Hoi, At this moment the wikipedia-l is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is because more and more people are turning of because of the endless discussions. Particularly the contributions of Mark Williamsom are both excessive in number, he thinks this list is his personal soap box, and increasingly agressive, het tells people what they have to do and in turn gets banned on wikipedias as the appreciation for his behaviour. The consequence is, that more and more people are not interested in what the wikipedia-l has to say. There are people who have added Mark to their spam list, there are people who disregard all threads that he writes to, there are people that unsubscribed. Mark has been told on the list and of the list, repeatedly by many people, that he is not communicating effectively this way. The sad thing is that Mark has some valid points to make, points that are drowned out by the torrent of e-mails that he sends to make these points. I do not want him banned because this is "throwing the child away with the washing water" (het kind met het waswater weggooien). I have discussed this with several people and Angela came up with a good point. Her point was that in the "language discussions" it often is a rehashing of positions and missing is the refactoring of this information as you have on a Wiki. It is exactly right to have articles on Meta discussing the languages and their issues. This makes for some refactoring and persistency in the discussions and it allows for discussions on the talk page. The wikipedia-l would then be used to give a heads up about when things are disucussed on Meta and when there is a tentative conclusion of these discussions. I hope that this scheme is seen for what it is; it allows Mark to have his say. It allows for better information on these issues on Meta. The consequence is that the wikipedia-l will have less trafic and hopefully other subjects important to the global wikipedias start to get some space as well. I hope Mark is willing to accept this because if things go on as they do, I will ask if it is possible to have him banned from this list. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On 7/15/05, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Mark does have valid points, which is why I have objected to him being blocked from the list. He does a lot of research into languages in order to post about them, but I am concerned the discussion (not only Mark's posts) is now getting to the stage where it is doing more harm than good. As I mentioned on meta earlier today (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_new_languages#Discussion_isn.27t_always_a_good_thing>), the amount of discussion surrounding language requests is leading to it becoming impossible for developers to ascertain when they should be making a new wiki. It isn't only Mark who needs to adapt his behaviour, but everyone involved in the requests for new languages procedure. I would prefer if all these language discussions could be kept in one place on Meta, making it much easier to see when the issues were resolved, and hopefully making the process to getting a new wiki a little bit easier. Currently, the requests page asks for a link to the mailing list discussion, but perhaps this should be coming later, after discussion between interested parties on the wiki, rather than being the first step in a new language request. Angela. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed" stage into something real. <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages> I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_langua… in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new proposal. Angela. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

A Wikipedia was requested for Cantonese. That was simple they requested a language because it's too different from Mandarin, and people would only benefit. It didn't need to be complicated. Besides, they would've had two sides to choose from, whichever they preferred -- and yet it has not been created because there have been issues, even though Cantonese has many more native speakers than Low Saxon. Regardless of actual differences, people are going to be a bit hesitant to oblige a request that appears on the surface to be dividing by country. Even if you do not believe it divides by country, you must admit that it looks this way on the surface. Anybody who reads the topic will see "nds-nl", and if they know that "nl" is a country code will say "That doesn't sound right". Also, in this case, as in any case, if the Wikipedia /is/ going to be created, it will likely be a while. Scots and Võro were in a similar situation -- actually better -- they had a few native speakers, a few extra supporters, and growing test Wikipedias. Nobody seemed to believe that the new Wikipedias shouldn't be created. And yet, it took a long time between when they became such popular requests, and their actual creation. All I can suggest is to be patient. Mark On 15/07/05, Servien Ilaino &lt;servien(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >Okay are we now gonna have an endless discussion about endless >discussions? It's simple we requested a language because it's too >different from the other dialects used in Germany, people will only >benefit, so I don't understand the whole thing. Why be complicated if >you don't have to? (besides then they'll 2 to choose from, which ever >they prefer) > >Servien > > >2005/7/15, Angela &lt;beesley(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > > >>On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >>>That's all fine with me, but for a problem like this there's still no >>>end in sight. >>> >>> >>True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed" >>stage into something real. >><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages> >> >> >> >>>I don't think we should definite cases where a Wikipedia *will* be >>>created, but I think we should define those cases in which it won't, >>>to reduce confusion and keep people aware of what not to do. >>> >>> >>I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages >>in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would >>rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new >>proposal. >> >>Angela. >>

There is no list of rules for Wikipedia-l. Thus, there is no rule that says we must stay on topic. We have a little fun every once in a while because we don't have rules -- we can make jokes, stray a little from the topic, things like that. So, while you may prefer that we stay on topic, it is by no means a rule.