User talk:Soni

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2013 signups

I'm waiting on you choosing another flag to fly before I sign you up. If you are going to participate, you may want to remove the "retired" signs- they're a little misleading. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Saddening

I'm disappointed to see that you are gone, but since I'm suppose to be retired as well, I won't try to talk you out of it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

TOS did say that they might be back later in the year - they've got exams coming up. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

They could use {{Wikibreak}} --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HD 179821

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week nomination

I have copied your nomination to Wikipedia:Editor of the Week/Nominations. I encourage you to expand it further, with links to specific examples and more details on what you find to be exemplary about the editor's creations—recognition is most effective when specific actions are described, so recipients will remember receiving the recognition each time they do a similar task. Thanks for your help! isaacl (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week nomination accepted

Your nomination of Kelvinsong for Editor of the Week has been accepted! Thanks very much for your kindness in recognizing the hard work of your fellow editors. isaacl (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		For your nomination of User:Kelvinsong as our first "Editor of the Week". He is an excellent example for future reference by future nominators. Well done.```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving with ClueBot III

Just a quick note that Buster 7 set up archiving of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week using ClueBot III and you can request that the bot archive any section immediately by including {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} in that section. I've tweaked the parameters for the bot to archive a bit faster. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. Mind fixing the archives section also? I created a new "Archive 1" page, but it is apparently not shown in the archive infobox. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

After having looked into the innards of ClueBot III, I believe it keeps an index of the archive pages that it uses when displaying the message box, so a manually created page probably won't show up until ClueBot does an archiving run. I've restored one section and marked it for immediate archiving; let's see if that works.

Regarding a user page, generally I think the work is the thing: what I do in my contributions is what's important. I fully appreciate the value of learning more about your fellow collaborators, but at least for now, having a user page is just not my personal preference. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tea House question

In your recent reply at the Tea House I think you should also have indicated that a copy of a letter is not reliable source per WP:RS unless it has itself been published in a reliable source, in which case the source where it is published should be cited and not the letter. Also, I am not sure what the copyright status of such a letter would be. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the copyright of the letter lies with the sender or the reciever(Not sure which one). But since it is sent by the head of a state (presumably the US) it could be considered reliable, in my opinion. Anyways I had forgotten about reliability concerns. Please add anything you think might be important. (I have absolutely no problem with people directly editing my answer) Thanks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright and reliability are completely independent issues. Copyright resides with the the creator unless it has been assigned elsewhere. With respect to notability we have to rely on publication in a secondary source for verification otherwise how do we know, unlikely though it is, that the PDF has not been tampered with? In any event, I will not edit or add to your response - I am not au fait with the way things are done at the Tea House, I am a Help Desk regular.--ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the teahouse , here is a brief description from my side. Hope it helps.

The teahouse is just an informal version of the help desk. People ask questions, and we answer them in a friendly way. They may return, or they may not - Thats up to them. But we make sure to have a warm and helping hand out towards them so they feel in place there.

This is why we do not edit the questions. If someone sees that their question has been tampered with, they might be intimidated.

On the other hand, we simply clarify the questions in our own replies, and add to previously said replies. There is no bar on the number of questions asked or the number of answers given (on the same question even), because we want as many hands to help as they can. Any other user may also hop into the discussion with a relevant question or answer of his own.

Sections remain as they are until archived after 4 days, which means there is no formal "closure" of the questions. As previously said, everything is designed to facilitate a healthy and friendly conversation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also note that it is usually not common practice to edit other coments, even answers. But since I did not include any links in my reply, I prefer that my answer is edited to include them, if necessary. Thats just a personal choice from my part. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also believe that unless there is another secondary source, it would not be possible for the user in question to easily procure the PDF. Even if thats not the case, we need not consider ourselves with possible "tampering", IMO. I think that as long as it is free, it can be uploaded. And as long as it can be verified to be true, we may well assume it to be true. There are plenty of other images on which the same conditions apply; and yet they survive. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The essay

...looks good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

I have removed the nomination of Sitush for Editor of the Week as malformed. If a discussion is required before nomination, it is best to have such a discussion first then make the nim. However, I also note that Sitush is not an unsung heroe. They are very well known and actively controversial making them far more known than what is within the Editor of the Week criteria. While i respect the editor and hope them a speedy recovery, I doubt they would agree that they are "unsung" in comaprison to other nominations. I cannot speak for the editor, but believe they are aware of their own notoriety.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You're a good editor

Would love to see an increase in edit summaries. It saves us a lot of time. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but its a really old habit of mine and I cannot seem to get it off (Others have also said the same to me, but I tend to find it way easier to just work without them)

Thanks anyways, and I hope to keep this advice in my the next time.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you can make the effort. If not, we have to. :) My bad habit is that I've never, ever, ever, I think, ever, ever marked an edit as minor. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Copper in heat exchangers

Dear Soni. Thank your for your quick review of the article just minutes after posting. As per your request, the references to Wikipedia user pages have been remedied. The article has been substantially reduced in size. The article was copy editied. The tags will be removed. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Much appreciated, Enviromet (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your appraisal of the »Ashita no Nadja« episode synopsis page

TheOriginalSoni:

Many salutations!!! I am pleased that you took such an interest in my latest contribution to Wikipedia; when I started work on it, I was having some RL housing troubles because of my ex-landlord back in August 2011. The fact that it has taken me until January 2013 illustrates how adversely this has affected me.

The feature presentation is your appraisal of the recently-completed »Ashita no Nadja« episode synopsis page that I do not think has been thoroughly considered. If I recall correctly, here are the flaws that have been cited:

• This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (January 2013)
• This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (January 2013)
• This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (January 2013)
• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (January 2013)
• This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. (January 2013)

Let us look at these one at a time. I am at a loss for why you think that there are any spelling and grammar errors when I laid down for a good night's sleep prior to moving the page out of the user space so that fatigue is not a reason for me to overlook anything.

I do have to object to your declaration of the article possibly being too long to comfortably read and navigate.  »Ashita no Nadja« has FIFTY episodes in total ... that fact alone should make it clear that this is not going to be a short article. The plot of »Ashita no Nadja« involves multiple incidences of crossing between countries; if you look at the article really carefully, I have divided the fifty episodes based on their geographical setting. I will also take this opportunity to interject that I would have had a more difficult time composing that article if I had not done that.

On a related note, I take particular umbrage at your declaration of my plot summary being too long or excessively detailed; I exerted an immense effort to restrain myself from being pedantic. I should also point out to you that there is NOTHING stopping YOU from composing an »Ashita no Nadja« episode synopsis page from scratch if my handiwork is not to your liking. I did not see anybody else taking that first step and I am quite frankly appalled at the hypocrisy of the attempt thereof on my part being so caustically criticized. If I had perfectly composed all the articles I wrote, there would not be a need for anyone else to polish and refine it ... do you not think that insults the alpha premise of Wikipedia as a COLLABORATIVE endeavor?

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia.

Firstly, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour, and that everyone working here is trying to better ALL articles here. So please Assume good faith on the part of others, and that will make it a lot easier on everyone's part to work together. Also, may I also advise you to Keep Calm when in conversation with others. That will make it a lot easier for everyone to work productively.

Now to some more specific things - Firstly, EVERY single article here has taken a lot of time from others to be improved. All good and featured articles are weeks and months of hardwork. But those articles have also taken a lot of criticism and improvement on their way up there. In the end, we as readers see not the hardwork that's put in but the quality of the work. So I advise you to take all criticism in stride, and as pointers to further improvement.

Next, I would like to reply to your last paragraph. Please note that not every person here is expected to do the same job. I have absolutely no idea who 'Ashita no Nadja' are, but I have a good deal of idea on how good an article is, and what are potential problems in it. So I believe its unjustified to call for me to try and make the page, as that wont be where I am best in. After all, we need to have the best of all talents coming together.

Also, I apologise for simply placing the tags without explaining them completely. Unfortunately, everybody has a limited time, and I was reviewing several articles. So it was not very possible for me to explain each tag everywhere. I was hoping you would understand those tags yourself.

Now to the article itself-

• The first tag is of "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" and not just Grammar or spelling.My main concern with the page was its tone and style. The way it is currently written, its way too much like how a fan might describe it. We need to have it more clearcut, and the way you would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
• Here I would also like to point out that an article's size must be proportional to its notablity. I do not say anything about the show's notablity, but I am pretty confident it is not as big as the Simpsons, or I would have heard of it. Yet the article size is proportionally way larger than the Simpsons. On an average, every episode's synopsis will probably need to be halved.

I think I have covered all the other points and tags above. Please look into it and see how you can improve it. Or else (Its harsh but true), somebody else is going to nominated this page for deletion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikispace!

Click on "move"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that! My questions was more on the lines of "Should I?" and "Where do I transfer that? - Should we continue with the current name or have something different?"

Yes, if you think so. Or ask in that essay's talk page.. Wikipedia:Your article title --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, more clearly, I think I feel the article is ready to go, that's why I gave such a short reply "Click on "move"" by that I meant, go ahead! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Just a final question - Where should it go? And should it be aimed as a Project/ a Group or as an article? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Start as an article, then it can be moved somewhere if needed, Wikipedia:Your article title should be good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Last question - How to get that infobox of sorts around the first paragraph? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Which infobox? --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The first description paragraph need to have borders around it. How do I add that box? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Try something like this, change color etc

Note This is a Group of like-minded editors. We do not represent any particular interest on the Wikipedia. Our motive is solely a better Wiki for everyone. All opinions expressed anywhere are that of individual members, and not of the Group. Anyone may join the group, but the group founders and other experienced members of the group hold the rights to remove any member who is non-productive.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any way to centralise the text a bit - Start it 1-2 cm to the right and end 2 cm to the left of the respective borders? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made more fmt changes there, you can customize!--Tito Dutta (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Like. Looks professional now. I have no idea about how it should look and stuff, and so I would rather not try my hand. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI tables

So, what is up with the discussion area section and the Duel Masters thing at the bottom of the "Arts" section? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard we are going forward with is to have everything as a table. Every section has its own, and new nominations can go either directly, or through the old template when a volunteer shall place them.

Since tables are not very good for discussion, any article shall stay on the table as long as there is nothing to discuss and/or there are no opposes. Should there be any opposes, one of us shall export it out of the table to the discussion area, where discussion and voting continues the normal way.

How does that sound? (Now that I think of it, it better be clarified somewhere on that page) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Soni. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's very sad to see you leave Wikipedia. :( Please, come back. CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 08:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)