From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives (latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit

Friendly spaces and the Inspire Campaign[edit]

Hello Metapedians. As some of you are aware, the WMF Community Resources team is running the Inspire Campaign (background) in March. This campaign aims to encourage, foster, and fund new ideas and approaches to the gender disparity problem on the projects.

Discussions on the projects involving gender have a history of quickly becoming divisive and heated. This is not conducive to having productive conversations about solutions. In order to mitigate some of the worst types of discussions, the Inspire team has developed a set of expectations for participants in the IdeaLab pages.

The Inspire campaign has the potential to be an important step in making the projects a more diverse and inclusive place. However, without the support of the community, these expectations are not enforceable. Feedback on the page is welcome, and, if possible, help would be appreciated to watch the IdeaLab pages for incidents of harassment and disruption. By engaging on the appropriate discussions about the Inspire campaign and modeling the positive behaviors that are laid out there, we can help educate and convince other users to consider the manner of their interactions, and whether it meets those standards. There is going to be some interesting proposals, and, hopefully, some lively, collaborative, and productive conversations about how our projects can meet this challenge. Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As we're heading into the weekend in North America, staff will be reviewing any feedback, but probably not responding until Monday morning :) PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing! If only Wikipedia had (and enforced) these rules. harej (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

AbuseLog to link to CentralAuth, is that possible?[edit]

Hi. I think that AbuseLog patrolers and specially stewards would find useful to have a link to Special:CentralAuth in log entries on Special:AbuseLog. I tried to modify the message MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-entry and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-entry-withdiff without success. Any ideas? Perhaps a script can be made, like the one we use at the Special:Log/globalauth (question to self: not sure why that log does not link to Special:CentralAuth by default...). -- M\A 11:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The second parameter ($userLink) is hardcoded into the message with links (not only username) so we can't make the message link to CA without a script. I think it might be worthwhile to add another parameter (just for username) to it though. For your question to self, see phab:T91868. --Glaisher (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed[edit]

04:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keegan: I'm guessing the bot is following redirects, which leads to confusing messages like this one, the one on user talk:Matanya (who has a fully unified account), and the one on my talk page. If the bot follows redirects, I suggest mentioning that in the message to avoid confusion (like "This message was placed here because User talk:New user message redirects to this page"). —Pathoschild 04:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

i have worked life long on amphibians and reptiles of pakistan, and published extensively on the subject. i wanted to start a page on herpetofauna of pakistan, to present my research through this medium.

need your guidance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typhlops (talk)

Generally "original research" isn't permitted and will be deleted on Wikipedias, because folks would post crackpot theories, and start to sell snakeoil. The rules depend on the project, and if you want to publish reviewed content, e.g., a Google scholar search finds it and shows a non-zero "quoted by" number, it might be possible as wikisource, wikibook, or on wikiversity. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikibooks has a "no original research" policy but it is less onerous than that on most Wikipedias. For example, an original textbook that carries out some synthesis but is supported by references would be permitted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)