Talk:Wikimedia Forum
Please remember to:
|
 |
My account only for meta wikimedia? Can i edit Wikipedia with this account?[edit]
Please reply for my question
(Joyavit (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)).
- @Joyavit: All Wikimedia accounts are universal, as explained at unified login. You can check your account status as you expand your visits at special:centralauth/Joyavit. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanq @Billinghurst: I want to be a regular contribution in your meta wiki,what are best pages to star my edits?
- If you know another language than English, you could always contribute by translating pages that can be translated. Saederup92 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Joyavit: You are the same person that was blocked or locked under username (Omkaram12) and others. I would suggest that you do not edit here, and that you find a nice place to quietly and productively edit for the benefit of the community, not to cause further trouble. If you return to your previous actions you will just be blocked or locked again.
Please don't play us for fools. I will give you enough rope, and you get to decide whether you deal with it productively, or you are just going to hang yourself. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- My edits, for the benefit of the community, i never cause trouble to any one.promiss
Discussing disputes on other projects, here...[edit]
User:Fram was recently banned from editing the English language wiki, by the WMF. The ban was controversial, and generated a lot of comment.
Fram's ban prevented him from direct participation in those discussions, so he discussed it at his user talk page on the commons - until there were complaints that there were rules, on commons, that barred people from transplanting disputes from other wikis.
At that point Fram moved the discussion to his user talk page here, User talk:Fram.
In late July the English language wikipedia's ARBCOM announced it would conduct its own review of Fram's behavior. They invited those who felt they had been inappropriately targeted by Fram to anonymously submit evidence, from within the last three year. On August 3rd I left a couple of brief questions on en:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence.
In response Fram opened a section on his talk page entitled #Geo Swan (an example of how this is supposed to work?).
I don't know if his importation here of discussions about a dispute on another WMF project is appropriate. I'd like to know if it is allowed. FWIW , I was not one of the original complainants to the WMF. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why it wouldn't be so long as the content remains civil and is otherwise appropriate. Vermont (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Meta is the appropriate place to discuss "meta" issues regarding project governance. The talk page use on Commons was not necessarily overtly problematic, as others pointed out there. Users have fairly broad discretion in how to choose to utilize their user talk page, and this is fairly consistent across projects. However, Meta is the more appropriate venue.
- Issues regarding "importing disputes" are usually in reference to things like users nominating another's uploads for deletion due to a dispute on a Wikipedia, users importing content disputes that relate to media as well as article content (especially as it concerns maps), and blocked users who primarily use Commons as a way to appeal a block on another project, in clear circumvention of local policies for appeals. As there is no appeals process for the current block, it seems difficult to imagine how this could be construed as circumventing that process. Moreover, the enwiki ArbCom seems to have already indicated that they feel it is appropriate to review responses made here on Meta in addition to those made via email. GMGtalk 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
