User talk:Axel xadolik

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta!

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Hello, Axel xadolik. 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). Happy editing!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, please do not compare Kotava Wikipedia test with other kinds of test wikis[edit]

In Talk:Language_committee#Good time to consider approving Japanese Wikivoyage or not?, you made a clearly-than-god wrong comparation between Kotava Wikipedia with Japanese Wikivoyage, maybe I pointed somewhat foggy, but in fact such comparations are logically wrong, please do not do so anymore, just A-N-Y-M-O-R-E. Because a constructed languages will require more than one year to judge eligibility as per LPP, and the eligibility of Kotava is in fact still being discussed by langcom members internally, this means that it's also possible that leads langcom to reject your test wiki, may with or without prejudices. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is another likely example: 5th Montenegrin Wikipedia request, the test wiki has 96 users, 38 of them are very active, de facto contributed 2064 pages by 10149 edits, but what happened in the langcom part? On hold, because langcom members have no consensus on its eligibility and do really have no connections with other test wikis. Just remember: comparation between to or more tests should always between "Discussion" and "Discussion", between "Verified as eligible" and "Verified as eligible"; and between "On hold" and "On hold", do not make cross-comparations unless in some rarely cases, where the eligibility is been contested. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
_________________
@Liuxinyu970226: the WP.Kotava project has been in the Incubator for more than 2 years, first point. There is a continuous activity for more than 15 months, every day (you can check). I'm the test administrator of this project and every day I contribute to it and observe what's going on in the Incubator, so I think I have a pretty accurate look at the reality of things.
Montenegrin (5th Montenegrin Wikipedia request, the test wiki has 96 users, 38 of them were very active...) is also a project that is blacklisted and its contributors have been completely discouraged, I know.
Like me, you are careful to respect the general rules and you are one of the few contributors trying to keep the Incubator up to date, to follow the different requests, etc.
But, unfortunately, and it cannot have escaped your notice, you must admit, as I and many other intellectually honest people have, that Langcom is no longer fulfilling its role at all. The main administrator, Steven, has gave up, disgusted by the lack of real involvement of the other members (except one or two, a bit). In 2019 (resume discussions on the official mailing list), it took until the summer for 7 projects that had been pending for months to be validated), and some were validated without any real discussion (N'qo, 150 articles, only 1 vote for after a week). Since November, it's nothing again.
Liuxinyu, if you draw up a worksheet table listing all the Incubator projects and their activity every month (as I do personally), to check that they meet the criteria for eligibility (3 active contributors per month for example, number and volume of new edits, % of interface translation, etc.), you would see that my comparisons are obvious.
Once again, the only thing I am calling for is respect for the rules laid down by Langcom itself, and respect for its own votes.
* and just for your information, have a look at this updated table of the comparative activity of the 9 constructed languages currently hosted on WP. Kotava has been systematically in 2nd or 3rd position on all criteria for months. (aks- = monthly; bu, bueem = page(s); webesik = contributors)
Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
All of what you're concerning, as per the newest respond under that discussion thread of langcom talk page, are to be answered by @Doc James: when possible, please do not ask me the questions that reads like "how can Kotava projects be eligible". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)