User talk:Pulimaiyi
Add topicArchives |
|---|
You may be an eligible candidate for the U4C election
[edit]Greetings,
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years.
This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.
The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will week between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.
In partnership with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)स्विद्य॑ति (svídyati)
[edit]What was the issue with my edit that prompted a rollback? Graearms (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Graearms: Apologies if it came across as too aggressive, but that is just the default wording for the rollback feature. I just feel that the LIV's suspicion with regards to the relationship of the Sanskrit verb svídyati with the PIE reconstruction *swídyeti is unfounded. The etymology is crystal clear and patently visible. And the fact that this verb was first attested in Classical Sanskrit also does not matter, since, though relatively "late" in comparison to Vedic Sanskrit, Classical Sanskrit pre-dates much of the attestation that comes from Latin/Germanic/Slavic sources and we comfortably assign all these terms PIE etymologies. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 11:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Would there be a way to try to mention the LIV's objections as well as your own doubts about this LIV's statements? Because, eventually, some other editor is going to see that the LIV marks the term as uncertain, and they will probably add that information back into the entry. It might be best to try to fully explain the situation so as to prevent any potential confusion in the future. Graearms (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'll think about it, but I believe the etymology is complete and perfect as it is right now... -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 15:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Would there be a way to try to mention the LIV's objections as well as your own doubts about this LIV's statements? Because, eventually, some other editor is going to see that the LIV marks the term as uncertain, and they will probably add that information back into the entry. It might be best to try to fully explain the situation so as to prevent any potential confusion in the future. Graearms (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)