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 every time, so trying again isn't going to do anything for
On 02/03/07, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
2. According to the recently adopted Language proposal
that I suppose can be
applied to existing wikipedias to determine their
"validity" - there are three "essential" requisites that can be
valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a viable community and
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.
On 2/28/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list