Welcome to Meta!Edit
Hello, Dronebogus. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Answer at the discussion of DronebogusEdit
Dronebogus, I created the proposal to Wiki Bible because I believe in the Bible. I am divulging the word of God. Please, change your opinion for in favour of the Wiki Bible, and you evangelicals, please, vote in favour of the Wiki Bible.
Leonardo José Raimundo (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Leonardo José Raimundo, https://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Categoria:B%C3%ADblia and https://pt.wikiquote.org/wiki/B%C3%ADblia already exist for this topic. I respect your faith but it is not Wikimedia’s job to promote any particular religion. Dronebogus (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up to your proposalEdit
Hello! Thank you for your comments there, and I'd like to clarify a few things. For context, I've been involved with small-wiki content assistance for years, and have had many good and bad experiences trying to fix anti-LGBT content on small projects, everything from admins simply making the requested change and thanking me for noticing, to users ending up community and WMF banned for enforcing anti-LGBT policy.
Stating that "non-English projects are getting away with" homophobia is a misunderstanding of the problem. Many projects, including English-speaking ones, have unsourced and opinion-based content on gender and sexuality topics. Though it more frequently occurs on projects whose language is common in a country with anti-LGBT+ laws or culture, this isn't an English vs. everyone else issue as you imply. LGBT+ Wikimedians originate from every linguistic background, and on each project that struggles with maintaining neutral LGBT+ related content there are generally editors on multiple sides, with relatively few exceptions. Many projects have articles on LGBT+ topics which are split between neutral and homophobic, as many editors with differing intentions edited the given page independently.
Anti-LGBT+ content, and any sort of bigoted or opinion-based content in general, tends to arise on projects where individuals, who hold strong opinions that they're interested in posing as fact, are given sole editorial authority with no oversight or checks. The only time a top-down approach is really needed is when such an individual or small group are the only administrators, and are preventing discussion and the improvement of content. As an example, the now-globally and WMF banned user Til Eulenspiegel was formerly an administrator on the Amharic Wikipedia and enforced anti-LGBT+ content and conduct guidelines. Generally speaking, civil discussion with local editors is the best method of achieving lasting improvement in content.
On the topic of the Universal Code of Conduct, it is a conduct policy, not a content policy. Though bigoted and opinionated anti-LGBT+ content is not something that is welcome on Wikimedia projects, it does not inherently fall under the purview of the UCOC, though I suppose that may be up to interpretation. With your reference to WM LGBT+, it is not an inclusivity initiative, it is a Wikimedia user group that intends, with varying degrees of success, to represent queer Wikimedians.
I appreciate your eagerness in this, but a top-down, English vs. the rest of the world approach is ineffective at acheiving lasting and positive change in the nuanced landscape that is the Wikimedia community. As for what does tend to work, I have left a comment here, and I hope it helps. Best regards, and please let me know if you have any questions, Vermont (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiktionary Multimedia: Stalled or Staled?Edit
For this project proposal, you marked it as "Stale (could be re-opened)" on the main PNP list, but also marked "Stalled" within this proposal page, I need a clarification on the actual status of it, as both are different English words. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- They mean the same thing in this context Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
you have closed wikilawsuitsEdit
you said this text is incomprehensible. but it is not completely incomprehensible, for example, there are english words, which should be comprehensible each itself. you should be able to show at least a one point in the text which is incomprehensible, like several words used together and the meaning formed by them is not acceptable, because it contradicts some well known ideas, facts, or some other place of the text. --QDinar (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- “open way to write declarations and track and upload documents and link to them for court publicly for topics that bother many people” is most of the “proposal” and it’s an incoherent run-on sentence. I don’t know what else to say, you can re-open it if you’re convinced it will find support, which is highly unlikely in its current state. Dronebogus (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- i have reopened it. the mistake appeared easily. the first version of the same sentence is ok. in the second the "and link to them" is added in the wrong place. i think you could edit it by yourself, you could write to me publicly in my talk page, or send me email, to show the wrong text. --QDinar (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
you have again closed it! it is said in the rules, in the process description:
it is clearly redundant to another project or project proposal, or is not a serious or intelligible proposal— i.e. jokes, trolling, proposals with extremely vague scope, and patent nonsense (tag "Procedurally closed");
do you think that after 1 month you have written a critic comment and i have not answered it, you have right to close it? btw you have not proven that it is not understandable. this time you had only written "still don’t understand what this is at all" . i am going to answer to you again in that location also as i answered here, and to reopen it. --QDinar (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Queering Wikipedia 2022 AnnouncementEdit
Wikimedia LGBT+ and the organizing team of Queering Wikipedia is holding a Queering Wikipedia 2022 Meeting for LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies. The program will start with an informative, social and cultural activity on Friday 21st October at 18h UTC and working sessions on Saturday 22nd from 14h until 18h with an informal follow-up.
If you have been an active Wikimedian, contributing on LGBT+ topics, supporting LGBT+ activities or if you identify as part of the larger LGBT+ community and allies in Wikimedia, please come help us build our network of LGBT+ Wikimedians, set goals and develop our organization.
We will be meeting online, but encourage you to join in person with fellow Wikimedians if easy and safe. Our working languages are English and Spanish.
Registration for this online event is free and is open until Friday 21st October at 21h UTC.
More information, and registration details, may be found on Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/QW2022
Thanks, from Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikidebat stale ?Edit
Hi, i wrote Years ago this wikimedia sister project that's true, but i think it necessary for me to keep this page open. For me it is not closed, thanks for your understanding. Wiikkkiiii (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you’re asking the answer is no. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)