Hi Gerard,
slowly I am beginning to be fed up with this discussion. I ask you
not to misrepresent my position any longer.
On the one word you told me by e-mail that was a
hundred percent
error turned out to be used 186 times on the internet (I have a
screenshot of google if you don't believe it) and I found the writer
who used it in her texts - she's a reporter for a newspaper in North
Germany and has been writing articles in Pattdüütsch vor over 13
years for them now. I also contacted her to ask her how to categorise
her writings.
Another mysterious supporting source.
You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.
Please list this word,
please name this writer, so that we can discuss this
one item in detail. I
had listed several gravely misspelled words (according to all spellings that
I know of), so please tell us which one of them you are
referring here. Please name your sources. You could e.g. cite any dictionary
whatsoever to prove your point. I have given details. I can show you several
dictionaries that support my spelling. You so far have given 0. In words
*ZERO*. That is not enough.
Besides you have not even given any information about the origin of the
list.
We know which web site it is from, but from the misspellings in
capitalization
it is clear that it is derived from a text. I would really like to know
which text that is. The problem is that you so far have not done anything
to underly your claims with any credible source. Again: citing one website
that is mirrored to some other places is circular reasoning, but no proof.
Again: wiktionary is not a dump for all the misspellings in the world. You
would
not get through with that in any other wiktionary.
>> So: anything is out of discussion here. I am
not going let me impose
>> things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to
>> that..
Now the thing is that you wanted to impose things on us. Besides
you created
facts
by importing this list into
it.wiktionary.org. A list that is highly
suspicious.
When Heiko is to ignore substantiated facts, he will
make what he does
in the Wiktionary world irrelevant. This would not be about ediwars. I
do not expect that Heiko will get into an editwar as there is a perfect
solution and that is using proper labelling. When Heiko indicates words
to be according to the Sass orthography or whatever Heiko orthography
knows, his work will be most relevant. There are plenty possible
solutions here.
No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why
haven't you
done that
all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your
only
argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and
therefore
it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with
the tag
"very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit
from that?
Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an
nds.wiktionary.org needs to
present data
that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If
there should be
a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly
*after* inserting
the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever
spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in
nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has
helped to make the data a lot more relevant.
>> I did not once mention your name and what I
had/still have is a
>> general question - it does not happen the first time that people know
>> how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as
>> the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to
>> go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs
>> for that: they are there in the histories.
The same accusations that
Sabine put in her anonymous mail to this list were
also
found in her answer to my post to
it.wiktionary.org, at least to my (albeit
limited)
understanding of Italian. And therefore this forum is indeed a place to
discuss these things.
If someone
contents something you should listen to them and go in a
discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!
Here you show that you do not apreciate what Wiktionary is about; every
wiktionary is about all words in all languages. Therefore it is
completely acceptable to add this content in the Italian Wiktionary.
Then please
mark these entries as what they are: Low Saxon in an awful
quality,
full of errors and following an unsubstantiated very private spelling of one
individual.
Or prove otherwise, which so far (even after lots of mails and discussions)
you have not done.
Please do at least try, so that we (you and I) can discuss the real issue:
the quality of your data.
Again: this is not Sass-spelling vs. the world, but one very private,
inconsistent, doubtful spelling
against the rest of Low Saxon, and we will really clean this mess up in
nds.wiktionary.org.
At least unless you back up your position with real facts. Now this should
not be too difficult,
shouldn't it?
And perhaps we can then go back to work, because there really is a lot of
work to do and the
list could already have been cleaned up, if we didn't have this discussion
and if you then
import the corrected data for us, or if you give us acces to the import
script. (Which by the way
I have asked for several times so far. I also need it because I have quite a
long list of words (apart
from your list) derived from the Low Saxon translation of KDE that I would
like to import.)
Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand
what I am talking about for all this time?
kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
--
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++