I said I *thought* you had missed the point, and you assured me that you hadn't. It seemed like you did, based on what I thoughed the point was. Your reaction just seems awfully arrogant to me, as the only way to know whether you've truly missed the point is to talk it over with the person who made the point in the first place, which you didn't do.
Let me explain in more detail: This is just an example, much like the one that I once made (and many people failed to get) about how many of our present Wikipedias would not have been started if current requirements had been in place a long time ago. You are insulting Crazy Lover's intelligence, of course Crazy Lover knows that there is already an Arabic Wikipedia.
What Crazy Lover is saying, I believe (and I could be wrong, but I think my way makes much more sense than your way, as your way seems to presuppose that Crazy Lover believes we have no Arabic Wikipedia), is that "Any system of rules which would disallow such a language as Arabic, if it didn't already have a Wikipedia, is bad."
I agree with that - we may already have an Arabic Wikipedia. It's not necessary to have rules which would make possible ALL current Wikipedias to have been created, but some of them would not be OK. If current rules would have excluded, for example, English, or Chinese Wikipedias, they would similarly be rejected as unacceptable rules. Yes, we already have those Wikipedias, but that is immaterial because we are talking about something more abstract than that.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So it is for you to decide that I did not get the point, not having made that point in the first place ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
That's not for you to decide, when you're not the one who made the point in the first place.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No I did not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've missed the point.
Mark
On 11/08/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Given the current practice, this whole issue is irrelevant. There is
an
Arab
project and this will continue to be the case. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
wrote:
Reviewing the requirements of current policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy i thought in standard arabic language, and the inevitable
consecuense:
this language cannot meet the requirement. Standard arabic isn't speak
anymore
as first language. it's based in Religious arabic languages, it's
archaic,
and it is neccesary to learn at school to understand it. its situation is similar to medieval latin. Then, the consecuense will be absurd: the rejection of any new project in this useful language.
on the other hand, there are several native languages, all daugthers
of
classical arabic, like Egyptian arabic (or Masri), whose proposal has been approved
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian...
precissely for its native condition.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l