Hi,
The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless.
This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards.
I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed.
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them: * The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common conversations ("Village Pump"). * Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this, major changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata) * Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script. * The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires adding markup to show the pages correctly.
But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict.
In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_A...
IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong.
Other opinions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
On 2 May 2015, at 17:22, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Because of this, there should be two separate Wikipedias.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script.
BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example:
/Page/: az: /Səhifə /(sahifeh), azb: /صفحه /(safhe)
Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian.
Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless.
This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards.
I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed.
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them:
- The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common
conversations ("Village Pump").
- Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this,
major changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata)
- Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful
for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script.
- The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires
adding markup to show the pages correctly.
But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict.
In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_A...
IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong.
Other opinions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 19:50, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script.
BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example:
*Page*: az: *Səhifə *(sahifeh), azb: *صفحه *(safhe)
Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian.
Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless.
This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards.
I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed.
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them:
- The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common
conversations ("Village Pump").
- Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this, major
changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata)
- Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful
for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script.
- The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires
adding markup to show the pages correctly.
But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict.
In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_A...
IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong.
Other opinions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I don't agree that az has to be moved in order to have azb. The code no is for a macrolanguage covering nn and nb, yet our Wikipedias are named no and nn, not nb and nn. So there's nothing wrong with keeping az where it is and having it be for North Azeri, while opening a second Wikipedia for South Azeri at azb. I also don't agree that having a separate South Azeri Wikipedia is any way denying anyone's roots; Azeri of all varieties has been written in the Arabic script longer than the Latin script.
So yes, I support creating azb.
Antony Green
On 2015-05-02 21:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 19:50, Mjbmr <mjbmri@gmail.com mailto:mjbmri@gmail.com> wrote:
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script. BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example: /Page/: az: /Səhifə /(sahifeh), azb: /صفحه /(safhe) Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian. Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia. On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:Hi, The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless. This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards. I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed. As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one. Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels. Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them: * The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common conversations ("Village Pump"). * Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this, major changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata) * Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script. * The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires adding markup to show the pages correctly. But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict. In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_Azerbaijani IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong. Other opinions are welcome. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, The issue of Norwegian and its code was never an issue for us to decide. At this time it is for the Azerbaijanis to decide what they are and take the consequences. It is not as if there is no price to pay for splitting up. Our argument for no Southern Azerbaijani Wikipedia was EXACTLY that we did not want to break az up. The Northern Azerbaijanis have as much right to that label as the Southerns. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 21:11, Antony Green toniogreen@web.de wrote:
I don't agree that az has to be moved in order to have azb. The code no is for a macrolanguage covering nn and nb, yet our Wikipedias are named no and nn, not nb and nn. So there's nothing wrong with keeping az where it is and having it be for North Azeri, while opening a second Wikipedia for South Azeri at azb. I also don't agree that having a separate South Azeri Wikipedia is any way denying anyone's roots; Azeri of all varieties has been written in the Arabic script longer than the Latin script.
So yes, I support creating azb.
Antony Green
On 2015-05-02 21:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 19:50, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script.
BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example:
*Page*: az: *Səhifə *(sahifeh), azb: *صفحه *(safhe)
Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian.
Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless.
This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards.
I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed.
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them:
- The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common
conversations ("Village Pump").
- Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this, major
changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata)
- Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful
for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script.
- The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires
adding markup to show the pages correctly.
But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict.
In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_A...
IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong.
Other opinions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31, WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)30 34 50 98 97 Mobile: +49 (0)176 82 29 59 20 E-mail: toniogreen@web.de
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and they will lose the az code. When they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered. Thanks, Gerard
On 3 May 2015 at 07:36, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The issue of Norwegian and its code was never an issue for us to decide. At this time it is for the Azerbaijanis to decide what they are and take the consequences. It is not as if there is no price to pay for splitting up. Our argument for no Southern Azerbaijani Wikipedia was EXACTLY that we did not want to break az up. The Northern Azerbaijanis have as much right to that label as the Southerns. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 21:11, Antony Green toniogreen@web.de wrote:
I don't agree that az has to be moved in order to have azb. The code no is for a macrolanguage covering nn and nb, yet our Wikipedias are named no and nn, not nb and nn. So there's nothing wrong with keeping az where it is and having it be for North Azeri, while opening a second Wikipedia for South Azeri at azb. I also don't agree that having a separate South Azeri Wikipedia is any way denying anyone's roots; Azeri of all varieties has been written in the Arabic script longer than the Latin script.
So yes, I support creating azb.
Antony Green
On 2015-05-02 21:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 19:50, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script.
BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example:
*Page*: az: *Səhifə *(sahifeh), azb: *صفحه *(safhe)
Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian.
Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless.
This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards.
I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed.
As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one.
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them:
- The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common
conversations ("Village Pump").
- Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this,
major changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata)
- Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful
for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script.
- The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires
adding markup to show the pages correctly.
But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict.
In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_A...
IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong.
Other opinions are welcome.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31, WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)30 34 50 98 97 Mobile: +49 (0)176 82 29 59 20 E-mail: toniogreen@web.de
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When
If.
they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and they will lose the az code.
No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content.
When
If.
they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When
If.
we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered.
The options are”
1) Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed.
2) Keep az.wikipedia.org for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add azb.wikipedia.org or az-arab.wikipedia.org for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran.
3) As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org for Latin and make them use asj.wikipedia.org. This is a bad idea.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.,
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options
- they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation - they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When
If.
they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and
they will lose the az code.
No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content.
When
If.
they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them
to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When
If.
we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will
inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come to
a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered.
The options are”
Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed.
Keep az.wikipedia.org for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add
azb.wikipedia.org or az-arab.wikipedia.org for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran.
- As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org for Latin and make them use
asj.wikipedia.org. This is a bad idea.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Is there any discussion going on there? btw I don't think it's required, if we move az.wikipedia.org to somewhere else we're gonna deal with a lot loosing ranks and that's not acceptable in any way. Also if azwiki community decides they want to move their domain, there will be a lot of absent people mad at you later, be aware you're moving a encyclopedia, my opinion is let's just keep it for technical issues and start helping South one get a place.
On 5/4/2015 1:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.,
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options
- they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation
- they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
Thanks,
GerardMOn 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > I have had some more thoughts on this.. > > My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it wants... > > Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When If. > they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and they will lose the az code. No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content. > When If. > they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them to deny content in a legitimate script for their language. > > When If. > we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval. > > We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered. The options are” 1) Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed. 2) Keep az.wikipedia.org <http://az.wikipedia.org> for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add azb.wikipedia.org <http://azb.wikipedia.org> or az-arab.wikipedia.org <http://az-arab.wikipedia.org> for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran. 3) As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org <http://az.wikipedia.org> for Latin and make them use asj.wikipedia.org <http://asj.wikipedia.org>. This is a bad idea. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I care deeply about Wikipedia but I do not care for the wrong reasons. Ranks is not one that I care about. People being mad. sure they have their own fall guy already. It is not only technical we have a policy because we want to prevent such shenanigans not give it to such heavy handed thuggery. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 May 2015 at 23:38, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any discussion going on there? btw I don't think it's required, if we move az.wikipedia.org to somewhere else we're gonna deal with a lot loosing ranks and that's not acceptable in any way. Also if azwiki community decides they want to move their domain, there will be a lot of absent people mad at you later, be aware you're moving a encyclopedia, my opinion is let's just keep it for technical issues and start helping South one get a place.
On 5/4/2015 1:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.,
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options
- they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation
- they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
Thanks,
GerardMOn 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it
wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When
If.
they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and
they will lose the az code.
No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content.
When
If.
they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them
to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When
If.
we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will
inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come
to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered.
The options are”
Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed.
Keep az.wikipedia.org for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add
azb.wikipedia.org or az-arab.wikipedia.org for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran.
- As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org for Latin and make them use
asj.wikipedia.org. This is a bad idea.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 3 May 2015, at 22:48, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I care deeply about Wikipedia but I do not care for the wrong reasons. Ranks is not one that I care about. People being mad. sure they have their own fall guy already. It is not only technical we have a policy because we want to prevent such shenanigans not give it to such heavy handed thuggery.
Rigidity in policy is foolish. Automatic transliteration between Latin and Arabic CANNOT WORK. Therefore legibility must trump other concerns.
Keep az.wikipedia.org for the Latin script, and add a new Wiki for Azeri in Arabic script.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On 3 May 2015, at 22:38, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any discussion going on there? btw I don't think it's required, if we move az.wikipedia.org to somewhere else we're gonna deal with a lot loosing ranks and that's not acceptable in any way. Also if azwiki community decides they want to move their domain, there will be a lot of absent people mad at you later, be aware you're moving a encyclopedia, my opinion is let's just keep it for technical issues and start helping South one get a place.
I agree.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
2015-05-03 23:17 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.,
Actually we didn't decide to reject it; the discussion simply fell asleep because of differing opinions and several unclear things. The request on Meta is still marked as open.
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options
- they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation
- they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
You do know that the policy says the following?
The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a
more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language.
- *The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case basis. The committee does not consider political differences, since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities. <<*
In my opinion, the decision must be made on the basis on mutual intellegibility between the two versions and on practicability of having two scripts in one wiki. It seems that it is not practicable here to have two scripts in one wiki, because of the two versions of the language also differ.
Also, I'm sure you know that wiki renames are at the moment not possible (< https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T21986%3E). I see no problem with creating azb, and then later when it is *at all possible,* one can think about renaming az to azj as necessary.
Thanks,
GerardMOn 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it
wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When
If.
they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and
they will lose the az code.
No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content.
When
If.
they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them
to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When
If.
we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will
inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come
to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered.
The options are”
Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed.
Keep az.wikipedia.org for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add
azb.wikipedia.org or az-arab.wikipedia.org for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran.
- As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org for Latin and make them use
asj.wikipedia.org. This is a bad idea.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Our policy is one where one person can derail a decision. We have stalemats aplenty.
It is for the az.wikipedia community to decide what they want. They have an option to derail their az.wikipedia or not. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 May 2015 at 23:50, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2015-05-03 23:17 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.,
Actually we didn't decide to reject it; the discussion simply fell asleep because of differing opinions and several unclear things. The request on Meta is still marked as open.
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options
- they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation
- they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
You do know that the policy says the following?
The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a
more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language.
- *The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case
basis. The committee does not consider political differences, since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities. <<*
In my opinion, the decision must be made on the basis on mutual intellegibility between the two versions and on practicability of having two scripts in one wiki. It seems that it is not practicable here to have two scripts in one wiki, because of the two versions of the language also differ.
Also, I'm sure you know that wiki renames are at the moment not possible (< https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T21986%3E). I see no problem with creating azb, and then later when it is *at all possible,* one can think about renaming az to azj as necessary.
Thanks,
GerardMOn 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have had some more thoughts on this..
My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it
wants...
Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When
If.
they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and
they will lose the az code.
No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content.
When
If.
they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them
to deny content in a legitimate script for their language.
When
If.
we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will
inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval.
We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come
to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered.
The options are”
Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed.
Keep az.wikipedia.org for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add
azb.wikipedia.org or az-arab.wikipedia.org for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran.
- As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org for Latin and make them use
asj.wikipedia.org. This is a bad idea.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
Further reasoning from my side: Asaf has already informed us that the rogue az:wp admin is to be dealt with by the stewards. We shouldn't punish an entire community because of one bad admin. The difficulties of having one Azeri wikipedia for both communities in different countries reading different scripts have been amply explained.
Let's not escalate that az:wp admin's confrontation by being even more confrontational ourselves but rather let's strive to be pragmatic and conciliatory. Thanks.
Yours for making the entirety of human knowledge available to everyone on this planet in the language (and script) they understand best, Oliver
On 04-May-15 1:07 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Our policy is one where one person can derail a decision. We have stalemats aplenty.
It is for the az.wikipedia community to decide what they want. They have an option to derail their az.wikipedia or not. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 May 2015 at 23:50, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com> wrote:
2015-05-03 23:17 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>: Hoi, It is simple. We have a policy. As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so., Actually we didn't decide to reject it; the discussion simply fell asleep because of differing opinions and several unclear things. The request on Meta is still marked as open. There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options * they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation * they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available. You do know that the policy says the following? >> The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. * /The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case basis. The committee does not consider political differences, since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities. <</ In my opinion, the decision must be made on the basis on mutual intellegibility between the two versions and on practicability of having two scripts in one wiki. It seems that it is not practicable here to have two scripts in one wiki, because of the two versions of the language also differ. Also, I'm sure you know that wiki renames are at the moment not possible (<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T21986>). I see no problem with creating azb, and then later when it is /at all possible,/ one can think about renaming az to azj as necessary. Thanks, GerardM On 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>> wrote: On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > I have had some more thoughts on this.. > > My proposal is to have the az.wikipedia community decide what it wants... > > Do they want a Latin only Wikipedia or not. When If. > they do, there Wikipedia will be renamed to Northern Azerbaijani and they will lose the az code. No! That’s your agenda. Leave it as it is, take the Arabic out and put it into a new Wiki. That seems to be what the users want. They haven’t said “We want to relabel the languages”. They’ve said they don’t want to mix script content. > When If. > they want to keep Arabic after all, it is no longer an option for them to deny content in a legitimate script for their language. > > When If. > we agree that this makes sense in the light of our policy, we will inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval. > > We will then put it to the az.wp community and it is for them to come to a decision they will have to live with. There will not be any other options considered. The options are” 1) Do nothing. Keep scripts mixed. 2) Keep az.wikipedia.org <http://az.wikipedia.org> for Latin. This is a national orthography. Add azb.wikipedia.org <http://azb.wikipedia.org> or az-arab.wikipedia.org <http://az-arab.wikipedia.org> for the Arabic-script version, which is used in Iran. 3) As 2) but deprecate az.wikipedia.org <http://az.wikipedia.org> for Latin and make them use asj.wikipedia.org <http://asj.wikipedia.org>. This is a bad idea. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote:
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it. בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote:
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri
in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31, WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)30 34 50 98 97 Mobile: +49 (0)176 82 29 59 20 E-mail: toniogreen@web.de
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action?
Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp.
Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote? Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it?
Oliver
On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it.
בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" <toniogreen@web.de mailto:toniogreen@web.de> כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.) If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj. I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab. Best, Antony On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote: South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script. On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote: On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen <info@oliverstegen.net <mailto:info@oliverstegen.net>> wrote: Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia. I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns. I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2015-05-05 9:30 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net:
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action?
Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp.
Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote?
Often, we wait one week or so for opposes. However, ever since I am a member and also before that, decisions were always taken by consensus, which was interpreted to mean unanimously.
Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it?
If we decide to approve a new wiki, we file a bug and developers make it happen.
Oliver
On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it. בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote:
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri
in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Without feedback I am against a new project. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 May 2015 at 09:30, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action?
Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp.
Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote? Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it?
Oliver
On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it. בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote:
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri
in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard, I don't get why Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia has two scripts ku.wikipedia.org and ckb.wikipedia.org.
On 5/6/2015 8:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Without feedback I am against a new project. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 May 2015 at 09:30, Oliver Stegen <info@oliverstegen.net mailto:info@oliverstegen.net> wrote:
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action? Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp. Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote? Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it? Oliver On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu. The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb. There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it. בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" <toniogreen@web.de <mailto:toniogreen@web.de>> כתב: If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.) If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj. I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab. Best, Antony On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote: South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script. On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote: On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen <info@oliverstegen.net <mailto:info@oliverstegen.net>> wrote: Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia. I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns. I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Everything is nor easy not obvious. ku.wikipedia existed prior to the existence of the language committee. Kurdish is a macro language and it would not be accepted at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 02:09, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, I don't get why Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia has two scripts ku.wikipedia.org and ckb.wikipedia.org.
On 5/6/2015 8:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Without feedback I am against a new project. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 May 2015 at 09:30, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action?
Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp.
Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote? Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it?
Oliver
On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it. בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote:
South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri
in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 7 May 2015, at 09:31, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Everything is nor easy not obvious. ku.wikipedia existed prior to the existence of the language committee. Kurdish is a macro language and it would not be accepted at this time.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
The code “ku" existed for a long time before Wikipedia. It is only SIL that re-defined it in Ethnologue and we know SIL isn’t perfect. Same as “no" for Norwegian.
Gerard, you are blocking progress on ideological grounds. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Happy birthday, by the way. :-) Sorry we are disputing, but I don’t think your position on this is wise.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Hoi, Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
For the record I am against at approving under the current circumstances. Thanks, Gerard
PS Thanks :)
On 7 May 2015 at 10:42, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 09:31, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Everything is nor easy not obvious. ku.wikipedia existed prior to the
existence of the language committee. Kurdish is a macro language and it would not be accepted at this time.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
The code “ku" existed for a long time before Wikipedia. It is only SIL that re-defined it in Ethnologue and we know SIL isn’t perfect. Same as “no" for Norwegian.
Gerard, you are blocking progress on ideological grounds. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Happy birthday, by the way. :-) Sorry we are disputing, but I don’t think your position on this is wise.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects
another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Who says that I am doing anything and what do you base it on that I am wasting time?
You are wrong and I have my reasons. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 May 2015 at 09:58, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects
another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 8 May 2015, at 10:08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Who says that I am doing anything and what do you base it on that I am wasting time?
Are you doing something? What? Are you talking to Azeris? Is the discussion public or private?
You are wrong and I have my reasons.
Why is he wrong?
What are you reasons?
On 8 May 2015 at 09:58, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote: Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Gerard,
Please concentrate on interacting with voting LangCom members more than on replying to unhelpful accusations by observers. Both Michael and I have asked you to make concrete suggestions about how you want LangCom to move forward and avoid the current impasse caused by your veto.
Looking forward to your *concrete* suggestions, Oliver
On 08-May-15 12:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Who says that I am doing anything and what do you base it on that I am wasting time?
You are wrong and I have my reasons. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 May 2015 at 09:58, Mjbmr <mjbmri@gmail.com mailto:mjbmri@gmail.com> wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project. On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:Gerard, I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh* How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks. Oliver On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>> wrote: On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Can you be more specific please?
On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 8 May 2015, at 18:12, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
Can you be more specific please?
The situation is simple.
The current Azeri Wiki is disfunctional because readers of Azeri in Arabic script cannot usually read Azeri in Latin script and vice-versa. Reliable and reversible transliteration cannot and does not work. One editor even went so far as to blank a massive amount of data from the wiki (if I understand correctly).
The fix is easy: A request already exists for a Southern Azeri Wiki, “azb”. The work for that is well advanced. All LangCom has to do is approve it, and then all Arabic-text data from az.wikipedia.org can be migrated there.
Once that is done, nothing else needs to be done. Latin-text Azeri can continue at az.wikipedia.org. Arabic-text Azeri will be found at azb.wikipedia.org.
That’s it.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Asaf had written on 07-May-15 3:48 AM (GMT+3):
"Mjbmr: I think you've shared valuable information here, but you do need to exercise more patience with the process. LangCom deals with complex decisions that are relatively high-stakes, in the sense that once things are set in motion they are quite difficult and perhaps impossible to undo/reverse. So deliberation and patience are the natural modes for it."
I concur with his advice. So please be patient and let LangCom do their job. We appreciate your input on the relevant language background. However, any additional messages now detract from the time and energy which LangCom members have available for dealing with the complex decisions we are mandated to make (and this detraction actually includes me writing this message).
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:12 PM, Mjbmr wrote:
Can you be more specific please?
On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
As I said before, I have rights to speak, and you can ignore whatever you don't like, I'm nothing to affect your decision, but ovisily this shows that much my information are important that makes a langcom member think more.
On 5/9/2015 12:13 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Asaf had written on 07-May-15 3:48 AM (GMT+3):
"Mjbmr: I think you've shared valuable information here, but you do need to exercise more patience with the process. LangCom deals with complex decisions that are relatively high-stakes, in the sense that once things are set in motion they are quite difficult and perhaps impossible to undo/reverse. So deliberation and patience are the natural modes for it."
I concur with his advice. So please be patient and let LangCom do their job. We appreciate your input on the relevant language background. However, any additional messages now detract from the time and energy which LangCom members have available for dealing with the complex decisions we are mandated to make (and this detraction actually includes me writing this message).
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:12 PM, Mjbmr wrote:
Can you be more specific please?
On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
In my capacity as co-admin, I have put Mjbmr on moderation for now. Constructive message will be let through; the rest withheld.
A.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, I have rights to speak, and you can ignore whatever you don't like, I'm nothing to affect your decision, but ovisily this shows that much my information are important that makes a langcom member think more.
On 5/9/2015 12:13 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Asaf had written on 07-May-15 3:48 AM (GMT+3):
"Mjbmr: I think you've shared valuable information here, but you do need to exercise more patience with the process. LangCom deals with complex decisions that are relatively high-stakes, in the sense that once things are set in motion they are quite difficult and perhaps impossible to undo/reverse. So deliberation and patience are the natural modes for it."
I concur with his advice. So please be patient and let LangCom do their job. We appreciate your input on the relevant language background. However, any additional messages now detract from the time and energy which LangCom members have available for dealing with the complex decisions we are mandated to make (and this detraction actually includes me writing this message).
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:12 PM, Mjbmr wrote:
Can you be more specific please?
On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email. Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects
another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard,
Oliver said:
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters.
Please respond to this. If you don’t we cannot consider your No vote to be actionable, and we should go ahead and approve azb noting your minority abstention.
This is a crisis for LangCom. It is not like other decisions. Action needs to be taken, and one action is easy and would solve the problem quickly.
Michael
Hoi, I have stated that I am pursuing some things. Do not push me. I am getting more and more annoyed. Thanks, Gerard
On 9 May 2015 at 13:45, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Gerard,
Oliver said:
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand
that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters.
Please respond to this. If you don’t we cannot consider your No vote to be actionable, and we should go ahead and approve azb noting your minority abstention.
This is a crisis for LangCom. It is not like other decisions. Action needs to be taken, and one action is easy and would solve the problem quickly.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 9 May 2015, at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have stated that I am pursuing some things. Do not push me. I am getting more and more annoyed.
No. This is not cool. What are you pursuing? Why can the other members of LangCom not know about them?
Thanks,
Show your thanks by showing LangCom some respect.
Michael
Michael, I am sorry but you can take a hike. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 May 2015 at 15:17, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 9 May 2015, at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have stated that I am pursuing some things. Do not push me. I am
getting more and more annoyed.
No. This is not cool. What are you pursuing? Why can the other members of LangCom not know about them?
Thanks,
Show your thanks by showing LangCom some respect.
Michael
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 9 May 2015, at 15:49, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I am sorry but you can take a hike. Thanks, GerardM
It doesn’t sound like you’re sorry. It sounds like you’re pursuing your own agenda in secret apart from your colleagues in LangCom and this doesn’t seem to me to be a wise thing to do. You’ve been asked simple questions. Like “What’s the URL where you expect this discussion with the community to be on?” Like “What sort of time scale do you have for you to make your decision to block or permit the creation of the Southern Azeri Wikipedia?”
I don’t see why those questions aren’t questions that you can’t answer. These processes should be open, not proprietary. Yet you’re exercising a veto without discussion. In ISO what we do when we get a No Vote without an explanation is we “note” it and then we move on.
But I can take a hike. Evidently I shouldn’t ask you simple questions like those I have asked several times already.
Your attitude to this matter makes me angry. And it doesn’t seem like you.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
All:
Gerard and I have had civil off-line discussion and I’d like to affirm our mutual desire to work for the good of everybody.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
That is good to hear.
Does it also bring a progress in the Azb question?
2015-05-09 20:15 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
All:
Gerard and I have had civil off-line discussion and I’d like to affirm our mutual desire to work for the good of everybody.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
It's obvious azwiki wants a separate azbwiki. Am 08.05.2015 07:09 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects
another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
The border decided to split these two languages and it's only obvious that these are separate languages based on resources which we has two different language codes , not only opinions of a group of active people can decide. But Azerbaijan Country (North Azerbaijan) has the right to hold az code as long as they're the mother country of Azerbaijani. If we decide to don't use iso639-1 and use only iso639-3 we might also rename Persian Wikipedia from fa to fas and create a prs wikipedia.
On 5/8/2015 11:47 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
It's obvious azwiki wants a separate azbwiki.
Am 08.05.2015 07:09 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date. Thanks, GerardM On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>> wrote: On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse. Answer my questions. Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 8 May 2015, at 06:08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date.
Holy hand grenades of Antioch, Gerard. Answer the questions.
WHERE do you expect this discussion and feedback to be had? What is the complete and accurate URL for this discussion?
WHEN do you expect there to be discussion?
WHO is the person whose judgement will sway you?
These are not difficult questions. Please answer them, or stop exercising a veto.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On 6 May 2015, at 16:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Without feedback I am against a new project.
It isn’t a new project. There’s already an existing request for a Southern Azari wiki.
We should approve this, now, and let the community get on with it.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
I am in favor of the proposal. Search needs to work and agree rigidity for the sake of following established rules isn't as valuable as providing a useful knowledge source and a community that can work together to maintain it.
Regards,
Karen Broome
On May 5, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Amir, can you give us an update on what happened since that az-wp admin's ugly action?
Gerard had proposed that we only act after interacting with the az communities on their preferences. However, I'm afraid that this will cause only further division (quite apart from the fact that azj speakers and azb speakers do not seem to be able to communicate with each other in writing). So, as has been suggested in an earlier message for LangCom to take action asap in our role as "appointed experts", I vote to approve the outstanding request for azb-wp.
Have I counted correctly that we're now 5 in favour and 1 against? How much longer must we wait for other LangCom members to cast their vote? Who is able to implement our decision? Or at least communicate our decision to those who will implement it?
Oliver
On 04-May-15 10:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: I'm with Antony: what that admin did is ugly and wrong, but it's only a symptom, and according to what I know about this language, the right solution to the problem is to split the site, similarly to what is done with Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu.
The spoken language may be the same, but the written languages are not, in practice, mutually intelligible, because the Arabic script is not studied by people in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and vice-versa, so the languages are not unique enough to exist within the same site. As I wrote earlier, I'm surprised that they held together for so long. The codes should be az and azb.
There is an outstanding request for azb Wikipedia, and there is an active localization community, and we should simply approve it.
בתאריך 4 במאי 2015 21:31, "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de כתב:
If the Azeri Wikipedia community wants separate Wikipedias for Latin and Arab script, I'm in favor of doing that, partially because of the impossibility of automatic conversion and partially because of the linguistic differences between Northern and Southern Azeri, which if I've understood the situation correctly are greater in the written language than the spoken language. (In this respect the difference between the languages is reminiscent of the difference between Hindi and Urdu: the spoken languages are largely mutually intelligible, but the written languages are not, for one thing because the scripts are different and for another because learnèd words are borrowed from different sources.)
If that is the route we go, then I'm in favor of keeping the status quo at az-wp, namely that it is written in Northern Azeri (the standard language of the Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Latin script; it need not be moved to azj.
I would prefer that the Arabic-script Southern Azeri Wikipedia use the code azb and not az-Arab.
Best, Antony
On 2015-05-04 15:52, Mjbmr wrote: South Azerbaijani has a iso 639-3 code and that's azb and not az-arab, there are resources that make this language separate from North Azerbaijani and that's not just script.
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Michael Everson wrote: On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Rigidity fine. Have it then. I am opposed to an az-Arab Wikipedia.
The question as put by Amir is that we need a discussion for a solution. Amir indicates that there was no consensus and that the situation was to be dealt with by others.
I want to know what the result of this action is.
At this time I am opposed to any and all solutions because we know not enough. We take a leap of faith as if this is what the community wants. We do not know.
This is not the time to go for a final solution. It is time to learn what the Azeri community wants.
Wikipedia has rules and coming to a conclusion at this is not right.
Sorry for not being native English I expect that you understand my point. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 May 2015 at 15:23, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen info@oliverstegen.net wrote:
Sorry, Gerard, but I'm voting with MF, mjbmr and Michael to let Azeri in
Latin script keep az.wikipedia. I also vote for opening a new wikipedia for Azeri in Arabic script, preferably az-arab.wikipedia.
I recommend that we go to the community and tell them that we want to create just that, az-arab.wikipedia, as the solution that we (the appointed experts) feel is best for their concerns.
I do not believe you will find them opposing it. If however we give them a basket of options (some of which this committee does not support) then we are only prolonging problems.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 3 May 2015, at 22:17, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is simple. We have a policy.
If the policy is impractical, it’s not worth adhering rigidly to.
As a consequence of that policy we did reject a southern Azeri Wikipedia. We did so because it was included in the az.wikipedia. Now one administrator decides to force an issue by deleting articles in the Arabic script. That is not acceptable particularly not because there was no consensus for him to do so.
Trying to mix Latin and Arabic scripts in a single encyclopaedia is the problem. Policy that says they must be mixed is the problem.
There is no reason at all to give this silly sod what he wants. There are multiple options • they can restore the articles an the az multi script situation
That’s not good for readers.
• they can vote to have a separate Northern ie Latn script Wikipedia
No reason for that.
When they have made their choice our policy does deny them the az,wikipedia because effectively it is a new one., Az is a macro language code so it is not available.
It is no different from “no” for Norwegian.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On 3 May 2015, at 06:36, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The issue of Norwegian and its code was never an issue for us to decide. At this time it is for the Azerbaijanis to decide what they are and take the consequences. It is not as if there is no price to pay for splitting up. Our argument for no Southern Azerbaijani Wikipedia was EXACTLY that we did not want to break az up. The Northern Azerbaijanis have as much right to that label as the Southerns.
Nynorsk and Bokmål have equal rights to be considered Norwegian.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On 2 May 2015, at 20:01, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
Gerard, PLEASE learn the difference between “when” and “if”. It really matters.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots.
Don’t be so judgemental where a practical matter is in question.
There’s nothing wrong with az-latn.wikipedia.org and az-arab.wikipedia.org either, using script codes. Or az.wikipedia.org as it is and a new az-arab.wikipedia.org
The chief question seems to be script, not language. Ethnologue at least says nothing about mutual intelligibility.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.
On 5/2/2015 11:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The code az is fpr a macro language. There are two languages North and South Azerbaijani. North Azerbaijani is written in several scripts according to Ethnologue. To the point where it was only written in the Arab script until the 1920's Having it in the Latin script which is official in Azerbaijan is fine when we rename this project to azj.
I am fine with having an azb under the circumstances when they truly want to deny their roots. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 May 2015 at 19:50, Mjbmr <mjbmri@gmail.com mailto:mjbmri@gmail.com> wrote:
Even if the conversion was possible, there is no possibility we can determine in software one article written in which script and show it with both scripts in public URLs to make search engines find them, because South Azerbaijanians are not gonna search in Latin, also there is no possibility one user can edit an article in Latin script and other user edit the same article in Arabic script. BTW, there are a lot different between these two dialects, example: /Page/: az: /Səhifə /(sahifeh), azb: /صفحه /(safhe) Also, South Azerbaijani derives more words from Persian. Indeed there should be a South Azerbaijani Wikipedia. On 5/2/2015 8:52 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:Hi, The thing I feared has happened: A conflict erupted in the Azeri Wikipedia over the question of whether articles in Arabic script should be there, or only in Latin. A consensus was not reached, but an administrator decided to delete thousands of pages in the Arabic script nevertheless. This is a very severe action, and I suspect that that administrator's permissions should be suspended, but that's a matter for Meta stewards. I raise this question here, because a proper long-term solution for the problem is needed. As a reminder, the Azeri language is written in two scripts: Latin in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Arabic in the Azerbaijan region in Northern Iran. As far as I know, both are actively used, and the users of each script cannot read the other one. Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels. Until recently, the two scripts somehow lived together in the same wiki, despite the major technical problems with it, among them: * The users of the different alphabets cannot really have common conversations ("Village Pump"). * Only one article can be linked using Wikidata (to resolve this, major changes are needed in MediaWiki core and in Wikidata) * Be default the Latin script is used for the UI, which is not useful for anonymous readers who want to use the Arabic script. * The two scripts have different directionality, and this requires adding markup to show the pages correctly. But as I wrote above, now this long period of peace has ended, and unfortunately there is a major conflict. In the past we already discussed the possibility of creating a separate Wikipedia in the Arabic script: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_South_Azerbaijani IIRC, we decided not to support it, but I'd like to discuss this again. My impression is that there are good-faith contributors who want to write in the Arabic script, and now they are essentially expelled, and this is wrong. Other opinions are welcome. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 12 May 2015, at 09:17, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.
I oppose this. That would break many existing links. We also did not move Bokmål from no to nb.
In the bibliographical world, az is used primarily for the national language of the state of Azerbaijan. The overwhelming majority of text in any Azeri language is in Northern Azeri, whether in Cyrillic or in Latin. Southern Azeri does not have the same place in the educational system of Iran, for instance. There is much less text in it.
We should add azb and move Arabic-script articles there and leave az alone.
I have fundamental opposition to moving az to azj.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
I agree with Michael. Moving az to azj is unnecessary and would cause more problems than it would solve.
On 2015-05-12 11:55, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 09:17, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.
I oppose this. That would break many existing links. We also did not move Bokmål from no to nb.
In the bibliographical world, az is used primarily for the national language of the state of Azerbaijan. The overwhelming majority of text in any Azeri language is in Northern Azeri, whether in Cyrillic or in Latin. Southern Azeri does not have the same place in the educational system of Iran, for instance. There is much less text in it.
We should add azb and move Arabic-script articles there and leave az alone.
I have fundamental opposition to moving az to azj.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Let alone the fact that moving wikis is impossible anyway at the moment. Am 12.05.2015 12:00 schrieb "Antony Green" toniogreen@web.de:
I agree with Michael. Moving az to azj is unnecessary and would cause more problems than it would solve.
On 2015-05-12 11:55, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 09:17, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.
I oppose this. That would break many existing links. We also did not move Bokmål from no to nb.
In the bibliographical world, az is used primarily for the national language of the state of Azerbaijan. The overwhelming majority of text in any Azeri language is in Northern Azeri, whether in Cyrillic or in Latin. Southern Azeri does not have the same place in the educational system of Iran, for instance. There is much less text in it.
We should add azb and move Arabic-script articles there and leave az alone.
I have fundamental opposition to moving az to azj.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31, WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)30 34 50 98 97 Mobile: +49 (0)176 82 29 59 20 E-mail: toniogreen@web.de
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, You are comparing two things that are not the same. The Norwegian issue is prior to our committee and therefore has never been ours to decide.
When you start using the fundamental word, you stop any and all conversation. You have been pushing me and now you push even more using this strong language... Not good, not nice, not helpful. There are other issues involved and what you in effect do is tell me that I have no option but to agree, Sadly the one way I can disagree is by just saying no and, so far I have with the proviso that I am in the process of looking into things. When I am done, I reserve my right to continue my disagreement Thanks, Gerard
On 12 May 2015 at 11:55, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 09:17, Mjbmr mjbmri@gmail.com wrote:
After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.
I oppose this. That would break many existing links. We also did not move Bokmål from no to nb.
In the bibliographical world, az is used primarily for the national language of the state of Azerbaijan. The overwhelming majority of text in any Azeri language is in Northern Azeri, whether in Cyrillic or in Latin. Southern Azeri does not have the same place in the educational system of Iran, for instance. There is much less text in it.
We should add azb and move Arabic-script articles there and leave az alone.
I have fundamental opposition to moving az to azj.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard,
Since you are keeping your cards so close to your chest, it is hard to know what you are “looking into”.
You are comparing two things that are not the same. The Norwegian issue is prior to our committee and therefore has never been ours to decide.
I really don’t see how the two situations aren’t the same.
I see this:
A crisis. A wiki exists with two sets of articles and half the community can’t read the other half’s texts. There simply must be a split, because transliteration does not work on technical and structural grounds.
A solution: Split the wiki into two.
Method A: Add a new “azb". Get the Arabic-script texts moved there. Leave “az" alone. We’re done. Problem solved.
Method B: Add a new “azb", and a new “azj" Causes more trouble than it is worth.
Whether “no" vs "nb/nn" existed before our committee doesn’t matter — or I certainly don’t see how it does. SIL’s “macrolanguage” category may be practical for some work. It is not practical with regard to Latin-script "az".
I believe that there is no difference between “no" vs "nb/nn" on the one hand and “az" vs "azj/azb” on the other. Wikipedia needed “nb” and created it. Wikipedia left “no” alone. We should do the same here. Create “azb” and leave “az” alone.
On 12 May 2015, at 11:06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you start using the fundamental word, you stop any and all conversation. You have been pushing me and now you push even more using this strong language... Not good, not nice, not helpful. There are other issues involved and what you in effect do is tell me that I have no option but to agree,
I really really want you to be open with the members of this committee. You’ve exercised a veto and we don’t know why. You’re looking into something and we don’t know what. That behaviour is not helping anyone understand what you are doing.
Sadly the one way I can disagree is by just saying no and, so far I have with the proviso that I am in the process of looking into things. When I am done, I reserve my right to continue my disagreement
Why? For a principle? I’m interested in resolving a crisis and structurally the “no”~"nb/nn" and “az”~"azj/azb” scenario I described does, in fact, solve it.
If there are other issues, none of us but you seem to know what they are. Is it pushing to ask you to tell us?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
First of all, I apologies for commenting because I'm not a member. I think this is a second discovery that we must believe these are two separate languages after SIL. There are enough evidence that says South Azerbaijani (some people call it only Arabic variant of Azerbaijani) people want a separate wiki, and people from North Azerbaijani admit that they don't want Arabic script articles, OK, that's enough, but since "az" is a macro language and azwiki is not including other dialects, we must move it from "az" to "azb", and when we don't have a wiki for Azerbaijani macro language, we can redirect az.wikipedia.org to azj.wikipedia.org.
On 5/12/2015 3:36 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
Gerard,
Since you are keeping your cards so close to your chest, it is hard to know what you are “looking into”.
You are comparing two things that are not the same. The Norwegian issue is prior to our committee and therefore has never been ours to decide.
I really don’t see how the two situations aren’t the same.
I see this:
A crisis. A wiki exists with two sets of articles and half the community can’t read the other half’s texts. There simply must be a split, because transliteration does not work on technical and structural grounds.
A solution: Split the wiki into two.
Method A: Add a new “azb". Get the Arabic-script texts moved there. Leave “az" alone. We’re done. Problem solved.
Method B: Add a new “azb", and a new “azj" Causes more trouble than it is worth.
Whether “no" vs "nb/nn" existed before our committee doesn’t matter — or I certainly don’t see how it does. SIL’s “macrolanguage” category may be practical for some work. It is not practical with regard to Latin-script "az".
I believe that there is no difference between “no" vs "nb/nn" on the one hand and “az" vs "azj/azb” on the other. Wikipedia needed “nb” and created it. Wikipedia left “no” alone. We should do the same here. Create “azb” and leave “az” alone.
On 12 May 2015, at 11:06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you start using the fundamental word, you stop any and all conversation. You have been pushing me and now you push even more using this strong language... Not good, not nice, not helpful. There are other issues involved and what you in effect do is tell me that I have no option but to agree,
I really really want you to be open with the members of this committee. You’ve exercised a veto and we don’t know why. You’re looking into something and we don’t know what. That behaviour is not helping anyone understand what you are doing.
Sadly the one way I can disagree is by just saying no and, so far I have with the proviso that I am in the process of looking into things. When I am done, I reserve my right to continue my disagreement
Why? For a principle? I’m interested in resolving a crisis and structurally the “no”~"nb/nn" and “az”~"azj/azb” scenario I described does, in fact, solve it.
If there are other issues, none of us but you seem to know what they are. Is it pushing to ask you to tell us?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
No public conversation about approval of South Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been going on since last month please give us some update.
There has been a mail recently on 3 July. Am 05.07.2015 08:43 schrieb "Mjbmr" mjbmri@gmail.com:
No public conversation about approval of South Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been going on since last month please give us some update.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2015-05-02 18:22 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Automatic conversion between the two scripts, as it is done for Kazakh and Serbian, is impossible, because the Latin orthography doesn't include capital letters and vowels.
A question of understanding: isn't it rather the Arabic script which doesnt have capital letters and vowels? If so, shouldn't a Latin->Arabic conversion be possible? (Also on srwiki you always have to edit the Cyrillic script, AFAIK)