[Foundation-l] Please REJECT the latin wikinews project. inmediatly

[Ray Saintonge]

Al Tally wrote:
> 2008/6/23 Ray Saintonge
>> Al Tally wrote:
>>     
>>> 2008/6/20 Thomas Dalton
>>>> Agreed. A Simple English Wikinews would be really useful. Getting
>>>> internationally relevant news in every language is difficult, but
>>>> getting it in Simple English would be easy, and then a large number of
>>>> people can benefit from it
>>> See
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Simple_English
>>     
>>> It cannot be created.
>> That's a rather categorical POV push on your part.
>>     
> No not on my part. I simply am stating what was written on the page by
> Pathoschild.
>
>   
OK, I'll take that at face value.  In closing the discussion, 
Pathoschild is presumably expressing the collective view of the 
committee.  If your categorical sounding comment was intended to be 
ironic a smiley would have helped.  Without it, it at least sounds 
defeatist.
>> Your lack of
>> imagination should not be treated as a condition equivalent to everyone
>> else's disability.
>>     
> Sigh. I'm an admin on Simple English Wikipedia. I would love a Simple
> English Wikinews. In fact I even offered to help on the original proposal. I
> don't suppose you noticed any of that.
>   

I didn't, and I just checked the history of the discussion, and found 
nothing by you in there.  Some of us only hear about these discussions 
after the fact, and can't be expected to know where other discussions on 
the subject have taken place.
>> While it is true that simple languages do not have separate ISO codes
>> from their complete counterparts, reference to that seems more like an
>> excuse than a reason.
>>     
> See above. I am *for* the idea, not against.
>   

I accept that now that I know that to be the case.  In this and my 
following comment I was addressing the specific comments in the closing 
statement for the request.
>> The closing statement on the cited page also states:
>>    1. No standard orthography,
>>    2. No literature.
>> These are both utterly false.
> Perhaps they are false; however your massive assumption of bad faith here
> makes me ask "Was I right to vote for you in the board election?" I'm not so
> sure. Please don't take my comments in the wrong way again. I said "It
> cannot be created" not "I don't want it". Thank you.
>
>   
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your comment.

Ec