Leaderboard
- Help & FAQ
- Manual (to create a wiki)
- Community portal
- Editing help
- Language support
- <translate> Sandbox</translate>
Welcome to Wikimedia Incubator!
At the right there are some important links, and here are some tips and info:
- If you haven't created a user page yet, please create one with for example Babel templates on it.
- You can select your interface language in your preferences.
- If you make articles, templates or categories, don't forget to add a prefix!
- If your knowledge of English is good, you can help with translating pages to other languages you know, so more people can understand it!
- If you want to translate the interface, please go to Translatewiki.net and follow the instructions.
Please, no more bludgeoning, nor be another person's meatpuppet
editLooked through your Special:Contributions/Leaderboard, it looks like you don't have time on understanding how to contribute the Incubator, rather you just want to keep a dead-end "test project" that, as per m:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Middle_English_5#Other_Comments/Discussion, nothing new here. As explained by langcom members year by year, month by month, and day by day, New Wikipedias in ancient or historical languages are not allowed by the Language Proposal Policy, that's just defined by the WMF's babelstone, and any breaking of it is just breaking the peace of Wikimedia movements. Such bludgeoning of iteration of the past failed suggestions will give no hope of accomplishing anything. It can be proposed by billion times, but what will be changed? As Middle English is historical, it's of course ineligible for having its Wikipedia, so why still "keep a project" that is really going to be under guillotine? Iterations won't help on changing anything, but rather gave other people lesser and lesser on trusing your ideas, hopefully you can read my messages carefully rather than unfair removal. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Indeed, I don't contribute to Incubator. I am not criticising you on your opinion (nor do I decide what goes on there); I replied to counter your unnecessary complaining about that user creating a new account. My support/oppose has nothing to do with the comment I made to you. Leaderboard (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I promise that what I said on I:RFD are totally suggestions, not "force"s, I can't force someone to do sth, only policies can, not all thing found on Wikipedia: namespace pages are Wikipedia-only, AGF is an example, so can't clean start be also? Hopefully you may consider dropping your really unnecesarry "condemn"s, from "Stop it." to "but that's off-topic here" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The user has clearly gotten your message. You don't have to keep on parrot-repeating over and over again on "clean start", and I said "stop it" because it's not the first time you've been bringing this exact point against the same user, and other users have confirmed that the user is doing nothing wrong.
- Regarding your other point, no. AGF is a policy that is explicitly promoted in many Wikimedia projects, including Wikibooks. Indeed, what this user did (from a purely technical sense) is rather odd in that it's not something commonly done in Wikimedia (where renaming is usually done instead), but it does not fall foul of any policy. The main difference is in a clean start, the intention is to have no connection between the old and new account. In this case, it's very clear that the user has no intention of hiding the connection - which makes it closer to a sockpuppet account (which is allowed by global policies). This is something that I think should be reasonably inferred by someone like you; the only difference from a traditional case of users having two accounts is that in this case, one account is left with no intention of editing. Leaderboard (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- AGF, on Meta-Wiki, isn't a policy nor a guideline too, that's just an essay. So what thing on Meta should be "formally approved"? I'm confused on it. "and other users have confirmed that the user is doing nothing wrong" Sure? But indeed I need to focus on their more editting patterns than account creations, I don't expect to hurt anyone just only based on account names. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Normally I would expect a formal policy to have something like meta:Template:Policy-cross-project. Also, I am not sure on what you mean by "indeed I need to focus on their more editting patterns than account creations" - if the relationship of the two accounts is clear, why should that be needed? Leaderboard (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- AGF, on Meta-Wiki, isn't a policy nor a guideline too, that's just an essay. So what thing on Meta should be "formally approved"? I'm confused on it. "and other users have confirmed that the user is doing nothing wrong" Sure? But indeed I need to focus on their more editting patterns than account creations, I don't expect to hurt anyone just only based on account names. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I promise that what I said on I:RFD are totally suggestions, not "force"s, I can't force someone to do sth, only policies can, not all thing found on Wikipedia: namespace pages are Wikipedia-only, AGF is an example, so can't clean start be also? Hopefully you may consider dropping your really unnecesarry "condemn"s, from "Stop it." to "but that's off-topic here" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)