In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Let me elaborate.
When there is clearly so much work still to be done on the Romanian Wikipedia, why are you wasting your time trying to get a small Wikipedia deleted?
All the time you have spent so far on this, is wasted, you could have put it to much better use to do something constructive.
For example, why not take a page from http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Shortpages and make it better? There are thousands of pages on the Romanian Wikipedia which need attention and expansion.
Why not focus on making ro.wp a world-class encyclopaedia, instead of wasting your time trying to destroy mo.wp?
It is best that we all work to create, when one of us works to destroy, we are not gaining anything.
Mark
On 04/07/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what we want.
Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again, this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said: "Vivi e lascia vivere".
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one
side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might
not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the
past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the
continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was
made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The status quo is, in fact a compromise. It is a compromise because the Romanian and Moldovan Wikipedias are both open.
And as Sabine said, vivi e lascia vivere -- why do you worry so much about it?
Mark
On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what we want.
Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again, this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said: "Vivi e lascia vivere".
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one
side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might
not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the
past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the
continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was
made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Liviu _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Your reasoning is strange to me, Mark, but that's not important (my not understanding).
Sabine's intervention required tolerance in the formulated demands and/or taken decisions. I agree with this. The proposed compromise (moving mo to mo-cyr) is tolerant:
1. It stops the desinformation currently caused by mo.wikipedia.org. 2. It doesn't destroy your work. 3. It maintains the basis for possible future expansion of the Moldovan Wikipedia.
I will allow myself to note that this resolution is supported by another Moldovan, Oleg Alexandrov (although he maintains his indifference concerning the existance itself of this Moldovan Wikipedia).
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson < node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
The status quo is, in fact a compromise. It is a compromise because the Romanian and Moldovan Wikipedias are both open.
And as Sabine said, vivi e lascia vivere -- why do you worry so much about it?
Mark
On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what
we
want.
Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again, this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said:
"Vivi e
lascia vivere".
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com > wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
Hoi, For your information, the mo.cyr.wikipedia is not a viable compromise. It offends to applicable standards. Thanks, GerardM
Liviu Andronic wrote:
No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what we want.
Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again, this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said: "Vivi e lascia vivere".
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one
side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might
not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the
past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the
continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was
made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
How? What standards? The naming standards?
I would appreciate if you provided me with a link where applicable standards are described.
What concerns the move "mo to mo-cyr", it is still a bughttp://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4409with "reopened" status.
Liviu
On 7/4/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For your information, the mo.cyr.wikipedia is not a viable compromise. It offends to applicable standards. Thanks, GerardM
Liviu Andronic wrote:
No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what
we
want.
Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again, this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said:
"Vivi e
lascia vivere".
On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
The status quo is the compromise.
If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia tso1d@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one
side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this
is
likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the
argument
that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece.
Nevertheless, at
this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a
resolution
reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically
constitutes
endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might
not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to
reopen
the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you
were
to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic
and
have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed? I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the content elsewhere, etc.
Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
Mark
On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the
past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made,
then
what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate,
whether
in the past or the present.
I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the
continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not
acting
the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others
spent a
great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated,
but
others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to
act
in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of
respect
for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
Mark Williamson wrote: Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision
was
made.
However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken
against
yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not necessary and making everyone stop caring.
Mark
On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
Hello,
I would like to apologize to all of you for my interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere more than 6 months old.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
My only excuse is that it happened on another thread than the one I followed.
Yours, :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org