Mark,
talking about *lies* - you, the moldovanest of Moldovans, have you ever been to Moldova? Listened to the way people talk? Do you know how Romanian sounds like? Or the Moldovan dialect? My POV, and in real life (as opposed to this list) I'm definitely not alone with it: in Moldova people speak and write Romanian. In Latin or sometimes Cyrillic. They may call it Moldovan (as the Constitution deems) or Romanian. I don't care: they all make use of Romanian grammar and vocabulary. And about *distortions*: FYI, "mainly a reality of the past" doesn't equal "nobody uses it today". And for the "hate" part, I'd have appreciated a quotation.
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You saying over and over that Moldovans say they speak Romanian. Check http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limba_moldoveneasca please where census results indicate clearly that in fact the majority claimed their native language as "Moldovan" (especially in rural areas).
You are also saying over and over that all Moldovans hate Cyrillic, or that nobody uses it today. It is still taught in schools in Transnistria. You say this is something that kids don't want. Honestly, when I was in primary school or secondary school, I would not have cared if they taught us English in the Hebrew alphabet and told us we were Martians. Since when do kids care so much about school?
The bottom line is that there are people who use Cyrillic, as well as many many people who still call their native tongue "Moldovan", both of which you constantly try to negate using lies and distortion. It is an undeniable fact.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
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
-- Liviu _______________________________________________ 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