Your list is highly inaccurate (with multiple Wikipedias misplaced/duplicated) and it includes Wikipedias intentionally omitted because they consist primarily of stubs/placeholders. Additionally, we don't use that many tiers or establish one for only three Wikipedias. —David Levy 21:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Having previously discussed the matter extensively, you know perfectly well that the minimum article quantity isn't the sole inclusion criterion. —David Levy 15:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's evident that David Levy draws conclusions solely on the evidence that he's found in the past. There was a lengthy discussion on the inclusion of the Hindi Wikipedia to the list almost two years ago, where some users even complained on the relevance of the quality testing used by David Levy and proposed changes which, unfortunately, have never been implemented without even a single attempt to change something in the whole process. Later that year, I requested more thorough examination on the case with the Macedonian Wikipedia with no result even though David responded that he would do it after becoming less busy. That said, I'm strongly inclined to think that David doesn't want to put any efforts on examining the state of the Wikipedias any more and just responds by copying his usual automatic rejection to turn down any users requesting inclusion. His last two comments "Has a particular Wikipedia not consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders been omitted?" and "Having previously discussed the matter extensively, you know perfectly well that the minimum article quantity isn't the sole inclusion criterion." are clear indicators of unwillingness, hubris and disparagement of the work done by the communities on the other Wikipedias. Considering the involvement of users from other communities, this is not a minor issue and deserves further consideration. I think it's worth reporting on the administrators' noticeboard to see if any helpful suggestion come from it. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for failing to follow up in the earlier instance. It was an honest oversight that occurred during a hectic period, not a deliberate brush-off.
As anyone familiar with my long-winded messages can attest, I'm not one to shun discussion. I'm baffled as to why you've perceived my responses as "clear indicators of unwillingness, hubris and disparagement of the work done by the communities on the other Wikipedias".
"Has a particular Wikipedia not consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders been omitted?" was a sincere question, directed toward an editor who'd just become aware of our inclusion criteria and suggested that perhaps "a few" absent Wikipedias qualified (without specifying which).
My above reply to B. Jankuloski, which you've evidently interpreted as something along the lines of "Get lost! I have spoken.", simply reflects the user's feigned ignorance and intentional omission of relevant information, apparently intended to mislead a passing administrator lacking familiarity with our conventions (which, incidentally, I didn't institute unilaterally), which is exactly what happened when B. Jankuloski did this previously. —David Levy 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment You are obvioiusly under the impression that our wiki mostly consists of very small articles, and that our situation is somehow similar to what it was years ago when we made the request. I can assure you that now his not the case at all, In the years that have passed since our last suggestion, we have created many articles of very good size and this painstaking labour and it is very untoward to dismiss it. What I am talking about can best be illustrated by tjis list of long pages. On it, this article ranks at no. 50.000 by length. As can be seen, there are 49.999 articles larger than it, and a good number of them considerably so. I am sure that we more than meet the relevant criteria for inclusion. I expect that that, whoever decides, will take an objective look at our wiki in accordance with the relevant criteria and conclude what I have just expounded. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)