2 anonymous votes that basically disqualify
themselves.. Great to know that
you are there on your own Mark. So there is one qualified vote and two
unqualified votes, three is a different thing. As to the proposed ideas of
Jimmy, both Stellingwerfs, Gronings and Veluws could get their own
Wikipedias as well. I am sure you would support that as well. If you don't
then basically you agree with me that Jimmy's proposal has its fair share of
problems.
How do anonymous votes disqualify themselves? Wikimedia voting policy
is very clear. Anon voting is allowed unless local policy specifically
dictates otherwise.
There is no such thing as an objective way of saying
what a language is. You
can come close but as long as people are willing to go on their hobby horse
or fight from their ivory tower you will have for many languages controversy
because they might be a dialect.
...
For me having new projects is not a problem as long as
people put sincere
effort in their project. Yes, I have moved my position more and more
towards allowing for most efforts. I am also not really afraid of hoaxes,
when we find them we delete them if we are able and willing to come to such
a decision. What is there to lose but the effort that a new community can
put into a project that will be one of our projects?
I for one don't think that's particularly relevant. What _is_
relevant, is that even when the vote was at 15-4, Servien tried to
shove it through even though by ALL definitions that is absolutely not
consensus.
As to shifting position, even when a dialect gets its
wikipedia, it will
reflect the culture that is part of the people that speak it. When people of
other dialects read this, they will find the pecularies of these people and
find the differences and similarities. It will be a kind of information that
will be hard to get in any other way.
I don't think it's relevant. 3 oppose votes.
Mark
--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin