On 3/2/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
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@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:
- 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.
- According to the recently adopted Language proposal
policyhttp://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.
- 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l