User talk:Millosh/Archives/2006

Email contact

As you are admin on meta, I would like to direct your attention to this, though I've noticed that your email is published on your user page. Thank you, M/ 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

a simple request

Please read here: Proposals_for_closing_projects#What_reliable_sources_say_about_Moldovan_Language. Thank you. Adriatikus 07:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I just commented on your vote on Proposals for closing projects#Closure of Simple English Wiktionary. Please review my comments. If they don't change your opinion, that's fine, but please consider replying to my comment, or if I do convince you, changing your vote. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Addin Mass Content

Hi Millosh, sorry for being very short, but I believe that what you want to do can be quite easily achieved with Wikidata using already now WiktionaryZ to get the main parts (country names etc.) translated there. WiktionaryZ is built on Wikidata or better Wikidata is being developed thanks to WiktionaryZ. Being it a relational database you can create queries the boxes can be implemented in the pages having then also a normal editing box. It is already there - it is only a question of time to get it to the level where it can be included in Mediawiki. This will help for all "common data". I also wrote two blogs that deal with that [1] and [2]. Sorry for not taking more time now. I have to finish a job to be delivered this week. Best, --Sabine 12:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Want your help

There are above 16 sign inners supported opening of http://sd.wikinews.org in Sindhi language, Sindhi is very rich and historical languge of Indus Valley. There 6.xx millions Sindhis are in all over the world. how can we start wikinews in Sindhi, our request gain above 16 supporter??? 202.174.136.98 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Торлачка Википедија

Раније сам био чуо да си имао идеју о отварању торлачке Википедије, која би отприлике била за српску Википедију оно што је кашупска за пољску. Па ме занима да ли се одустало од те идеје, или се још о томе размишља? Питам јер бих подржао тај пројекат и потрудио се да му допринесем. --George D. Bozovic 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ego and his own

Hello. I don't know anything about what is happening on Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin, but Ego and his own has asked to be unblocked. Assuming good faith, I have unblocked him under the following conditions:

<guillom|busy> Ego_and_his_own, i propose to unblock you to let you edit a subpage of your userpage and *only* this page
<guillom|busy> on this page you can write a summary of what you have written here
<guillom|busy> and of course, if you troll, you will be blocked again
<guillom|busy> comment ?
<Ego_and_his_own> sound good to me. Can you give me more info on "troll"? What I souldnt do?
<guillom|busy> you should write a text that is as neutral as possible
<guillom|busy> just write down the facts
<Ego_and_his_own> ok I wil, do my best
<guillom|busy> are you ok with that ?
<guillom|busy> ok
<guillom|busy> i leave a message to millosh and i unblock you

Please tell me if you are ok with that. Thanks. guillom 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects are not for nation-building

I left you a post on the talk page of the article. You are promoting false information, and threaten to use administrative powers to impose false information. This is not normal. Dpotop 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocking of Dpotop

Hi Millosh. Dpotop has contacted me about your blocking of him for one day, which he feels is unjustified. I also believe that this block was unjustified and applied unfairly, particularly considering that you were involved directly in the dispute at Wikimedia projects are not for nation-building, and no clear motive was given to him as to why he was blocked. The general practice in these cases is for you to contact a third-party admin to impose a block if such a block is necessary. Additionally, it is also important to remember that, due to its internal nature, Meta-Wikimedia is not subject to the same policies as the English Wikipedia, and there is no need for blocking unless something very serious takes place (i.e. Meta policies don't need to be as strict due to the target audience). This is particularly important since, in the given article, you reverted a piece of information that is questionable: "Moldovan in the process of assimilation with Romanian nation". In both Romania and Moldova, this is known as a "unionist" viewpoint, generally held by nationalists (it's similar to the Kosovo unionist stance in Serbia). Although in Romania the unionist, "assimiliationist" view is quite popular, there is no reliable evidence to point to a cultural convergence between the two nations or the two languages. In fact, I could argue that, due to the process of nation-building, Moldovan culture is moving further away from Romanian culture, in the same way that Montenegrin culture is diverging from Serbian culture. In any case, Dpotop's editing history on the English Wikipedia points to the fact that he is not a troll or a vandal, and he generally places an emphasis on dialogue and negotiation. For that reason, I feel the block in unjustified. Name-calling such as "POV pusher vandal" is also unhelpful. Thanks, Ronline 07:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I fail to see the relevance of your comment "Second, you are involved party, not me. I am not from Romania" other than to make a rather discriminatory jab. Perhaps I did not interpret your comment correctly, but you seem to be alluding to the fact that just because I am Romanian, I am bound to have a bias towards Romanian users, and thus I am not allowed to question any of your admin actions. As an online community, at Wikipedia we should not look at people's ethnicity when determining their value (this should not be done anywhere, actually). In any case, what I mean by "involved party" is that you also participated significantly in that article, and you were one of the parties to the dispute with Dpotop, reverting his edits and the such. As an involved party, it is generally frowned upon to use punitive measures such as blocks; it can be interpreted as a case of admin abuse to silence your opponents. Lastly, I am simply making an inquiry into a block which I feel is unjustified, particularly in the context of Meta. If you feel that your block was correct, then please enlighten me as to why. After all, as an admin, you need to have accountability for your actions, and I have not see you give a detailed reason for your block, either on Dpotop's talk page or in the blocking log. Thanks, Ronline 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Millosh - all I asked for was a justification. You have managed to reply back to me in a round-about way and accused me of being "an advocate of POV pushing vandal", when you could've simply given a quick explanation of your actions, in the way that a responsible admin should do. This tells me that you're actually trying not to work with other users in a collaborative manner. To me, Dpotop is not a POV-pushing vandal, and I invite you to ask around on the English Wikipedia to people who have opposing views to him, and find out what they think. Please, stop judging people so harshly and be prepared for dialogue and for review of your admin actions by third parties. It's the only way that Wikipedia works. Ronline 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)