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
"reopened"
status.
Liviu
On 7/4/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l