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_… 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(a)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 &lt;mjbmri(a)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: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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 &lt;toniogreen(a)web.de&gt; 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.

On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If. 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. If. to deny content in a legitimate script for their language. > If. inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval. 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/ _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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, GerardM On 3 May 2015 at 19:41, Michael Everson &lt;everson(a)evertype.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

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.

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 &lt;mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com <mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com>> wrote: 2015-05-03 23:17 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)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? 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 &lt;everson(a)evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>> wrote: On 3 May 2015, at 07:14, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: what it wants... If. 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. If. option for them to deny content in a legitimate script for their language. > If. policy, we will inform the board and give the board two weeks to express their approval. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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.

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.

On 4 May 2015, at 09:45, Oliver Stegen &lt;info(a)oliverstegen.net&gt; wrote: 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(a)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: -- 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(a)web.de _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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" &lt;toniogreen(a)web.de&gt; כתב: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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 &lt;info(a)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: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Hoi, Without feedback I am against a new project.

On 7 May 2015, at 09:31, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

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 &lt;everson(a)evertype.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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" &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)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 &lt;everson(a)evertype.com <mailto:everson@evertype.com>> wrote: On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

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.

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 &lt;mjbmri(a)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: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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: _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)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 &lt;everson(a)evertype.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Gerard, Oliver said: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

On 9 May 2015, at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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? Show your thanks by showing LangCom some respect. Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

On May 5, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Oliver Stegen &lt;info(a)oliverstegen.net&gt; 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 _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

After a lot of researches I'm in favor of moving az to azj.

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: -- 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(a)web.de _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

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