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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)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(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
--
Liviu
_______________________________________________
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