[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Wikipedia English English

[Jack & Naree]

Mark,
 I'm going to respond to you, because I think you're crying out for help
(...and because I want to try to adhere to Wikipedia ettiquette and repair
any damage).
 You don't sound remotely calm or considered.
I think you ought to re-read this post to me, and think about it.
It's no surprise that you decide to focus on the fact that I submit "teh" as
"the" without correcting it; it strikes me you do it to feel better about
yourself.
That is an example of troll behaviour. If you were interested in debating
properly you wouldn't pump out such childish shit. I'm at fault for
responding to it similarly, out of annoyance.
 I have read what I've sent. I have made errors. I have conceded,
apologised, and corrected myself.
 You have simply had an air of a superiority complex right from the first
reply.
 The things you've just ranted about "American English is ugly" - where did
say that? I didn't.
"...Americanised" - I made a case for it, not refuted.
"..spell better.." - Wrong again, I never said or suggested that, more of
your consistent bollocks.
 ...and no, (to add to the list of things I also never said) I didn't say
it's not OK for you to call me xyz, several others said that. Frankly, you
should know better.
 I'm not impulsive in calling you an impulsive, petulant, self-important
twat. I've thought about it; I've read your crap; and you are definitely all
of those things, and you're proving it now, and I'd be happy to scibble it
all over your face.
 You're regularly being impulsive with your hurried replies making
accusations you haven't checked the facts of, and it shows in your frantic
style of writing; you're being petulant because of your frantic desperation
to prove yourself right and "win", in addition to your general unreasoned,
un-backed-up hostility right from the kick off; you're self-importance shows
in the way you constantly write and mock as though you believe you are an
ultimate authority, e.g.: "When Mark Wiliamson calls you a troll, you must
be one, I think" - I bet you wrote the book on self-importance; it all adds
up to being a twat, and your comebacks are hopeless.
 As far as "nettiquette" goes, there's one rule I know: "Don't say anything
you're not prepared to say to someone's face." I doubt very much you and or
chums have a cock and balls between you, except your boyfriend's.
  I am not the only person who feels dissatisfied with the Americanisation
of Wikipedia. Someone else proposed this, I merely support it.
  Aubergine, as you must know, unless you're a complete fuckwit, is merely
an example of one of the kinds of unintelligibility and linguistic
preference problems. There are Wiki pages already listing unintellibilities
between the two dialects, which are nowhere near completed; they will get
much longer.
 The fact that we are having a heated row about this is no evidence of
intelligibility; it may actually turn out to be evidence of the opposite. Do
you actually know what evidence is?
The instance I gave my encounter with an American over "What's Up"
illustrates how identical vocab, grammar, and syntax does not equal
identical semantics, it can be unintelligible.
Do you remember what you responded with? I doubt it - too busy patting
yourself on the back for your "witty" Trollish quips.
 The idea that American-English is an offshoot of English is actually a
semantic issue.
I am stating that the name "English" has already been used (like a domain
name), and I'm talking about the written word as standardised in England, so
arguing the toss over dialects inside England, and in people's living rooms
is a red herring. You can argue that the term "English" be reappointed to
name a genus of dialects, but I'm arguing that that particular name applies
most aptly to the dialect that has developed in the same geographical place,
among the same ethnolinguistic group where it autochthonously evolved from
Anglo-Saxon into what we know today.
That particular debate is over what names apply to what. Americans call what
we speak "British English", but if you go to the wiki article, you'll see
that that term is not accepted in Britain or England; people feel, and in my
view, rightly, that the prefix is unwarranted. It's a result of having a
country made up of countries.
I've never said my English is better than yours; I've said that too much of
the stuff called English in Wikipedia is not recognisable English in England
and plenty of other places.
 The main part of what pisses me (and others) off, is the fact that most of
the English is American, and non-English speakers are going to read articles
written in American, and think that that is the standard form. I want them
to know that it isn't; that it's the standard form for a dialect of English
called American English - that's what the OED calls it, so should Wikipedia,
in the name of accuracy, accessibility, inclusivity and fairness.
.
 Finally, no, I'm calling you a bully and an ostracist.
Your silly absolutist playground statements like "nobody agrees with you
about xyz" are fluent trollish; plenty of people here are intelligent enough
to pick and choose for themselves what they do and don't agree with, without
your rather de-legitimised recommendations.
 You can't even respond positively to any constructive comments, you have to
run for the cover of your "innernet buddies".
 How anyone as ridiculous as you can call me anything is beyond
comprehension.
 On 23/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What seems clear is that Mark has been consistently argumentative,
> > facetious, and fallacious; and even more so since this post.
>
> Hah.
>
> > Not satisfied with trying to start a "row", he wants to ban me for not
> > agreeing with him.
>
> Ban you? No, that was someone else. I just want you to leave
> peacefully, or quit being a troll.
>
> > I think he is coming across as needlessly aggressive and pompous.
>
> Likewise. Have you read any of your own e-mails? To say that you don't
> like reading American English words, and that it troubles you, is one
> thing, but to go around saying that American English is wrong, ugly,
> etc, etc, etc, and then to call all non-Americans who agree with
> current policy "Americanised", is nothing less than trolling for
> suckers.
>
> > However wrong or stupid anyone thinks my posts are, vomiting bile
> through
> > the keyboard is out of order.
>
> Maybe, before saying such things, you should take your own advice?
>
> > Mark clearly didn't check his facts before digging his troll-hole, and
> now
> > looks silly, that's not my fault. I apologise for using caps, I did it
> to
> > distinguish my text from his, not for any other reason, Mark's drivel
> didn't
> > get me remotely excited or annoyed - clearly you can't tell teh
> emotional
> > content of everything in text form.
>
> Before criticising teh other variants of teh English, perhaps you
> should take a look at your own English? Don't tell teh Americans how
> they misspell things when your own spelling isn't perfect. Teh teh teh
> teh teh. Now, there is a time and a place for teh, as in "teh
> internets", or "teh intarweb", or "teh website".
>
> I will put up with misspellings from most people, as they're perfectly
> natural. But for a pompous, stuck-up person like you, who insists that
> they can spell better than a nation of over 300 million people, I am
> willing to make an exception.
>
> > Anyway, You can't just label everyone you disagree with a troll or make
> > trollish statements like "x is so obviously trolling us" and not expect
> a
> > negative response, if you don't understand what a troll is, search
> > wikipedia.
>
> Have I labelled everyone I disagree with a troll? I have disagreed
> with people such as Fuzheado, Wouter Steenbeek, Walter van Kalken,
> Lars Aronsson, and many others. At times, it has gotten quite ugly. I
> have been called a troll before, and I've also seen some noteworthy
> praise. But you are the first person _I've_ ever called a troll. And
> for good reason.
>
> When Mark Williamson calls you a troll, you must really be one, I
> think. Especially if Jimbo Wales agrees.
>
> > I came here not to spend time arguing with impulsive, petulent,
> > self-important twats like Mark, but to try and get a change that someone
> > else proposed, in fact.
>
> Ahh, so it's not OK for me to call you a troll and tell you you're
> barking mad, but it IS aux quay for you to call me an impulsive,
> petulant, self-important twat? Wow, Jack, you are really an impulsive,
> petulant, self-important twat.
>
> > If you look trough Wikipedia, there is stuff on Commonwealth English,
> and
> > on the differences.
>
> There are differences. Nobody disputes that. You just seem to be the
> only person to think that they're significant enough to merit a
> separate Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of
> articles. All of them should be easily comprehensible to all English
> speakers.
>
> Aubergine/eggplant might be a problem. But it's one article.
>
> If you can link a few articles which you can't understand, then
> perhaps people will be more receptive to your tro... err... ideas.
>
> > What's abundantly clear is that the language of the USA is markedly
> > different to that of the British Isles. In Grammar, vocabulary,
> spelling,
> > and semantics; and this means that it can make it unintelligible to
> non-US
> > English speakers. It IS legitimate and accurate to call it a foreign
> > language from the perspective of an English speaker from England and the
> > British Isles in general, because a large amount of commonly used vocab,
> > grammar, syntax and semantics are both unintelligible (to varying
> degrees);
> > and simply not accepted as the way to speak the language (more than just
> > spelling).
>
> Occasionally unintelligible. But the very fact that you, a Scotsman
> (or, perhaps, a Commonwealther), and I, an American, are having a
> heated exchange of insulting e-mails is proof enough for me that
> American and British English are mutually intelligible enough so as to
> NOT warrant separate Wikipedias.
>
> > Evidence has been posted (not by me) on this list (see the Wiktionary
> posts)
> > that AmE and BrE (OED terms) have distinct orthographies.
>
> No kidding!?
>
> > Would anybody on this list disagree that AmE is a clearly distinct
> dialect
> > of English? It would appear not.
>
> Yes, but then, many people here are also arguing that BrE is a
> distinct dialect of English. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that
> one is a dialect of the other, which is a linguistic impossibility.
>
> > These two factors alone seem to be enough for other dialects to get a
> > Wikipedia.
>
> Such have been considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, and in
> such cases there was a consensus of ALL native users of that variety
> that there should be a separate Wikipedia. So far, the vast number of
> Brits to disagree with you has shown that this is not the case here.
>
> > Whether "British English" gets it's own Wiki is up to British people
> > contributing.
>
> Yes. And besides you, nobody really seems to want that. Ahh, and Mr
> My-English-is-better-than-yours, it's "its" (as a posessive).
>
> > Rowan's suggestion of a machine translation solution to the problem is
> > worth looking at to satisfy Wikipedia "Unionists", but the needs of
> > Wikipedia "Nationalists"can't be bullied and ostracised as "trolls".
>
> So, are you calling Jimbo Wales a bully and an ostracist?
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>