Andre Engels schreef: Hoi, The closure was done without the consent of the board. The language

committee was asked to formulate an opinion, it is not of the opinion that the current situation is good. We proposed that this wiki would be reopened and that discussions would start on how the Moldovan and the Romanian Wikipedia can work together. An essential part of the time frame that will exist before this merger is that any vandalism will result in a ban for all the projects that such a person is involved in. It is particularly the vandalism that made the huha around the Moldovan Wikipedia so unpalatable.

Thanks, GerardM

The main issue is not that it was imposed by the Communists, but that nobody wants to use it anymore.

the people who support Cyrillic Moldovan are almost exclusively Russians and Ukrainians, with some Serbians and other panslavists.

On 2/1/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra(a)ukr.net > wrote: It is; your message I mean. Ridiculously stupid. Something similar to another fine piece of art, written by Ronald Chmara on the "[Wikipedia-l] Harassment on wikipedia" thread. , but I'll miss this political crap :)))) The Who are you to judge on this matter? Nationalism -- Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On 2/1/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com > wrote: This is the point. It is my language, my country, my region - if you want. Some things that are important to me. I come from there. While he - he came in there.

Hello, The fact that I do not live in "my" country does not mean that I do not live with its realities. I'm concerned with these as much as anyone living in there, as they touch my parents, family and friends - people dear to me. As better a position he may be in for day-to-day observations, I'm quite suited for periodical ones. Which may not necessarily be "worse", especially when backed by previous, relatively recent, day-to-day ones. As for his feelings - he would most definitely have some. Positive or negative. In either case, he has no right to speak so easily over an issue deemed serious and important by a group of people. Even under the widely accepted freedom of speech right. Regards, Liviu On 2/4/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

This is the point. It is my language, my country, my region - if you want. Some things that are important to me. I come from there. While he - he came in there.

Well, Berto lives in Ukraine, you live in Toulouse, France.

On 2/4/07, Berto 'd Sera &lt;albertoserra(a)ukr.net > wrote: Hello want. I don't. I understood quite well that you were in Ukraine. In previous posts on this thread, it was "that" country we - Gerard and I - were talking about. A bit vague a notion, something between country and region. And I am aware of this. Here it's WMF, it's WMF laws I never intended to apply or impose any laws to WMF. I'm playing by its own. WMF will never tell Romania how its street signs should look like, Romania Romania doesn't. Romanians do. And more important, perhaps, Moldovans do. Failure to understand this fascism software I do not discuss Wikipedia's pillars. I am quite OK with the committees stance that decisions concerning linguistics are to be independent of political decisions (or reality). I sometimes hate these pillars myself. That's why Wikipedia is not a my the example. Do you really think that it is for fun that I am doing all this? Explaining the realities of Moldova, advocating for the closing of this Moldovan Wikipedia, voting for it, getting involved in endless and often fruitless or senseless debates? Do you consider that I'm enjoying all this? And when you are here either be a I don't see how my doing all this has anything to do with my being a Wikipedian. As a Wikipedian, I contribute to the English and French Wikipedias, mainly. Expressing by convictions on the Wikipedia-l mailing list does not take way this from me. It's called context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context), I add a link in dictatorships thing What makes you think that I accept that, or - more interesting - love that? Are my arguments in a "my way or the highway" style? I would be OK with the situation, if a conversion script were installed on the Romanian Wikipedia, or if mo domain got renamed to something less confusing like mo-cyr (I understand that this one is hardly implementable). But WMF doesn't seem to intend any such compromise steps. And if it is context <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context> we are talking about, I believe that the WMF fails to realize certain circumstances surrounding the Moldovan language. And the following is addressed to the Language Committee, mainly. First of all, how come does the WMF still consider Moldovan.. a language? A separate, independent language? At best, it is a dialect of the Romanian language; at worst - a script used for writing the same Romanian language. It was deemed as a language by the Soviet authorities, from political considerations, for political purposes, through a political decision and with the help of a customized script<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet>_created_ in the 1930s (different from the original script <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Cyrillic_alphabet> used for writing the Romanian language). And currently there is one<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Stati>scientist supporting this POV, which happens - by the mere existance of the Moldovan Wikipedia - to be WMF's POV. In other words, the WMF simply takes over a Soviet time political decision. On this point, I find the words< http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_Horning#A_technical_question Robert Horning <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Roberth> particularly relevant: "the mere act of creating this language version of Wikipedia is making a political statement that the WMF should stay out of and away from. I don't know how you can create a NPOV Wikipedia in a language whose very existance is expressing a political point of view." So, why does this Moldovan Wikipedia exist? As far as I am aware of the WMF policies, WMF does not create wikipedias for dialects or scripts. Nor does it create these from political considerations. Which - unintendedly - is the case here. What I am doing here is trying to persuade the WMF decision makers that it is not sensible <http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sensible> for the WMF to tolerate the existance of this Wikipedia. It is not reasonable to keep a Wikipedia based on a "language" that is a political emanation. It is not reasonable to keep a language version Wikipedia whose natives are against it. It is not reasonable to expect much future of this Wikipedia, if contributions are made by one authentic Moldovan<http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:Node_ue> supporting it, Mark Williamson. One argument to which I cannot retort much is that this writing is still in use (at a limited scale). However, the usage of a writing script is not a viable argument for dedicating an entire Wikipedia to it. These are my arguments. , yet the fact that one may love I don't confuse this either. Liviu Learn to live with this, as we all did. vojaotri) -- Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

If it is "language" that you mean

I would be OK with the situation, if a conversion script were installed on the Romanian Wikipedia,

Hello [..] but here we have a real problem and need a real solution, okay? Now that's good. This is definitively a more constructive approach than organizing carnivals. This "linguistic entity" term is still a mystery to me. There is no word about it on Wikipedia and Google doesn't say much (maybe someone has a pertinent link?). So that for the purpose of this email, I'll hold to my old-fashioned terminology. Before answering this, I hope that the Language Committee agrees on the following two points. First of all, the WMF does *not* want to have any content in the Moldovan dialect (Romanian as *spoken* in the historic region of Moldavia, which would currently comprise Eastern part of Romania and Moldova with Transnistria included). This would be completely stupid and trolls would be the only serious contributors. Secondly, the "Moldovan language" in its standard form is standard Romanian. You might look here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Controversy>sy>, here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closu… here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closu… more information. "Even the loudest defender of the Moldovan language concept, Vasile Stati, has agreed<http://www.vremea.net/news/2005-01-13/18:45:35.html>that Moldovan and Romanian are identical in their literary forms". With these two points cleared out, the situation becomes less confusing. As said in my previous email, the current content on the Moldovan Wikipedia is standard Romanian written in Cyrillic, Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet (of course with stylistic and grammar faults, and bad transliterations). It is not reasonable to dedicate an entire Wikipedia section to this content, when the Romanian Wikipedia exists. The best solution would probably be installing a conversion script over the Romanian Wikipedia with, as Berto mentioned, a link on all pages "in Moldovan alphabet" or something similar (special attention should be paid to the name of this link, as there has to be a contrast between the Moldovan alphabet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet> and the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Cyrillic_alphabet>; on a side note: personally, I would like a lot if a conversion script of Latin Romanian to Cyrillic Romanian were also created, but technically this would be more than a challenge). The good news is that there already is a partially functional conversion script <http://mcworld.org/McChirilic/?pagina=Limba_moldoveneasc%25C4%2583>(you may change "Limba_moldovenească" to any relevant article on ro.wiki). To my knowledge, it was created by Bogdan Giusca<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdangiusca>ca>, and as he says himself, "It's not yet perfect, but it can be improved". And it definitely needs improvements. It might get implemented in the way it is on the Serbian Wikipedia<http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-ec/%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D…82>, with Latin being the storage content and Cyrillic conversion performed on demand by clicking the link. Two reasons: nowadays Latin is, somewhat, the "standard" for the Romanian language and you've already seen how many people are willing to contribute in Cyrillic. Taking into consideration that the main objective here is for people still using this script to be able to access content in Cyrillic, this is acceptable. Now, I do not say that the Romanian Wikipedia would accept this. It is, however, a reasonable solution to this controversial issue. Romanian was historically written in three different scripts, so it would be logical to have *one* Wikipedia section dealing with all the three writing systems. I do not know the position of the Romanian Wikipedia admins, but I would suppose that they'd need to be persuaded in a similar way that I am trying to persuade the Language Committee. In any case, it would be better if someone more familiar with the Romanian Wikipedia shed more light on this point. > Now do me a favour, will you tell me how we can verify that the ro.wiki > admin structure will respect users and content coming from the cyr > interface? It's no provocation, it's a serious question, and I want a VERY > serious answer. I seriously doubt that such problems arise. Romanian speaking persons from Moldova are contributing to the Romanian Wikipedia for some time, already. And, to this day, I've never heard of flag-based conflicts. As long as content added is in line with NPOV and the rest of Wikipedia's principles, there should be no persecution. There is no hatred between Moldovans and Romanians. Frictions, yes. Maybe a bit of disrespect, randomly. But no hatred. From personal experience, I would say that Romanians are generally more friendly-intentioned towards Moldovans than the vice-verse. And they don't really care if you come from Transnistria or not. In the sense that in their eyes, Moldovans coming from the East of the Pruth river are their Romanian brothers. However, if you want to set some system of control (and there should be one, for the beginning at least), there'd be two ways. Either name one-two Moldovan nationals as Romanian Wikipedia admins (according to the rules, of course, that I personally am not familiar with) that would be empowered to intervene into relevant conflicts. Or simply - and probably better - empower some existing respectable Romanian Wikipedia admins, that - in case conflicts arise - will not act based on flag, but with respect to neutrality and a given situation. Furthermore, upon account creation, users could get informed on the admins dealing with different abuse problems. Regards, Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Hi! Right the opposite. ANY encyclopedic content in an ISO recognized entity (thus including the Moldovan Linguistic Entity) is desirable. It's about the planet, not about you and your country, in case you ain't clear with it.

As you say. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. That is, we will try our best to have a self translating system, if that is not possible because of local political extremism we will be left with two chances: 1) impose our will over ro.wiki with pure strength 2) have 2 separate wikies

for each dialect

Hi! Right the opposite. ANY encyclopedic content in an ISO recognized entity

Wikimedia already has a longstanding preference not to split Wikipedias into separate ones for each dialect, as much as possible. Therefore nobody would support splitting the English Wikipedia into American-English and British-English and Australian-English Wikipedias, and similarly a *lot* of effort was put into keeping the Chinese Wikipedia from splitting into Simplified and Traditional Chinese Wikipedias, and efforts to split off a Cantonese Wikipedia have also been consistently opposed.

In no way. I am speaking on behalf of the Moldovan Community on Wikimedia

This is true. However, a poll organized somewhere

would at least sensitize the Romanian Wikipedia community

On 2/18/07, Berto 'd Sera &lt;albertoserra(a)ukr.net&gt; wrote: What you tell me is that you, as a Language Committee<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Langcom>member and on its behalf, waive the Committee's competence in initiating a solution to a problem concerning one of the Wikimedia Foundation fundamental principles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars>, Neutral Point of View <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>? Basically, what you want is that a certain wikipedian X sensitise an entire admin structure (ro.wiki ) so that they ask you (the LC) to allow them to regulate themselves in a way that the LC might deem correct. And all this over a domain that falls directly under the competence of the Board of Trustees - Wikipedia's pillar, Neutral Point of View. That's an interesting stance. Now, let us go back to context <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context>. The circumstances surrounding the Moldovan Wikipedia<http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D3%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0… more interesting than they look like: again, mo.wiki does *not* contain a distinct linguistic entity (no matter what ISO says). Instead it has content that represents a transliteration of the Romanian <http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal%C4%83> linguistic entity. At this point, by the mere hosting of *this content* on *this domain* the Wikimedia Foundation makes a political statement, and specifically (the following is a quotation): "the Moldovian people were somehow a distinctly different people from Romanians before WWII and were liberated from Romania by the USSR." The Foundation also states that Moldovan is a linguistic entity distinct from the Romanian linguistic entity. This is equivalent to stating that Moldovans and Romanians represent two distinct nations. In this specific case, the confusion between language and nationality is inevitable: all this Moldovan language/linguistic entity stuff is pure politics taken directly from the Central Committee's<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_the_CP…>office. But that's nothing. By hosting mo.wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation keeps perfectly in line with the ideology promoted by the Soviet authorities of the MASSR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist… with 1924. At that moment a script <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet> - not even a language as such - was invented and a new name was conferred to the Romanian language. The Foundation also holds for linguistic reality (if it might be called so and as opposed to a political reality) what happened in 1938 in MASSR and beginning with 1944 in MSSR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_SSR>SR>, when - at the latter date - all of a sudden the entire population of the re-annexed Bessarabia started to speak Moldovan (please consider this<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Moldovan_language#Begin…)ticle). But that's history. More interesting is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation towards nowadays politics. Actually, the Foundation keeps perfectly in line with the ideology promoted by the Party of Communists<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Communists_of_the_Repub… Moldova and the Transnistrian authorities <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Transnistria>, and - specifically - with their efforts to affirm and prove the existence of a Moldovan language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language> and of a Moldovan nation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovenism> (no linguistic entity notion exists at that level). However, the funniest thing about all this is the Moldovan Wiktionary <http://mo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page>: in case the project un-freezes, the Foundation will de facto support the linguist and politician Vasile Stati <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Stati> in his efforts to create/develop a Moldovan-Romanian dictionary<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan-Romanian_dictionary>ry>. The circumstances are as follows: both dictionaries - Wikimedia's and Stati's - have appeared after a ten-fifteen years of vacuum in the field - Moldovan--any-other-language dictionaries. And this is to stress one point: it is absurd to translate Moldovan; you can do this only with the help of a Romanian--any-other-language dictionary. If this is what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to promote.. Well, this is a choice of the Board. However, know that this is exactly what the Foundation is promoting at the moment. If this clear case of biased Point Of View of an entire Wikipedia is not enough an incentive for the LC/WMF to do something about the situation, I don't know what else could be. And here I am not talking about the feelings of the Romanians or Moldovans, nor about the position of the Moldovan Community, nor about the feelings of the Moldovan community, nor about _my_ reasons for wanting a change. I am talking about something supposed to be sacred for the Foundation: Neutral Point of View<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>ew>. At this moment - even though frozen - the Board of Trustees tolerates a Wikipedia that is openly against one of its fundamental pillars. You "want to deliver a service [..] in all possible linguistic entities". I am most definitely for this. Still, taking into consideration the context, you can readily stop promoting a Neutral Point of View on the Moldovan Wikipedia. If the Board, now through its Language Committee, decides to continue to ignore the existence of a politically biased Wikipedia, again, it's a choice. But then, the NPOV principle is of no use around there. [On a side note: considering a Romanian linguistic entity with three different writing systems may be my point of view, but it has one advantage: it is apolitical. And it considers the situation from a linguistic/historical perspective, and not a political one]. .... Now I'll pass to petty arguments that don't deserve much of your or my attention, but just for their sake.. For the pet dogs I most definitely agree. But then, why didn't you, on meta, impose conditions for voting (like 400 edits somewhere)? I recall that it was on meta simply because you asked for legitimacy. Have you personally verified the "never" part? Even the lines that I've never contributed? And the books that Roberth has not contributed? And many other's non-existent contributions? Again, what makes you think that I _enjoy_ doing all this? Wrong. On two points: this ain't the first time this is discussed and I do not want to turn the Romanian Wikipedia upside down. First of all, I am not suggesting anything radically new. This ain't the first time this alternative is proposed. It was under discussion on this list back in 2005 (please consider the Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipedia<http://www.nabble.com/Re%253A-Moldovan-Wikipedia-tf1266140.htm… and especially the contribution<http://www.nabble.com/Re%253A-Moldovan-Wikipedia-tf1266140.… Matt Brown). Ronline - on behalf of the Romanian Wikipedia - wasn't too enthusiastic about this (consider the above thread for his arguments). It would be up to the LC to decide whether the WMF wants a politically biased Wikipedia or a compromise solution (that, by definition, should not please entirely each and every one). Secondly, I do not want to turn the Romanian Wikipedia upside down. I want the issue around the Moldovan Wikipedia to be solved. You refuse deletion. I suggested, better said repeated an alternative solution. I see not one reason why I should have contacted the Romanian structure before repeating to the LC an already existing alternative solution proposal. I don't. You are not the only one having important issues to attend to in real life. Mine are getting less time than they deserve. And I have no intent what-so-ever to get into a parallel most-of-the-time fruitless debate over the same tiring issue. If ISO cares about the position of Moldovans and Romanians - natives - on this issue, they can simply browse the wikipedia-l archives. Please explain me what does this mean in my perception, and maybe I'll get the point. or not, It's useless to ask the Romanian structure anything on this matter unless there is a decision from the Board. They'd be an infinite times more reticent than you are. And such a change is made at a Board of Trustees level, not at an Admin structure one. Romanian admins have not stepped down into this current discussion. I am not imposing anything over them. You may call this flooding. I would call this having a *discussion*, a normal and *somewhat constructive* discussion. Where do you find "aggressively assertive" my _reasoning_ and arguments? I don't give a damn about them. I care that Wikipedia represent correctly my country. Is this an official statement issued on behalf of the Language Committee? Now, Bèrto. I ain't sure who should be upset. You over my presenting the LC/Board with an alternative solution to a problem. Me over your hardly-constructive attitude and arrogance (this ain't no attack; simply take a look at the number of aggressive assertions - Oxford American dictionary - you have made during this last discussion). Or the Moldovan and Romanian communities over the open rigidity from the part of the Board and over a decent period on an issue concerning Wikipedia's principles. And to finish, a citation: "Support - Mainly on the basis that Wikimedia projects should always have NPOV standards, and merely having a language that by itself is expressing a POV should not be allowed to exist. I get the arguments about the Russian occupation of Romania, together with the Russian occupation of East Prussia (still under Russian control). It surprises me that anybody takes seriously political disinformation arguments from a government that no longer exists. Keeping this project expresses support for a clear POV for what scholarly research suggests is merely a variant of an established language. My support for this is similar to opposition of the pt-br.wikipedia --Roberth 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)." Regards, Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

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

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

you. Mark On 02/03/07, Liviu Andronic &lt;landronimirc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: the slight an verified: a code There happens). be that making it Given the you things -- 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

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 &lt;landronimirc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: himself.. Otherwise on promoting the content. different the contributions could this that that -- 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

Hello, Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments to be understood. Otherwise these are simply skipped.

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.

As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid indeed in the eyes of the ISO, but also according to the official POV of the Party of Communists in RM (I suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and might have been in the eyes of the Soviet Authorities.

On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: At times, this is the feeling that I have. At any rate, verbosity is necessary to make my arguments clear. Hello, I have no intent to renew this debate. This is simply to say that my view over the entire issue has not radically changed. For the following (same) reasons: From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like the Moldovan one) were created à partir de a "list" with no formal voting and without following any specific guidelines or policy. On this basis, I believe that the newly adopted policy could be used for determining the "correctness" of wikipedias that were created in "obscure" ways. In any case, it is not up to me to decide such a usage. As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid indeed in the eyes of the ISO, but also according to the official POV of the Party of Communists in RM (I suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and might have been in the eyes of the Soviet Authorities. [On a side note: I do not understand how you expect my arguments to be completely apolitical over an issue that is pure politics: considering Moldovan as a linguistic entity.] However, scholarly research - Western included - disputes this. A lot of linguists - if not most - do (with the notable exception of Vasile Stati; notable, because he is the one). The regulating body of the "Moldovan language" - with regard to the Constitution - disputes this. Less important in the eyes of the WMF, natives dispute this (though still waiting for someone from Transnistria here). Please follow the links in my previous messages if you are not persuaded by this paragraph. And, probably most important for the Board, the mo.wiki domain does not host content in a linguistic entity different from the Romanian one. It simply hosts transliterated Romanian content. I honestly believe that it is wrong for the Foundation to blindly follow the ISO specifications over this issue. It is also wrong for the Board to adopt - from the NPOV perspective, which should be respected even if certain flexibility is endorsed - a political POV over a linguistic/historical fact: at a given period, in a given region, Romanian was written with a different script. Regards, Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--- Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think there's no misunderstanding here. You do have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Bosniac, Croatian, Sebian, or Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan. That makes all the difference. :en:Dpotop http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

My constructive position (made clear a long time ago in a discussion here, and in other discussions on various Wikipedia fora) is the following: * Given that no Cyrillic script Moldovan editor exists on Wikipedia, it is only important *for the time being* that reading capability is provided for Cyrillic readers. * This reading capability can already be provided using the transliteration script of :en:User:Bogdangiusca. I have tried it, and it provides decent results. This script should be the only content of a mo-cyr.wiki, transliterating pages of ro.wiki. For the script, please contact its author. * When/if Cyrillic-script Moldovan editors ask for their wikipedia, then (and only then) the mo-cyr.wiki should be given to them. * Why mo-cyr? Because there are 2 Moldovan languages at the time being: - the guys that declared themselves Moldovan in the Moldovan census are a very large majority, and their Latin-scripted version of Moldovan is regulated by the Moldovan Academy of Sciences. - the guys that (are forced to) use the Cyrillic script in Transnistria probably use the last language standard of the Soviet times (I know of no existent regulating body). You see that you just can't let a minority take exclusive use of the ISO code mo/mol. OTOH, the Latin-scripted language is identical with Romanian, as stated by its regulatory body. As you see, this *is* constructive, and the elements of the solution (and the agreement of Romanians) are here for a very long time now. Dpotop1 --- GerardM &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Hoi! So... It was told to Liviu, it gets told to YOU. It will be duly copied to all of you, as an auto answer. 1) WHO of you spammers has found the time to call up a regular vote on RO.wiki on becoming fully bilingual and giving warranties of acceptance of articles by the Transdnistrian minority? 2) Who of you will prove clever enough to do that BEFORE littering our mailboxes with your carnival? Until you answer to that ANY Moldavian position (pro Cyrillic/anti-cyrillic/Acyrillic or whatever) will be just low quality toilet paper for my house. Or do you guys seriously think that we want to start a big internal war in RO.wiki just to please a couple of hysterical kids? You want to make a change in someone else's house. You go there and ask the landlord for permission, before coming up here with your emotional scenes. It's called "respect" and "private property" in case you aren't familiar with the terms. All the tears in the universe won't make a difference. GO TO WORK! No work, no consideration. Bèrto ‘d Sèra Personagi dl’ann 2006 për l’arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri)

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Perhaps you have not been following this list. Do you think Gerard or Bèrto really care who it is making these arguments? To them, you and Liviu may as well be the same person because you are saying the same things. Over and over. They have said over and over that the position that they have already described is FINAL. They did not "misunderstand" anything, they did not miss any of the facts or the evidence. Just because they do not agree with your personal interpretation of reality does not mean they need you to "tell them the facts". They have already heard what you have to say, and it has already been evaluated. Many times. The suggestion was, originally made to Liviu: Go to ro.wp and start a poll there about adding an option to convert to Cyrillic. In the mean time, stop complaining. Their idea is that eventually such an option MIGHT exist, but only if ro.wp community successfully integrates it of its own free will, NOT on the decision of some random single user. If you can get the majority of Ro.wp'ians to agree to a converter in the style of sr.wp (meaning that content may be edited and added in Cyrillic as well), then this discussion may proceed. If you cannot, it is over. Nobody wants to hear any of this anymore. Haven't you understood that by now? Mark On 10/03/07, Jacky PB &lt;dpotop1(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: ____________________________________________________________________________________ -- 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

Hoi! Sometimes I feel we are not :) I get the recurrent impression that whatever we say both sides just hit the "reply" button and copy back what they had said before... So, for all who are blind/deaf: I have said it and will repeat it all over again: no consensus = no nothing. We will not go and impose a new script on a place where a civil war just ended simply to make the nerves of a couples of extremists happier. If and when there is a clear signal that the communities as a whole are in favor of the merge we can start to talk about tech details. This "clear signal" includes stopping idiot mumbling about why any of the two sides has no right to exist and how you are going to tell the teacher that my mom was a nazist/communist if we don't buy you candies. We all have been kids and we all know what blackmailing is. Well, it won't work. Just as it won't work hiding behind someone else and shouting "see? I told you you'd be punished!" (this one's for Mark, in case it's not clear). Since lots of people behave as 4 y.o. kids, I'll try the language lil' babies usually understand. IS THAT CLEAR NOW? Or should we publish it in a multimedia hyerogliphic text with the Bangles playing underneath?? Now I switch my waiting mode on and keep waiting for a message beginning with: "My constructive position is <add MO-RO ideological crap here>". Bèrto 'd Sèra Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html -----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:14 PM To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian) Mark, It is not helpful if you repeat after us. You make it seem as if we agree with a side in this affair. We have not considered if we would accept it as a new project. What is at issue here is very much that the mo.wikipedia is an existing project, there are some people who care for it and the arguments used for its closure are not really acceptable. The optimal solution from our pov is that the mo.wikipedia is cleaned up and that the data of both ro and mo are merged. The first step for this to happen is to coexist peacefully. Your behaviour does not help. There is the option of a transliteration engine. This is however not available at this time. Optimally it should allow for round trip conversion. Thanks, Gerard On 3/12/07, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

When the contributors of the Romanian language Wikipedia do not accept this, they have to accept the existence of a mo.wikipedia.

OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)

OTRS has received a request for this wiki to be taken down, stating that Moldovian is just Romanian written in cyrillic, in a way imposed by the Communists. (I'm not saying this is true, I have no opinion on the issue, I'm just reporting.)

In fact, there seems to be an organized campaign, with a form letter.