User talk:Sonia

User:Turtlestack
I am a contributor, not an Admin - but I however agree with you. Turtlestack should reframe from using explosive language, however, the opinions section is not filtered for bad or offensive language. People with opinions are advised to keep it civil but there is no rule to say they have to.

Right now, contributors and Admins will be commenting on Turtlestack's behaviour from a P.R point of view - he wont be punished but there will be consequences, that is to say that Wikinews, like all organisations has 'office politics' and Turtlestack might of just ruined some relationships/contacts/allies - if you get my gist.

I implore you to not judge Wikinews based on one person's actions and I hope you continue reading/contributing here.

Yours Sincerely

BKCW8 talk  09:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon rereading, I was being less than constructive as well. Given that I understand that the comment will not be overlooked, and that it is in no way indicative of the rest of the community, my comment could do little but incite drama. For this I apologize.
 * I should have also considered how frustrating it must be to receive thoughtless throwaway comments of the sort the IP posted; however, I do feel that the general public should not be expected to have such a high understanding (and appreciation for) the amount of effort that goes into the upkeep of this project.
 * Thank you for the note and I do hope I will be able to contribute to this community in a productive way. Regards, Sonia (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonia, Thanks for the good humour in which you appear to have taken that appalling abuse. I completely agree that "the general public" should not expect an extreme reaction to rudeness or bluntness. I am glad (and frankly surprised and quite humbled) that you stuck around to do some copyediting. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'm glad that you didn't see my comment as an overreaction. Thanks again. Sonia (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The unique comment namespace of Wikinews
Wikinews' Comments namespace is outwith the bounds of all but the most dire of civility guidelines; it is, indeed, a place to vent. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry for that. However, I find it puzzling that the comments namespace would be the one chosen for this– it is the place where the readers and contributors interact and surely you would want to portray a favourable impression of the community, however dysfunctional it may be under the surface? True, the readers will already be wreaking havoc there, but to most of them the community is the "staff" and perhaps should behave more professionally at least in their presence. I see that the point is moot now anyway. Sonia (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's usually a good idea for regular contributors, admins especially, to keep a cool head while in the comments section. But it's a nearly rule-free space, and occasionally a "staff member" of Wikinews will lose their head. The no rules thing is less about what we can say, and more about us making an effort not to censor what readers want to say about an article. They're free to say our articles are crap or biased. They're free to attack the subject of the article (barring libel). They're even free to flame and troll each other, as long as they don't go ballistic and start issuing serious sounding threats against each other. In short, we don't want to police (and politicize) our comments space in the way that organizations like BBC and CNN have... when they even allow comments at all.


 * There can be a fine line between normal incivility (there is no civility rule) and a delete-worthy post, but it's a line we *have* to walk. If we're seen to be deleting posts that we don't like, based on nothing but content, we'll be accused (perhaps rightly in some situations) of deleting posts for personal reasons, or because of political or religious content. As a WMF site we strive for neutrality (though it isn't always achieved... yet), so we don't want step into the minefield that is PoV deletionism.


 * Here's a list of things that aren't allowed to be posted in the comments section, as far as I understand:


 * 1) Linking to an external non-WMF site (link removed, post can sometimes remain)


 * 2) Personal attacks against non-public people (ie, famous people don't count), usually other commenters, that are sufficiently bad to warrant action (this is judged on a per-post basis, and different admins will make different calls)


 * 3) Clearly libellous statements against public figures. (post deleted)


 * 4) Copyright infringement (post deleted, warning issued on user talk page, possible ban in repeated)


 * 5) Death threats, that are clearly not a joke (local ban, likely global ban, possibly alert WMF, possible referral to local authorities if deemed necessary)


 * 6) Serious sounding suicide notes (always alert WMF, always contact local authorities)


 * 7) Advertising (insta-ban)


 * -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gopher65 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 July 2010
 * Pfffft. I was just going to post "yeah, I agree with this". Then I realized that I wrote it. Heh. Gopher65talk 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! アンパロ Io ti odio! 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion tag
You are right. Blatant copy and past is indeed a valid reason for speedy deletion. Thanks for adding the delete tag which (usually) quickly brings it to the attention of administrators like me who can delete it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
The IP talk page was a WN:SD candidate and has now been removed. Apologies for the mistaken removal. -- Sken   my talk 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? Sonia (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly removed your speedy delete tag from the talk page of an IP address - I have since deleted the page :) -- Sken   my talk 09:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. On hindsight, I should have added a reason to the tag. Sonia (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TB
User talk:Kayau

Uproar over light sentence of Hong Kong judge's niece
I notice you accidentally revealed your IP while editing this article. Would you like it removed? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, if it's not too late. Sonia‎ (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. You did it again here btw; I'm taking the liberty of hiding that as well. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...wow, SUL really isn't working for me. Thanks again. Sonia (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification addition attempts to http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Plants_may_adapt_faster_to_climate_change_than_previously_thought,_new_study_shows
Thank you for your clarification addition attempts to http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Plants_may_adapt_faster_to_climate_change_than_previously_thought,_new_study_shows "Plants may adapt faster to climate change than previously thought, new study shows"; alas, no edits were allowed, curiously. 99.27.174.186 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Climate change denial, Merchants of Doubt, and/or Politics of global warming (United States) may be of interest. 99.102.177.19 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sonia is not an administrator nor an active user here, she won't be of much help editing a protected article, that she can't edit. Diego Grez return fire 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you mean that Sonia was the one making the edits, which is also incorrect. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? The only thing I did was this, which was basic copyediting and clarifying of the scientific details (though the state I left the explanation of epigenetics in still left much to be desired- science isn't my major, much less genetics!) Whoever you're trying to contact, it's probably not me. Cheers. sonia 04:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
comes with reviewer, FYI. Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 11:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks like I'll be sticking with undo then- I won't ask for something I won't be using to full capacity, especially since I obviously don't deserve it. 'Tis probably better that someone else sight my occasional copyedits. Cheers. sonia 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
[ This] is a great copy edit and improved our Koran burning article by a country mile. Thank you! --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. sonia 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lulz
No, it was just a joke. The icon is great, and the best part is that it is free! (if you say so ;) --Diego Grez return fire 23:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Humour's going over my head this morning, sorry. Do you think the transparency and monochrome is all right, or should it be brighter/more opaque? sonia 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the notebook transparency should be a bit more opaque, but the OR icon looks good so far as it is. --Diego Grez return fire 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)