Umm... we've been over this a thousand times, Liviu. You have hashed
and rehashed the same arguments. People see through your lies and
distortion
Who's accusing others about lies and distortion, if not the master himself..
:)
every time, so trying again isn't going to do anything for
you.
Mark
On 02/03/07, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments to be understood. Otherwise
these are simply skipped.
If, at a given moment, the Board wishes to reconsider its position on
the
Moldovan Wikipedia, please regard the following
points:
1. In its current form, mo.wiki is promoting an ideology. There is a
slight
difference between "not being of a neutral
point of view" and promoting
an
ideology.
2. According to the recently adopted Language proposal
policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP>- that I suppose can be
applied to existing wikipedias to determine their
"validity" - there are three "essential" requisites that can be
verified: a
valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a
viable community and
audience.
The Moldovan Wikipedia fails on all three. The valid ISO code and the
code
used for its domain are a coincidence, simply
because ISO requires a
separate linguistic entity while the domain doesn't host such content.
There
is no uniqueness since it is standard Romanian
written in a different
script. There is no viable community and audience.
3. A basic objective of providing high-quality content to writers of the
"Moldovan language" will be hardly achieved, if you expect contributions
written in the Moldovan alphabet to "flow in" (when an un-freeze
happens).
The script is mainly a reality of the past, while
this objective could
be
easier achieved if the two relevant projects were
merged.
You may consider some of these arguments as personal POVs. I believe
that
these are backed up by different sources that are
supposed to be
western-neutral and academic (the links in my messages are not for
making it
prettier), while others on logical reasoning.
Regards,
Liviu
On 2/28/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> According to what Erik wrote the other day, the pillars are, at this
> moment, not part of a "must have" doctrine for Wikipedia projects.
Given
> that the WMF it self is not on firm grounds,
how can you expect that
the
> language committee is more firm. Having said
that, you will fully
> misunderstand Bèrto's position. Your verbiage is just to cover that
you
> do not want to address what is in front of
you.
>
> Your whole argument is yet another political inspired tirade why
things
are as
you see them. Again, political arguments do not wash.
Thanks,
GerardM
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l