User talk:StevenJ81

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

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 | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days. For the archive overview, see Archives.

Tech News: 2019-26[edit]

17:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-27[edit]

21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you see the discussion first?[edit]

Please see what I wrote there first. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I did. I made the changes anyway. Let me please make the following points to you:
  • Decisions about project eligibility are made by the Language Committee. You are not a member of the committee. If you want to request a change, you can do that at Talk:Language committee. But you should not revert a decision on a Requests for new language page made by a committee member.
  • On most grounds, this project meets the eligibility criteria for new projects. See LPP. The one criterion it might not meet is #3—that it be sufficiently different from other languages to require its own project. That having been said, the Language Committee is usually somewhat lenient about that requirement, at least concerning non-European languages. The reason is simple: we are not extremely knowledgeable about some of the differences, and would rather err on the side of inclusion. As long as the ISO 639-3 authority has seen fit to issue a language code, our default position is that it is a separate language and is eligible for a separate project. Such projects sometimes have a value in being willing to focus on local issues better than the broader projects do.
  • This request was open for six years before I closed it. Why do you come here now after all that time, and to object? I'm really trying to get old requests taken care of.
  • The test project on Incubator has just enough content for me not to have closed the request as stale. Still, there aren't many pages in the Incubator test. Consider that the test project has only ten pages, and has been open for six years. The project may be eligible, but it won't actually be created until someone builds it into a real Wikipedia. And there is no evidence of that happening. (And given how little anyone has worked on the project, it doesn't really even seem like there's been a lot of time "wasted" on it, either.)
I don't understand why you feel this strongly about this matter. But I'll wait to revert you until I hear from you here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
StevenJ81 I am new here. I don't have much knowledge about this but I will ask for a membership. Anyway, you don't need to have extreme knowledge about the differences. If you are like in a 1st grade in Arabic school you would know that there are no differences between Arabic and Sana'ani Arabic. The different words that are not originally Arabic can be counted by hands fingers. The real difference between these two dialects is the phonetic sounds of the letters. Such as Jim, Sin etc. Saying that it is eligible is like saying that Texas English is not English. Anyway, I will ask for membership and I will object your decision. I have to sleep right now. I wouldnt probably reply for 6-8 hours.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam and MF-Warburg: Very well. I will not revert for now. Next time please make a request first. Anyone is entitled to have one of these requests discussed by the full Language Committee, so I will put this question before the committee. It will not happen until early next week, because of the US public holiday this week. Thank you for your understanding. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Arab contributors were invited by a user called علاء or alaa. Isn't that canvassing? I will help creating the project. My laptop screen is broken. I am using a small smart phone. Tomorrow I will repair my laptop. I need some instructions to start the test project. There are many Yemeni editors that can't edit in Wikipedia because their language is not acceptable in Modern standard Arabic Wikipedia. I am free these days. I will create that project. Don't believe those who say that Egyptian project has failed. Take a look by yourself. Many Egyptians are editing there. I want you to help me creating the Sana'ani project. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In the mean time could you make the project in the discussion phase not the eligible phase so that I can make more arguments and have much time to learn how to translate and create the test project. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-28[edit]

20:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your close[edit]

Thank you for responding to me here. I do think the essay suggestion reads a bit like Westerners telling non-Westerners to pipe down about issues that impact them, and unfortunately wouldn’t really capture the volume of opposition to this within the Arabic Wikimedia community. If there was an essay, I think it really should include a petition section where people can endorse with their own comments.

The issue isn’t with a forking of It has to deal with the very real animosity that would be generated towards the WMF and other Wikimedians by approval of a project like this. We can’t afford to cause that in one of the most successful non-European projects, and the irony here is that in trying to expand to other underserved populations, we may actually be decreasing the service we’d provide. I appreciate your commitment to take any opposition to the board if it gets to that stage, because even though it’s long term, the approval of something that would be so controversial really requires them to be fully aware of the issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Opinion is important. But you also have to keep in mind that at least officially, decisions on these things are taken by LangCom and not by community preference. LangCom uses SIL codes by default precisely because these things aren't black and white, and different people feel differently about them. So using a published, reliable source as a default gives LangCom something fairly objective to stand on.
Why are you convinced that there would be so much animosity generated by this project, anyway? I ask this especially in light of the fact that (a) I don't really think it's all that likely that a full-fledged Sanaani project will ever see the light of day, and (b) it's really likely to be a narrowly focused project if it does?
Additionally, I'm personally not convinced that the community at approaches these things from a neutral point of view. While I'm not sure that SharabSalam's problems on arwiki aren't partly (mostly?) of his/her own making, I'm suspicious that dissenting points of view at arwiki are suppressed. That's a problem, too. And if that's true, how much do we worry about the animosity you are concerned about? (That's a real question. I don't know.)
Related: I just Google-translated ar:ويكيبيديا:الميدان/منوعات because I got mentioned there. Some people are proposing suppressing this test project by simply taking it over. That, too, makes me suspicious of the neutrality here.
No, I don't think we want to be "Ugly Westerners". But we also have principles around here, and we're entitled to live by them, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Even though I’m being critical here, I really do appreciate your responses and openness to talk about the proposal. I’ve always had very positive interactions with cross-wiki and have never experienced NPOV issues when users there come over to and are involved in disputes. To answer your question: I would read the google translate you cited very differently than you. I would read it as you inadvertently sparking such a controversy on a pre-existing project that compared to most is run pretty effectively caused them to respond equivalently to how has responded to the Fram mess. That’s just you marking it as eligible even though it’s unlikely to ever become a full project. Imagine the outrage there would be if it were ever approved.

I know you don’t mean it this way, but your last sentence here is pretty tone deaf and is unlikely to help this situation. The concern among Arabic speaking users is that the LangCom is coming in and making a project that would impact them without even consulting them. Replying that you don’t want to be an ugly westerner but that LangCom can overrule a community that you think has issues without bothering to talk with active Arab Wikimedians first is just going to increase distrust. I’m not Arab and don’t speak Arabic, but I’ve found that simply talking to this community when there are interproject concerns almost always leads to reasonable dialogue and outcomes. Talking to people in that community about legitimate concerns, not lecturing them as others did at the proposal page would really decrease the temperature. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) Like I said, I really appreciate you responding. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I doubt I'll do more today, though. I do have a day job. :) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-29[edit]

15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A request to see deleted edits of files[edit]

I need to see "Deleted version and deleted content" of seven files,see below,

  1. Talk:Remarks on collecting address when organizing event
  2. User talk:NumCinq
  3. User talk:Advo7
  4. User:Badvogato
  5. wikidata:User:Advogato2
  6. wikidata:User talk:Lzhwp
  7. it:Discussioni utente:CometQ

Thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

MCC214 I'm really not comfortable with this, and in any case I could only help you on the first four, as I don't have rights on Wikidata or itwiki. Better you should ask the stewards. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
They requested before on SRM and RFH, told to find local sysops on a case-by-case basis by stewards and meta sysops. Just to let you know the background. --Cohaf (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Very well. The content of the first four pages is included in the collapsed section below. (I cannot help you with the other three.) The only change I made was to deactivate all internal and external links. I would appreciate your letting me know when this issue is finished so that I can archive the content promptly. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@MCC214:See above, hope it enough for you. Thanks Steven for digging.--Cohaf (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)