewers we should be looking forward to make sure the article does not have any significant problems at all. The best way for that is to take the "MOST SIGNIFICANT" problem that the article has, and then see if it can be easily recitified or not. If yes, we solve it ourselves and see for other problems. If no, we decline it using "THAT" (Most significant) rationale ONLY.

In this case, if you look at the article, it was rejected right after I undid your decline for "references". Now that was a much more significant problem, and enough for a decline.

I had been on a retirement/wikibreak for some time now. :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Verification vs Consensus

Hello OriginalSoni. At DRN you recently said that consensus is more important than verification and which would mean even correct and verifiable edits can be removed by consensus. However I have never seen this rule anywhere that consensus can even remove verifiable and significant content. Not only that the info.of the name os very significant. If such a thing does exist than it should have been written somewhere in Wikipedia policies. If it can be proved such a thing does exist then I'm ready to retract my claims completely and even ready to apologize. That is if there is such a rule anywhere on Wikipedia that a consensus can stop verifable and significant content from being added. I've asked users multiple times to give a proof for this statement however they haven't. The unverifiability of this rule or proof is the reason I'm still continuing the discussion. TransVannian (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It certainly does exist as Wikipedia policy: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There are all sorts of situations where exclusion of correct information is needed. Consider the article on Presidency of Barack Obama. Would it be appropriate to go on and on about where the Obamas have eaten, even though that info is covered by reputable sources like the Washington Post? Of course not. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I should say you're comparing two things of very different amount of importance here. How can you compare the name of a rape victim to places where the Obamas have eaten. The name of the victim is a very significant and important information while the places where Obamas have eaten is insignificant. Also the policy which you have recently linked to in the above comment does not say anywhere A consensus can stop reliable and significant content from being added. I already know that insignificant content can be removed by consensus but significant verifable cannot. For example, no consensus can remove the D.O.B. from.biographical article of a person. Again, please note the word significant here. You still haven't been able to prove that consensus can stop the name from being added in the article and thus my case is still completely valid. TransVannian (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

The point I Jethrobot was making was that even though the material may be significant OR verifiable, it may NOT be added because of commmon sense and/or discussions. I do not say it is not significant enough, just that it is not necessary to be added to the article.

Please also see the following message from the Talk page of the article -

• :::You say that every other article uses the names of the people involved, but Bitti Mohanty, Ajmer rape case, Jhabua nuns rape case, Jalgaon rape case, and Vachathi case don't name the rape victims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I would say that Editor's WhatamIdoings Common Sense stance is a community stance. There is participant consensus and then there is community consensus. Understanding and appreciating the difference between a consensus of those participating in a discussion, and what community consensus is important. Wikipedia editors have the duty to determine consensus by evaluating the arguments in terms of how well they are based in policy (which reflects community consensus), rather than by determining what, if anything, the consensus of those who happen to be participating is, as reflected at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus.

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Consensus cannot over-rule policy. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Soni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Victim identification

Hello again. It is good to see the users have put a valid argument. Although it can't be proved completely whether the father granted or did not grant permission. But still since your source seems reliable I'm thinking of maybe letting this case go. However there is still one major hitch. You and other users say if the victim or the family does not want to reveal the victim's name it can't be included on Wikipedia. However till now I haven't been able to find anything that confirms this statement. If such a policy does indeed exist then you'll be able to easily provide a case. If you can provide proof that such a policy does exist then I too will favor not including the victim's name. If you do have a proof then please provide it on yours or my talk page. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

TransVannian, the relevant overriding policy is Biographies of living people, which applies to every article whether or not it is overtly a biography and also to every user page and every talk page on Wikipedia without exception. It applies to the families of deceased victims and to accused but not convicted suspects. The specific section applicable here is WP:AVOIDVICTIM. We are required to take every precaution to avoid the additional victimization of crime victims and their families. In most cases, the best application of tbis policy is to avoid mentioning the name of a rape victim, unless there are clearcut reasons to do so. You earlier argued that there would no basis for removing a date of birth from an article. This is also incorrect, and reasons for doing so are explained at WP:DOB, another subsection of the all-important BLP policy. Please familiarize yourself with this policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Brigitta Boccoli

Hi TheOriginalSoni, how are you? Too hot in Italy....

I made this new page, she is the sister of the actress Benedicta. And she is wonderful as her sister, but I've no pictures of her, sorry.

I ask 5 minutes of your precious help to read this page if I wrote some mistake in my poor English. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely

Rei Momo (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rei Momo,  Done. Feel free to ask me again if you need help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Rei Momo (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I didn't see that you've come back. A very very very very.........very big welcome back to you. Pratyya (Hello!) 07:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!

A slightly belated welcome back, as we've already interacted outside of this forum, but a welcome back nonetheless. You've been there to help me whenever I needed it (or didn't know that I needed it), and you've been a wonderful Wikipedian in general. WP is better off with you here. Thanks. theonesean 15:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Taklback

Hello, Soni. You have new messages at IdeaLab's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

slv (talk)

Hello, Soni. You have new messages at IdeaLab's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

slv (talk)

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Sorry I missed the conversation...I came into it about 45 minutes late. It seemed that it was over. But, what I noticed was that I could not leave a message or converse with those present. Did I miss some important instruction before signing in? It was my first visit to IRC. I think I was in the right room but no one could "hear" me. TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 17:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pinging Technical_13 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:49, 21 July 20 13 (UTC)
  • Buster7, what was your IRC nick? I don't remember seeing you there in #wikimedia-office ^connect or for the after meeting in #wikipedia-snuggle ^connect. Technical 13 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I made the IRC connection via the invitation. no nick was used...just Buster7. I only stayed a minute because the room seemed empty. No problem, I just want to prepare and know the ropes for the next time. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"[17:32] Join: Buster7 [*****586@gateway/web/freenode/ip.216.80.***.***]" and the meeting ran from 16:00 - 17:00. Apparently you showed up 32 minutes after the meeting had ended and moved to #wikipedia-snuggle ^connect for the after meeting. There is almost always someone in the -snuggle channel, feel free to pop in any time. :) Technical 13 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

you OK Soni?

I saw the situation on WorldTraveller101 and that you're planning to take a break and just wanted to say that I hope that you're okay. I've also sent you an off-wiki matter E-Mail. Soooo

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Have a good one my IRC compiling companion. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)