Is it right to dictate how the project should continue from here (apart from insisting that the alternative orthography shouldn't be exerted again)?
No, and it's not happening. The Committee (as such) has started and ended its functions within this affair by writing its recommendations. After that there is nothing going on but private emails from people who happen to also be LangCom members.
Nevertheless, as a private individual, I will report whatever I perceive as a blatant NPOV project. I believe we all should.
IMHO what's needed here is simply a bit of personal advice and time to have everyone calm down and get back to a practically oriented mindset.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Oldak Quill Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:38 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
On 30/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The
standard
is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in the label.
Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not
bring
collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together
and
history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in
English
.. all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
If the differences are fewer than those between British and American English (!), the committee was right to step in to prevent the manipulative exertion of one over the entire project. Is it right to dictate how the project should continue from here (apart from insisting that the alternative orthography shouldn't be exerted again)?