Wikipedia:Taverna/2009

De Wikipedia, le encyclopedia libere
Saltar al navigation Saltar al recerca
Nota


Taverna Taverna
Taverna

Benvenite al Taverna!
Hic tu pote lassar messages al communitate de Wikipedia in interlingua.

Crystal Clear action edit add.png   Nove commentario, al final de iste pagina.

Bot Bienvenido.png   Requestas de bots.

Crystal Clear app lists.png Activitates proponite in le Taverna.

Mail-notification.svg Notificationes global in anglese (traduction).

Crystal Clear app file-manager.png   Archivos del Taverna: 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005


Contento

Bon anno nove

Bon anno nove 2009! Io ha movite le Taverna de 2008 a un pagina de archivo. E bon die international de interlingua (15 de januario)! Cordialmente, André. 17:40, 3 januario 2009 (UTC)

Betawiki update

  • Currently 99.95% of the MediaWiki messages and 99.72% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 12:12, 10 januario 2009 (UTC)

International die de interlingua

Io vos desira un felice international die de interlingua. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 20:26, 15 januario 2009 (UTC)

Nove pagina principal

Io ha cambiate un pauc le disposition del pagina principal. Illo nunc include un imagine eminente. Le articulo e imagine eminente es rotate automaticamente conforme le mense. Iste paragraphos es in su proprie categoria. Le discussion super le articulo eminente seque in le mesme pagina. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 22:51, 16 januario 2009 (UTC)

Plus bon idea de pagina principal! Gratias, Julian. Tu labor pro isto nove format de pagina principal es plus utile. -- Architengi 07:20, 7 februario 2009 (UTC)

Idea re le classification de articulos

Io habe un idea in Usator:Almafeta/Classification_de_Articulos, un pro que io appreciarea qualcun criticismo o supporto. Almafeta 04:13, 24 januario 2009 (UTC)

Gratias pro tu bon ideas. Tamben, exista articulo eminente e articulo bon. Apollon ha essite votate como articulo eminente e es visualisate in Pagina Principal. 19:48, 5 februario 2009 (UTC)
Ligamines:
* Articulos eminente e Articulo eminente
* Articulos bon
Pro totes membros de interlingua wiki comunitate que lecturar isto message:
Pro selectar un articulo eminente o un articulo bon, es necesario un proponite e votar le articulo, e haber in le pagina de articulo un Patrono pro eminente, e un patrono pro articulo bon.
Question: Que membro cognosce le wiki sistemo plus bon? Nos debe crear un patrono pro articulo bon, ma io no sabe como isto se implementa in wiki. Adjuta: Es necesario adjuta pro le sistemo de articulo bon. Io necesita adjuta. Gratias.
(Escusa me pro mi errores de scribir in ia.) -- Architengi 20:10, 5 februario 2009 (UTC)
Io cognosce bon que ja il ha un categoria de articulos eminente. Ma, mi idea non es re le creation tan categoria... mi idea esse un schema pro le classification del articulos como le schema que esse usate pro le wikification de wikipedianos. Io creara un exemplo in mi articulo. Almafeta 21:31, 5 februario 2009 (UTC) Lege le proposition de nove, pro favor? Almafeta 22:14, 5 februario 2009 (UTC)
Si, hora io comprendo multo bon tu punto de vista. Io es de acordo con tu proponite pro Eminente/Bon, Topico, Importantia e si le articulo es Pecietta o non pecietta. Eminente in altere lingua es visibile in le lista de linguas - habe un stella, io no crede que repetar isto information re eminente interwiki es necesario; e mi opinion es que protejer le articulos o patronos no es necesario hora. Isto tabela to ha proposite es bon de monstrar al fino del pagina e non al start de pagina (in mi opinion), pro que le contento de illo es un clasification in wiki e informatia auxiliaria. Ab start de pagina pro un citate (pro exemplo) se necesita un patrono con le nome del citate, un fotografia del citate, le population, le area, etc. - ab start se necesita un patrono como Infobox settlement. Isto patrono tu proposite pro clasification in wiki e informatia auxiliara pote incorporar, ma io no es multo seguro de isto, altere informatione como un articulo in isto thematica exista in mediawiki. -- Architengi 22:39, 6 februario 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Erm... le proposition no esse pro un patrono a poner pro le articulo. Mi proposition esse un patrono pro le pagina de discussion del articulo. Le patronettos apparera ubi le editores pote viderlo como un utensile del editores habitual. Almafeta 04:01, 7 februario 2009 (UTC)
OK. Io es de accordo. Gratias pro tu bon idea. Isto es plus util pro le editores, e si isto es monstrate in le pagina de discussion, es facile de vider le caracteristicas del articulo. Si le patrono es modificate automatic, es plus bon, pro que le dimension in KB de articul e altere caracteristicas se pote modificar del tempo al tempo, e le patrono debe modificar se con le actualitat del articulo. -- Architengi 04:54, 7 februario 2009 (UTC)
Caro Almafeta, que pensa tu de mi modification pro le imagine de tu patrono {{VA 10K}} Iste articulo ha 10 kilobytes o plus.? Si tu pensa le imagine non es bon, per favor dice me. Nos pote cambiar lo. -- Architengi 22:48, 23 februario 2009 (UTC)
Es plus interesante que un stella, ma... pro que le duple sagittas? Almafeta 23:37, 23 februario 2009 (UTC)
Le sagittas significa dimension, e le K significa kilo-bytes :-). Le cantitate no significa calitate e stella es utilisate in general como calitate (pro articulo eminente). Si tu no place isto imagine con sagittas, tu pote cambiar le patrono, no problema. -- Gratias, --Architengi 23:45, 23 februario 2009 (UTC)
Ah, si, bon idea. So de accordo. =) Almafeta 23:51, 23 februario 2009 (UTC)
Io cambiava le duple sagittas per un sagitta simple a alto. Comocunque io non me oppone a cambiar los de nove. Io usava imagines SVG proque illos es vectorial. --Julian (disc.) 22:09, 17 martio 2009 (UTC)

Multe personas questionar nos re CURSOS pro Interlingua

Salute !

Caro amigos e in-amoratos de wiki e Interlingua. Multe personas questionar membros seniores como Ensjo e alteres pro CURSOS pro Interlingua in Espaniol, Francese, etc, etc. Que pensa vos de colaborar in isto comunitate pro crear un nove curso special pro commenciatores in wiki e in Interlingua. Un curso specific pro wiki con wiki questiones e respondes. Isto curso in Anglese, Espaniol, Francese, Portugese, Italiano, Germano e Russo como linguas de basa pro Interlingua e altere linguas, altere linguas Romanic, altere linguas international o parlate de multo personas como Chinese etc. Io propone que isto curso developpato hic in wiki-ia, pro que hic nos pote traducter partes de curso in differite linguas que nos sabe, e isto es un potential de developpamento multo dinamic.

Exemples de mesajes ab personas que questiona cursos basic de interlingua:

Salute ! Vocabulario interlingua - Por favor, puedes traducir estas palabras en interlingua ? Ser (verbo), Estar, Hablar, responder, decir, conocer, llamarse, llamar, olvidar, ver, dar. Gratias :) Amicalmente, Jagwar 08:34, 7 octobre 2008 (UTC)
== Aprender Interlingua en Español ==
Hola, he estado buscando por Internet cursos para aprender interlingua pero no hay ninguno es español. Teniendo en cuenta que el español es la segunda lengua más hablada del mundo creo que sería muy importante tener cursos e información de interlingua en español para lograr difundir esta lengua franca. ¿Hay algún curso en español?
Otra cosa, ¿por qué interlingua? ¿por qué no esperanto? El esperanto sí tiene muchos cursos en internet tanto en español como en otras lenguas, quizás por eso tenga más éxito.
== Curso de Interlingua e certificato pro la Universitate ==
amico io deseo estudiar interlingua si, pero me agradaria que pudiera ser a traves de algun curso a distancia es qu entre a la universidad y yo quiero eliminar como segunda lengua al ingles, y en lugar de ingles yo quiero estudiar interlingua, pero como ninguna instituion en colombia la enseña. entonces deseo saber en que parte de colombia o en que parte del mundo que enseñen A DISTANCIA tal lengua podria estudiar tal lengua, o sea en doen me den certificado por que es para presentar tal nota ante los profes de la U. --att: Usator:Jodio
-------------

Poter nos crear un curso pro Wiki e Wikipediatores e Interlingua? Tote personas pote proponer un question o phrase que nos pensamos que es multo utile pro illos que start con Wiki o con Interlingua e debe primero questionar altere personas con experiantia. Exemples de questiones que novices o personas que es al start con Wiki o Interlingua pote haber (istos questiones e responses e phrase va esse includite in le Curso, isto es il Curso, pro favor ADJUTA con questiones/phrases/palabras basic in alicun lingua, e pro favor adjuta con le trduction de istors in le lingua que tu saber):

  • (EN) How can I do this?
(IA) Como pote io facer isto?
(ES) ¿Como puede yo hace esto?
(FR) ...
(PT) ...
(IT) ...
(GE) ...
(RU) ...
(CH) ...
  • (EN) What is your name?
(IA) Cual es tu nome?
(ES) ¿Como te llamas?
(FR) ...
(PT) ...
(IT) ...
  • (EN) My name is Simba.
(IA) Mi nome es Simba.
(ES) Me llamo Simba. Mi nombre es Simba.
(FR) ...
  • (EN) Where can I find this?
(IA) Ubi io pote trovar isto?
(ES) ...
  • (EN) Who can help me with this?
(IA) ...
  • (EN) Why is the template not displaying properly?
(IA) ...
  • (EN) When is an article nominated as featured article?
(IA) ...
  • (EN) I know how to create a table in wiki.
(IA) ...
  • (EN) What do I need to do to create a page for my native city in ia-wiki?
(IA) ...

.....

Que pensa vos? Es un Curso de Interlingua necesario?

Pote vos adjutar? Pote vos expandar isto phrases? Pote vos traductir in altere linguas?

Gratias. Architengi 21:08, 5 februario 2009 (UTC)

Il ja ha plure bon cursos pro le gente regular re Interlingua. Pro Wikipedianos nove a nostre lingua, nos pote crear un pagina con le nomine de terminos de Wikipedia. Per exemplo, un "stub" in en: esse un "pecietta" hic, e un "category" un "categoria". Terminas technic como istes non esse obvie per leger le IED, e essera immediatemente utile! ;)
(E io crede que un bon curso re Interlingua in arabe debe esser scribite... ma.) Almafeta 22:25, 5 februario 2009 (UTC)
-----
Gratias, Almafeta pro tu response.
Si, exista plure bon cursos pro apprender Interlingua. Ma no in Espaniol, tu mention Arabe, no in Russo, no in Chinese, etc. Le question es, pote nos crear un curso? No in 10 dias, ma in 6 menses? Le wiki usatores pote proponer un question o un phrase in [EN] o in [ES] o in [FR], etc, e nos, le ia-wiki comunitate pote traductir illo in altere linguas. In isto modo nos pote crear un curso multi-lingual hic. Pro exemplo, Almafeta, pro favor, pote tu adjutar e proponer del tempo a tempo un nove phrase pro includer in le curso? Pote tu, pro favor, translate uno de phrases in IA, FR, ES, EN, o altere linguas tu cognosce? Si tu pote adjutar e alteres del comunitate pote adjutar, nos va haber un comunitate forte, multe altere personas va adjutar hic. Interlingua es un lingua plus simple, plus harmoniosa, con gramatica regular, ma tote le personas ha un tempo limitato, e si le curso no es disponibile o es supra altere thematicas no es bon pro isto activitat. Isto curso va haber un parte generic pro tote le activitates e un parte con ligamines a wiki. Isto es un initiativa bon, ma necesita adjuta. Si altere personas pote adjutar isto projecto va vivir e va adjutar multe altere personas pro apprender Interlingua, ma si no persona dice que pote adjutar, isto projecto va murir e un bon oportunitat es disipate hic e hora. Pro favor, si tu pote adjuta con un nove phrase o un traduction ab septimana, pro favor dice Si hora. Multe gratie -- Architengi 23:06, 6 februario 2009 (UTC)
Pro ora, Architengi, le servicio que io face pro Interlingua esse adjutar le creation de un corpore de information -- ambe scientific e contemporanee, historic e moderne -- in Interlingua: iste Wikipedia. Io non potera promitter a nihil, desfortunatemente, altere que mi scopos pro iste wiki. Almafeta 02:15, 8 februario 2009 (UTC)
-
Caro Almafeta, tu adjuta de creation de articulos es excellente. Un labor plus apreciate. Tu cognosce Interlingua plus bon. Io ha creatite multe articoles, etiam. Ma, le problema principal hic esse cuanto usatores lege e contribute a isto articulos, a isto ia-wiki. Si le comunitate de interlingua es parve, le utilitate de isto articulos in le futuro va esser parve. Pro que le information e le contento se cambia in tempo, si le articulos no es modificate con le novitas, le articulo no es utile. Le scientia va progresar, le citates va progresar, le georgraphia se va cambiar, le mundo se va cambiar. Si le comunitate non es forte, mi labor de scibir articulos hic es disipate. (Noticia: Io no es parte de ningun organization e io no ha ningun intereso personal pro un curso, ma quero adjutar altere personas que questiona nos pro un curso.) Un usator ha scribite:
"español es la segunda lengua más hablada del mundo creo que sería muy importante tener cursos e información de interlingua en español para lograr difundir esta lengua franca. ¿Hay algún curso en español?"
Multe personas parlatores de anglese, espaniol e francese esse monoglotes. Multe personas que parla espaniol e francese questiona nos pro adjutar los con un curso de interlingua in espaniol e in francese. Un curso online anglese-interlingua no es suficiente, multe personas que parla espaniol o francese no parla anglese. Io creo que nos poter adjutar los, e con isto, adjutar le comunitate ia-wiki a devenir un comunitate plus forte, e adjutar interlingua a devenir plus utilisate e parlate. Que pensa tu, que pensa vos? -- Architengi 18:57, 9 februario 2009 (UTC)
Sr(a). Architengi: Io non esse secur re francese (forsan le national association de Interlingua de Francia?), ma io sape que le national associationes interlinguistic de Espania, Mexico, e Argentina habe create cursos espaniol-interlingua in le Internet. Almafeta 19:52, 9 februario 2009 (UTC)
-
Gratia pro tu response Almafeta. Io no sape de ningun curso in Francese, Portugese, Russo o Arabe, o Chinese. O de altere linguas. Si tu sape de uno o multe cursos in Espaniol, pro favor mentiona lo o los in le pagina Adjuta:Referentias_pro_apprender_interlingua. Cognosce tu o vos de cursos in francese? Isto curso que nos pote crear hic pro adjutar altere personas que es interesate de ia-wiki es un curso multi-lingual e plus utile pro que multe personas pote adjutar a illo, personas que no sape anglese pote proponer un phrasa pro il curso in su lingua natal, o si no sape interlingua pote proponer in altere lingua que su cognosce. Le cursos que existan es le vision de uno o due authores que cognosce le due linguas del curso, ma pro isto curso, le contento pote esser create de alicun persona in alicun lingua - isto es un advantaje, no? --Architengi 00:51, 10 februario 2009 (UTC)

(continuation)

en:Soft drink

Io vole expander le articulo re caffeina, ma... como on pote traducer le phrase "soft drink"?

  • de: Erfrischungsgetränk
  • en: Soft drink (etiam: soda, pop, coke, tonic, fizzy, mineral)
  • es: Refresco (etiam: bebida, gaseosa)
  • fr: Soda (etiam: liquer)
  • nl: Frisdrank
  • pt: Refrigerante (etiam: gasosa, refresco)

Le nomine de iste typo de bebita esse assatis non formal, e le companias que produce iste bebitas non habe un nomine "technic" proque illes refere a iste bebitas con le nomine non formal de su cultura... o, pejor pro le traduction a Interlingua, simplemente con le parola pro "bebita", que esse technicamente correcte, ma "bebita" non defini iste typo de biberage. Almafeta 04:15, 12 februario 2009 (UTC)

Le dictionario nederlandese-interlingua de Cleij da pro "frisdrank": bibita refrescante/gasose, limonada. Su nove dictionario francese-interlingua da pro "soda": bibita gasose. CEID de Gopsill/Sexton da le mesme pro "pop". Iste termino, "bibita gasose", me pare como le plus specific e descriptive. Le linguage informal es rarmente international, dunque on debe frequentemente usar parolas in interlingua le quales in lor linguas de origine es considerate como formal. – Martijn 18:12, 13 februario 2009 (UTC)
Io etiam pensa facer emphase in le significato gasose. Io cercava le parola soft drink in le dictionario in anglese, e illo es definite como un bibita carbonatate sin alcohol. In le dictionario in espaniol, illo es definite como bibita refrescante, effervescente e sin alcohol. Io pensa que bibita gasose o bibita carbonatate poterea esser le plus convenibile. --Julian (disc.) 13:10, 15 februario 2009 (UTC)
Apparently Italian seems to have borrowed the term "soft drink", Russian has Газированные напиток (Gazirovannye napitok) , meaning something like "gassy drink". Bibita gasose or bibita carbonatate seems fine. Wakuran 21:42, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)

Special:ModificationesRecente

An habe alicuno altere notate que le ligamine de "Modificationes recente" (in le cassa de navigation al sinistre) ora liga a Special:ModificationesRecente, e non al pagina correcte, Special:Modificationes recente? Almafeta 16:13, 18 februario 2009 (UTC)

Ben que il pare que le problema ha jam essite solvite de alcun modo, ecce le explication. Le sito de traduction translatewiki.net, in le qual io labora pro mantener le traduction in interlingua del interfacie de MediaWiki, permitte traducer etiam le nomines del paginas special in interlingua. Io ha completate iste traductiones, de sorta que omne pagina special ha un nomine in interlingua. Le traductiones jam existente habeva le mesme stilo que le originales anglese: sin spatios, ma con CataParolaComencianteConUnMajuscula. Le termino americanoanglese pro isto es "CamelCase". Le traductiones in interlingua es frequentemente plus longe que le originales in anglese e isto, in mi opinion, ha un aspecto multo fede. Postea io ha notate que plure traductiones del paginas special in altere linguas, como le francese, usa spatios in loco de CamelCase. Alora io ha convertite tote le nomines in interlingua a usar spatios. Io supponeva que le software adaptarea automaticamente le ligamines existente, ma isto pare non haber essite le caso, e io spera que isto non ha causate troppo de incommoditate. – Martijn 20:25, 2 martio 2009 (UTC)

Ecce Ido?

A pagina principal de Ido (io:Frontispico), il habe un section, "Altra lingui," que liga a paginas pauc con historias breve de Ido, e con ligamines re le apprension de Ido, cata uno in su lingua natal.

Forsan nos pote facer le mesme? Almafeta 20:03, 21 februario 2009 (UTC)

Si, io es de accordo, isto es idea plus bon. Qual es le plan? Io pote adjutar a isto. --- Architengi 22:22, 26 februario 2009 (UTC)

Nove pagina "Cursos in Interlingua" - pro favor collabrar a illo

(discussion previe)

Nove pagina Cursos in Interlingua - es un portal con ligamines a cursos (pro favor adjuta e add ligamines) e con cursos collaborative - pro favor collabrar a le cursos.

  • Que pensa vos?

Flag of the United Kingdom.svg New page "Courses in Interlingua" - you can add a new phrase to the courses or translate some phrases in the languages you know.


Salute. Wikipedia in interlingua es un encyclopedia, e ergo illo deberea haber articulos encyclopedic. Probabilemente, le melior placia pro le cursos esserea Wikibooks.
Comocunque, il es ver que le communitate de contribuentes de Wikipedia necessita cognoscer o apprender ben le lingua pro scriber correctemente. In plus, il es etiam ver que quando nos tarda plus tempore in poter inseniar le lingua al interessatos, nos ha minus possibilitates de haber illes pro contribuer.
Wikipedia ha un participation de contribuentes e un controlo regular de administratores que Wikibooks non ha.
Mi proposition es facer un compromisso. Nos poterea haber iste cursos in Wikipedia in le spatio de nomines de adjuta o un spatio de nomines specific. De iste maniera, le contento esserea separate del articulos encyclopedic, sed poterea esser facilemente usate pro le contribuentes de Wikipedia. Que pensa vos? --Julian (disc.) 21:07, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Forsan combinate con un introduction e lingamines al referentias del lingua (como io mentionava in "Ecce Ido"), e un glossario de termines wikipedic (stub->pecietta, image->imagine, template->patrono, et cetera) pro facilitar le traductiones del termines de mediawiki. Io non crede que nos debe haber cursos de interlingua hic, ma crear pagines como parte del Adjuta de iste wikipedia (un parte del wiki que ha essite negligite <_<; ), sia bon. Almafeta 21:46, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Possiblemente ligamines a patronos commun, etiam. Wakuran 21:48, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Io ha movite le pagina Portal:Cursos de Interlingua a Adjuta:Cursos de Interlingua. Le "Portal" va haber solo ligamines a cursos, no le cursos. Gratias, Architengi 22:22, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)

Lista de patronos

Hi, is there a list of templates somewhere? I'd like to find one just by writing "patrono" (or maybe "template") in the search field. Wakuran 12:18, 26 martio 2009 (UTC)

In le mesme location que esse in cata Wikipedia, Special:Tote le paginas (o hic pro le ligamine directe al liste de cata pagina in le spatio de nomines Patrono). Almafeta 21:36, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Aha, gratias. Possiblemente no tanto "usator-amical" a cercar, ma bon... Wakuran 21:44, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)


Io propone a te de usar le categorias de patronos Categoria:Patronos e le sub-categorias pro example Categoria:Patronos_infobox ha isto patronos utile:

A

C

F

L

M

P

Tu pote copiar un patrono de un articulo con un citate o un pais, etc del lingua Anglese in un articulo in Interlingua con pauc/minime modificationes pro que le alicun patronos (ex: Settlement, Country) ha le nomine similare con le Anglese Template. In isto modo es simple de copiar le patrono de le articulo de wikipedia anglese como un bloc de text e poner/placiar le bloc de text del patrono in le articulo in Interlingua. --Architengi 00:17, 28 martio 2009 (UTC)


Gratias. Wakuran 23:53, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)


Pro maxime resultato e minus de labor:
Copiar un bloc de text con tote le contento de patrono de un articulo con un citate o un pais, etc - de un articolo in Lingua anglese in un articulo in Interlingua con minime modificationes pro que le alicun patronos (ex: {{Infobox Settlement ... }}, {{Infobox Country ... }}, etc) ha le nomine similare con le Anglese Template, ma es traductite in Interlingua. Le resulato es minus de labor :) --Architengi 00:17, 28 martio 2009 (UTC)

Hiatetto

Io non potera contribuer al rata que io habeva scribite pro un poco, proque Wikipedia -- un del sol paginas non blocate per mi empleator -- esseva blocate anteheri como un "uso non acceptabile del Internet." Pardono... Almafeta 21:41, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)

Tu empleator es un homine de grande sagessa. ;) Wakuran 22:30, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia es un fonte de solutiones pro multe questiones. Tu empleator va laxar le productivitate. :-( Architengi 23:40, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
E pro qual ration? Usar le productivitate pro su mesme compania. Tan egoista sol veder cosas de su mesme punto. =S Wakuran 23:57, 27 martio 2009 (UTC)
Es plus de productivitate pro su compania si le empleatos pote utilisar le encyclopedia pro que le encyclopedia ha multe responsas e solutiones. Le informatia es potentia/fortia/efficacia. Si le empleatos es informate, le compania es plus forte. :-) Architengi 00:28, 28 martio 2009 (UTC)

Io esse felice a reportar que mi hiaetto ha finite, pro ora; mi empleo previe se finiva, e io ha retornate al mundo scholastic (ma io me ha cambiava de universitate: io saliva de Radford University, e hodie io assiste al Universitate de Missouri in Kansas City. Io spera que mi habilitate con Interlingua non ha ganiate tanto pulvere como mi habilitate del calculo... ;) Almafeta 04:14, 27 augusto 2009 (UTC)

Io es etiam felice. :) --Julian (disc.) 22:28, 27 augusto 2009 (UTC)

Felice die de folles!

Mi die favorite del anno, le die de satira, le die de pensamento critic. Felice die de folles, tote. =) Almafeta 15:41, 1 april 2009 (UTC)

Bot approval for inital sighting of authoritative pages

I am User:Melancholie, bureaucrat and sighter on the Alemannic Wikipedia, SysOp and sighter on the German Wiktionary and operator of MelancholieBot for example. I want to apply for the "editor" right (= sighter) also on this wiki:

The reason for this request is that I do have a bot script available that can help you with the initial sighting process ("FlaggedRevs") for foolproof pages! Why? Not-yet-flagged pages will appear with a red exclamation mark, even if a sighter edited it. A sighter will have to sight it afterwards, even if the page has only been edited by absolutely trustworthy users in past! That's much much unneeded work!

My script will minimize and fasten up your extra work on this by sighting (flagging, marking) the latest revision of all reliable and clean pages (templates, images, articles; redirects) automatically, based on a user whitelist!

  1. Step #1:
    • Currently, only all SysOps of your wiki are on this list.
    • If you could confirm that your flagged bots did and still are working well (in respect of hidden spam/vandalism) I will add them too, what would be very important for the efficiency within the article namespace!
  2. Step #2:
    • Furthermore, please confirm that the content contributions of your sighters have been - respectivaly are (the latest revision gets flagged only) - free of spam and vandalism. With adding also all sighters to the whitelist, you could have the biggest benefit in respect of unnecessary work you will not have to do manually on your own!
    • Are there any reliable users (or bots/static IPs), that are not yet allowed to sight?

You will be able to have an eye on that process all the time at Special:Log/review, by the way! But first I have to have the right to flag (sight) on this wiki.

By the way: If you should have any general problems (layout etc.) with the FlaggedRevs extension, please let me know.
You can see how it works, at huwiki and frnews for example (see full list). --- Best regards, Melancholie 21:39, 1 april 2009 (UTC)
Nos habe bastante bots, nonne? Quasi plus bots que usatores... Almafeta 21:46, 1 april 2009 (UTC)
A bot flag is not necessary, only the sighter status, by the way. --- Best regards, Melancholie 22:11, 1 april 2009 (UTC)
(Melancholie, if you need a translation of this, please let me know.)
Infortunatemente le qualitate linguistic del articulos in iste Wikipedia es ancora multo inconsistente. Alcun articulos ha bon linguage, alteres es terribile. Assumente que le uso principal de Marcaversiones/FlaggedRevs es le assecurantia del qualitate linguistic, io pensa que il non es un bon idea automaticamente visitar le paginas modificate per administratores: le facto es que non tote le administratores (o usatores) a iste wikipedia scribe bon interlingua! Io pensa que iste decision require un dicussion seriose inter le contributores. – Martijn 10:14, 2 april 2009 (UTC)
Hello Melancholie. As Martijn said, we need to manually sight each article. Some articles need a very deep revision. Probably someday this bot will be useful here. Thank you anyway for your offer. Regards, --Julian (disc.) 11:34, 2 april 2009 (UTC)

Salute Melancholie,

Binevenite a Wikipedia in Interlingua.

Tu proposite de crear un robot es plus interesante.

Io crede que tu comprende Interlingua (como comenciante? o intermedio?) e to vole adjutar.

Tu initiativa es plus bon.

Io crede que tu pote explicar a tote le contributores que tu initiativa es bon.

Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Welcome Melanconie at Wikipedia in Interlingua with this good idea. This will help this wikipedia to be safeproof.

There is much unneeded work! Like Melancholie wrote: "A sighter will have to sight a page afterwards, even if the page has only been edited by absolutely trustworthy users in past!"
The proposal to have a list of users - whitelist is very good.
I propose to have in this list named Whitelist (Lista blanca):
1. Martijn
2. Almafeta
3. Julian
When one of these users edits a page, it makes sense to mark that page as sighted! Because nobody edits a page without reading it.
I found the proposal functional, because you can limit the Whitelist how you want. It can have only the 3 useres proposed above. If you don't try something, you actually don't know how really is! The content of the pages is not affected by the bot! And the mark on the page can be manually reverted if anybody thinks it is not correct. Please think this functionality, this helpful engine can be adjusted in the future.
I think we can give the bot a try and then we can see exactly how it works. Any bot can be stopped and its changes can be undone. It actually marks the sighted pages by Whitelist (Lista blanca usatores ;-) users as sighted.
I consider the bot very, very helpful. -Gratias, Architengi 00:49, 7 april 2009 (UTC)
Actually I have doubts of the Flagged Revisions module... So, please consider the above opinion by me with the wish to see it how it works first and then I will give my final opinion.
And yes, I concur with what Martijn wrote: "le qualitate linguistic del articulos in iste Wikipedia es ancora multo inconsistente... Io pensa que iste decision require un dicussion seriose inter le contributores."
The same discussion we need to have about Flagged Revisions module... Will this module make the people who know Interlingua to review and correct more articles? How many more articles will they correct versus before the introduction of this "FRevisions" module? Will this module discourage users and new users who cannot modify the article anymore, but just a provisory version of it? Will this module introduce more disarrangement, trouble then friendly contribution? Myself I found the possibility to modify only an intermediary version of the page which will be latter approved just by 1 (one) so-called Redactor discouraging. Any user seeing that Modify the provisory page button instead of the Modify the article feels that is bothering someone, because someone needs to review and approve his contribution. --Architengi 18:27, 8 april 2009 (UTC)

Actualisation de licentia

Con isto io vole diriger vostre attention al pagina Actualisation de licentia in le Meta-Wiki; il se tracta de un voto, que essera conducite tosto, super un cambiamento importante in le licentia sub le qual tote le contento de Wikipedia (in omne linguas) es publicate. Io ha traducite le majoritate del materiales super iste question in interlingua. Per favor face lection de probas e insere omne correctiones neccessari. In addition, per favor pensa super iste question e adde vostre commentos a meta:Talk:Licensing_update/ia – il essera bon si nos Wikipedistas interlinguophone esserea visibile a Meta. E non oblida votar quando le voto es aperte. :-) Gratias – Martijn 08:16, 2 april 2009 (UTC)

Iste voto es multo importante. Illo poterea affectar le licentia del contributiones futur. Io cambiara le parve texto supra le paginas pro adverter super iste voto. --Julian (disc.) 10:19, 3 april 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions / Marcaversiones

Pffff… le lingua anglese ha un propension sin equal a jargon impenetrabile. Le extension "Flagged Revisions", recentemente installate a iste wiki, es le pessime exemplo que io ha vidite. Pro clarificar lo pro le alteres, "to sight" vole dicer: verificar le qualitate de un articulo e, si le qualitate es bon, marcar le articulo como "sighted".

Laborante pro completar le traduction in Interlingua de iste extension a translatewiki.net, io ha seligite provisorimente le sequente traductiones de parolas difficile o multiinterpretabile:

  • draft → version provisori
  • editor → redactor
  • Flagged Revisions → Marcaversiones (le nomine del extension; componite de modo analoge a portamoneta, parapluvia, guardaroba, espaventaaves, etc.)
  • outdated → obsolete
  • oversight → supervision
  • oversighter → supervisor
  • to review → revider
  • review → revision
  • reviewer → revisor
  • revision → version (pro evitar ambiguitate con revision = [en] review!)
  • to sight → visitar (in le senso de controlar, como visitar le valises in le securitate al aeroporto)
  • sighted → visitate

Omne commento super iste selectiones es benvenite. Si nos arriva a un consenso que un altere traduction es preferite pro un certe parola, es facile cambiar lo. Mi plus grande dubita es super "visitar"/"visitate" e io es specialmente interessate in opiniones de isto, e alternativas possibile.

Martijn 10:05, 2 april 2009 (UTC)

Con respecto a "visitar"/"visatate", que pensa vos super usar "mirar"/"mirate"? Illo defini major attention que "vider", ha un senso similar a revider, e ha relation con le parola anglese "sight". --Julian (disc.) 10:59, 2 april 2009 (UTC)
Me place iste idea! – Martijn 02:18, 3 april 2009 (UTC)

Ubi esseva le discussion re Flagged Revisions?

Io vole notar ci que io ha essite multo surprendite per le introduction subite del extension Flagged Revisions a Wikipedia in Interlingua, proque io habeva le impression que iste extension es solmente relevante pro le Wikipedias plus grande. Normalmente, un tal cambiamento radical del functionamento de iste sito es precedite per un discussion in le communitate, e io non es felice que io non ha potite dar mi opinion anteriormente.

Facite que es facite, io pensa que es necessari un discussion super como iste extension va esser usate. Considerante que nos non pote (ancora?) esser multo ambitiose quanto al qualitate del contento del articulos, io suppone que le verification qualitate linguistic es le melior uso del extension in nostre caso. Wikipedia poterea devenir un melior exemplo de bon interlingua pro le mundo, e isto pote esser un bon cosa.

Martijn 10:05, 2 april 2009 (UTC)

Io es de accordo. Le uso que iste extension deberea haber al initio es esser usate pro controlar le qualitate linguistic. --Julian (disc.) 11:03, 2 april 2009 (UTC)
Io vole saper qui faceva le cambio... un cambio al codice de iste Wiki require le adjuta del fundation wikipedic. Necuno hic habe celle poter... Almafeta 20:19, 2 april 2009 (UTC)
De accordo, anque io vole saper lo. De facto, io pensava que le "bureaucrates" pote decider lo, ma forsan tu ha ration. Isto me rende ancora plus curiose re qui ha prendite iste decision, e proque. – Martijn 01:58, 3 april 2009 (UTC)
Io faceva iste requesta le anno passate. Per favor, vide Wikipedia:Taverna 2008#FlaggedRevs. Io credeva e totevia crede que iste extension es inoffensive, illo non deteriora nostre forma de laborar, e adde un instrumento extra pro haber un wikipedia scribite in bon interlingua. --Julian (disc.) 09:36, 3 april 2009 (UTC)
Gratias, Julian, io clarmente non ha prestate attention durante ille tempore, mi excusas pro isto. In omne caso io pensa que le idea es bon in se. – Martijn 12:52, 3 april 2009 (UTC)
Sin problema. --Julian (disc.) 22:31, 5 april 2009 (UTC)


I am very surprised on how Flagged Revissions module works, I thought it is only a small flag on the page, not a restriction to modify pages.
I personally find very frustrating to have this inability to contribute to the pages until they are revissioned and this "supervising" thing.
This Flagged Revissions makes contributors to feel supervised. Supervised as at work. We work here for free, remember? We do this for the scope of creating something useful, we may do it for fun,
This FlaggedRevs makes us feel there is NO TRUST in people. This is kind of dictatorship.
Flagged Revissions is like we start from the perception that other contributors are guilty, without even knowing them. This FlaggedRevs module considers any new potential contributor as vandal, who wants to destroy the pages. I don't like to see my changes in a state which require supervision and approval (I just stumbled over this, I changed Buenos Aires today and I experienced this). Keep in mind that contributors here are spending their precious time for no remuneration. We don't know each other and there is no IQ Test or Knowledge Test or a real interview to asses if a new contributor can modify the articles or just pages under supervision for a later review.
Guys, this is so frustrating, the fact that you cannot change the page, but just a copy of the page which requires approval.

This is not anymore free encyclopedia, like the motto says - "Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia". This is sort of master-servant relation, you feel supervised and with no power. I completly dislike this. I don't care that German wikipedia created this and there it was installed. Germans did other things wrong in history in relation to freedom and dictatorship. It is great in other wikipedias it is not installed this supervising module. It is awful. It introduces the notion that we are on the camera, we are supervised by some contributors that subjectivelly are better than others.
I thought it is only a flag on the page, not a restriction to modify the page.
If someone wants to experiment on a temporary page, it can use the preview mode or a subpage of the main page or a sandbox. For some pages that are consistenly vandalized, it makes sense to have a lock, this is an existing functionallity, no need for this FlaggedRevs. The only good place for FlaggedRevs would be for consistenly vandalized articles or with every day contradictory changes on a page. It is not the case here with our wikipedia. And if it happens we can still use the lock. The problem with this Flagged Revissions is that we say we approve it for few articles and fos special scenarious, but after a while it became more and more used.
Keep in mind that restriction of liberties comes in little steps. Once you open the door to a small renounce on a liberty, you become in time less free. You loose year by year more liberty. That's why my proposal is to remove this Flagged Revissions.
I find this module so unaceptable and so contradicting with the notion of "free speech", "community spirit of free contribution for the mankind", "liberty of action" that if it is not removed, I will not contribute anymore to this wikipedia. Thank you, --Architengi 22:44, 7 april 2009 (UTC)
Car Architengi, FlaggedRevs es in un stato initial de configuration. Per exemplo, recentemente nos traduceva le commandos basic. In le sequente passos, nos habera un grande corpore de redactores que pote mirar le articulos individualmente.
Le experientia monstra que multe gente ha contribuite con bon intentiones, sed con pauc cognoscimento del lingua. Le resultato es que le Wikipedia in interlingua monstra articulos que non es in interlingua. Isto require un grande e continue labor de revision.
FlaggedRevs labora con le assi appellate "versiones stabile". Iste versiones debe esser scribite in correcte interlingua. Un mixtura linguistic que sembla interlingua non suffice pro haber un encyclopedia de qualitate. Le versiones non stabile (in forma predeterminate) es visibile solmente al usatores registrate.
In addition, FlaggedRevs non es un forma de censura. Le censura ha potite esser facilemente facite per administratores ab le comenciamento del projecto Wikipedia.
Io apprecia tu contributiones. Io spera que tu reconsidera tu opinion super FlaggedRevs. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 00:02, 8 april 2009 (UTC)


Dear Julian. Your effort to improve this Wikipedia is visible and very much appreciated.
Thank you for promoting me as Redactor, but I have to say my opinion on Flagged Revisions is the same; it is not good for our Wikipedia.
Every wikipedia needs more users, in particular our international language wikipedia is based on people knowing Interlingua as a second-language. We don’t have so many users to afford to loose other new ones or potential contributors.
Flagged Revisions is building barriers, fences, barbed wires.
We are building this encyclopedia here, we need more articles, Esperanto has over 100.000, Ido has over 16.000, and we don’t even have even 5.000 articles yet and we don’t have even the 1000 articles every wikipedia should have… we are in the elaboration and construction phase, let’s primarily focus on this, the Quality Assurance can be done at a later time, or in parallel, but without locking the existing pages.
Instead of encouraging new users to contribute, to learn Interlingua and be a user at this wikipedia, this module FlaggedRevisions is not just a flag (this is what I thought initially when I saw this module as a potential useful addition) but this module is a barrier. New users cannot touch the articles anymore, there is no modify article anymore, now this "FRevis" introduces Modificar version provisori. So now new users can modify only a provisory version of the page. Less liberty. Still the revisions could and can be done without this module. This is not attracting and is not encouraging new users to ever contribute in this Wikipedia.
-- Architengi 17:50, 8 april 2009 (UTC)


Tote le usatores modifica le version actual ("provisori") del articulo. Usatores anonyme sol pote vider le version historic que ha essite approvate que esser un version sin vandalismo... esse un utensile contravandalismo, que non preveni ulle modification. (Io ja crede que, con nostre nivello de vandalismo, esse un utensile que nos non ja require, sed...) Almafeta 22:19, 8 april 2009 (UTC)
Gratias pro tu recognoscentia, Architengi. Como te diceva ante, FlaggedRevs es in un phase initial. Io non vide iste extension como un barriera pro meliorar iste wikipedia. Per favor, da nos alicun tempore (alicun menses) pro facer iste extension completemente operative. Isto es non solmente ab le puncto de vista technic, sed etiam ab le puncto de vista human.
Con respecto al discussion de quantitate e qualitate, per favor non subestima le avantages que apporta un texto scribite in bon interlingua. Milliones de personas comprende interlingua immediatemente, sed il es difficile pro illes trovar le parolas correcte pro scriber in interlingua. Un pagina scribite in bon interlingua es un bon exemplo pro apprender lo. In vice, un pagina scribite con formas grammatical incorrecte e parolas inexistente in interlingua confunde al personas que vole apprender lo.
Gratias pro tu comprension. --Julian (disc.) 09:26, 9 april 2009 (UTC)


I think that before this module Flagged_Revisions was installed the initiator of this should have presented what this module is about to the contributors here and ask them if we need it or not. Was this done?
Now that I see this module is not only a small flag on the top-righ corner of the page but a barrier to modify the page until is approved by a so called Redactor, I have to say I am against this module (and any more trial of it).
Of course we want to have articles with no grammar or other errors, but anybody could modify the articles and improve them in the past. Why do we need this module then? The "bon interlingua, articulos de qualitate" could be obtained without this module, because anybody could correct any article.
This module is not useful except vandalism, but introduces NO TRUST among contributors and new contributors.
Will this module discourage users and new users who cannot modify the article anymore, but just a provisory version of it? Will this module introduce more disarrangement, trouble then friendly contribution? Any user seeing that Modify the provisory page button instead of the Modify the article feels that is bothering someone, because someone needs to review and approve his contribution. Thank you, --Architengi 23:17, 14 april 2009 (UTC)


Mi opinion es:
  1. FlaggedRevs: un extension del systema de versiones de Wikipedia pro marcar le versiones stabile de articulos.
  2. Discussion: le modulo esseva presentate plus que 3 menses ante su installation.
  3. Censura: qualcunque usator pote reverter le modificationes de qualcunque altere usator. Le administratores (e non le redactores) pote blocar al usatores.
  4. No trust: qualcunque usator pote modificar qualcunque articulo e pensar in le contento del articulo in vice del precision linguistic. Le redactores corrige le parte linguistic.
  5. Discoragiamento del usatores: (vider le puncto anterior). In facto, le numero de paginas nove in le mense passate (85) es multo major que le media del anno passate (35). Io monstra le valores approximate conforme al statisticas:
Numero de articulos:
  • martio 2008 : 4130
  • april 2008 : 4150
  • maio 2008 : 4170
  • martio 2009 : 4560
Ergo, con periodos de 30 dies nos ha le sequente numero de paginas nove:
  • Media in april 2008 : 20
  • Media in martio 2008 - martio 2009 : 35
  • Media in april 2009 : 85
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 12:47, 2 maio 2009 (UTC)

Appello pro participar in Wikimania 2009

Le appello a participation in Wikimania 2009 ha essite publicate. Submitte vostre presentationes ante le 15 de april. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 11:21, 3 april 2009 (UTC)

Articulo in Wikipedia anglese

Io ha ora create un articulo super le Wikipedia Interlingua in le Wikipedia anglese: en:Interlingua Wikipedia. Essera bon si alcun senteria a contribuir de ille. Wakuran 17:07, 5 april 2009 (UTC)

Articulos super Wikipedia IA existe tamben in Wikipedia espaniol e Wikipedia polone. Wakuran 17:12, 5 april 2009 (UTC)
Bon idea, ma io non es multo secur si nos totevia esse al nivello alte del notabilitate requirite per en.wikipedia. ;) Almafeta 21:45, 5 april 2009 (UTC)
Comprende. Tamben le esseria bon si le articulo haberia plus fontes. =S Wakuran 21:57, 5 april 2009 (UTC)
"Fonificate." => Almafeta 03:30, 6 april 2009 (UTC)
Gratias pro le melioration! Wakuran 12:11, 6 april 2009 (UTC)
Io faceva le traduction a interlingua. --Julian (disc.) 21:32, 6 april 2009 (UTC)
Multe bon! Wakuran 22:29, 6 april 2009 (UTC)

wikiia-l

Io ha (re-)discoperite que existe un lista de diffusion (mailing list) official pro Wikipedia in Interlingua: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiia-l Es il un bon idea comenciar a usar iste lista, e facer referentia a iste lista in un loco prominente in Wikipedia? – Martijn 05:56, 6 april 2009 (UTC)

Redactores

Salute! Io volerea aggrandir le gruppo de redactores. Io volerea adder le autores principal de articulos eminente. Io facera un lista con lor nomines. Que pensa vos? --Julian (disc.) 21:03, 27 april 2009 (UTC)

Le nomines es:

Si alicun de vos non es de accordo con alicun del nomines, pote lassar un commento hic, o inviar me un message de e-mail. Io excludeva de iste lista al administratores proque illes jam pote mirar le articulos. --Julian (disc.) 22:19, 27 april 2009 (UTC)

Io jam les addeva al gruppo de redactores. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 09:05, 5 maio 2009 (UTC)

Io es de accordo, gratias per le nomination! --André. 11:58, 17 maio 2009 (UTC)

Le statuto del module controverse Flagged Revisions

Isto module non es usate in Anglese wikipedia, Espaniol wikipedia o Francese wikipedia (isto linguas es con un statuto non-official como linguas international).

This module Flagged Revisions is not installed in wikipedias for some international languages (English, French, Spanish) where contributors might not know the language very correctly, and still they are allowed to modify pages with no restrictions or supervision.


If only 20% of the contributors will be discouraged when they want to modify a page and will see the message displayed on the top of the page:

Nota: Le modificationes a iste pagina essera incorporate in le version stabile quando un usator autorisate los ha revidite.

this is not good.


We don't want to discourage any people in modifying the pages, in adding their contribution, that is why this encyclopedia is free encyclopedia. By contrary we should make things simpler, we should invite them to contribute with no barriers, we should grow this community.


There was a discussion about this controversial module last month. Normally, this discussion should lead to a conclusion, but it seems that it was kind of ignored by the person who wanted this module installed and instead of asking other contributors what they think about the module before having it installed, the person who requested this module to be installed continues to try to add so called Redactors. I was granted with the Redactor title but I said:

"No, thank you, I don't need to have the Redactor title, I can review the articles anytime without this module Flagged Revisions, because this module is a barrier for easy and straight forward contribution to this Interlingua Wikipedia"


This module discriminates contributors. This module discourage some contributors to contribute. This module is a barrier for new contributors and for existing ones, because they are forced to modify a temporary page which needs to be approved, instead of modifying the real page. This module introduce the notion of supervision. Of course reviewing is necessary, but this can be done without putting it as a big warning message in the modification page. The reviewing was done before without this module, and without making the supervising notion so up-front, which can split the community and make some unfair judgment on the contributors before they have even written anything. Are all the new contributors potential vandals? This module makes them feel this way.


Can we have here an Open encyclopedia, but a really open one? With no artificial barriers and restrictions for contributors to contribute?


Who can review hundreds of modified articles to approve (having this module F.R.) all the modifications? Because with this module until articles are approved they are not visible. What if that contributor modification is important to be immediately available, like a medical information, or other things, and that information stays under review for days or even weeks before approval? With this module F.R. the information can stay out of the search engines, out of sight. Why to have this situation?


There were enough arguments in the last month discussion against this module, to not have it here anymore. There was only a thin pro argument for this module that it will improve the quality of this wikipedia, but nobody prevents anybody in reviewing articles and in making improvements without this module. The bottom line is we want to encourage new contributors, not discourage and discrimante them, considering them as vandals, isn't it? We want to grow this community, not to segregate it.

A discussion is necessary here before we use anymore this module. Please can we have such a discussion?

Gratias, --Architengi 20:25, 1 maio 2009 (UTC)


Io respondeva in le section correspondente. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 12:52, 2 maio 2009 (UTC)


I found two messages from you, one named "Requesta processate" where you inform me my "Redactor" title was deleted, and another one named "Discussiones".
You wrote me I might need to re-read again the rules and regulations, the message below:. --Architengi 22:38, 7 maio 2009 (UTC)
> Io crede que tu poterea esser interessate in leger novemente le sequente paginas:
> *en:Wikipedia:Etiquette
> *en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith
> *en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
> Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 11:11, 2 maio 2009


The module Flagged Revissions is good for vandalism, but we don't have so much vandalism here.
on the other hand, the module has some problems, as stated above, here is a list of issues:
1) This module introduces the message Nota: Le modificationes a iste pagina essera incorporate in le version stabile quando un usator autorisate los ha revidite. that your changes will be included only when a super-power user will have time to analyse them, will make some people reluctant to contribute.
2) This module introduce the notion of supervision. There are many studies that actually show too much and explicit supervision is not good at any workplace, is not good for any project.
3) Reviewing modifications could be done without this module. Of course reviewing is necessary and to review articles users or anonymous persons could do it before this module was installed.
4) Who can review hundreds of modified articles to approve all the modifications?
5) We want to encourage new contributors, not discourage and discrimante them, considering them as vandals, this module makes some contributors feel this way.
6) Free encyclopedia, Open encyclopedia this concept is in danger having this module. Why we don't have here a open and free to contribute encyclopedia, with no artificial barriers and restrictions for contributors to contribute?
7) This module makes contributors in this wikipedia to feel there is no trust. This seggregates the comunity.
8) We are in the elaboration and construction phase in this wikipedia. Let's channel the efforts to have more articles, because we have only 4600. In the next stage, when we will have tens of thousands, we can move some effort in the QA phase. Because for each project the cycle is Elaboration->Construction->Verification. We might waste the few contribuitors efforts on verification instead of adding much needed information.
9) Provisory pages. Why my changes need to be approved by someone else? Do we need the provisory, waiting to be approved pages?
10) There is not so much vandalism in ia wikipedia that makes this module necessary.
11) This module Flagged Revisions is not installed in wikipedias for some international languages (English, French, Spanish) where many contributors are not native and might not know the language very correctly, and still they are allowed to modify pages with no restrictions or supervision.


Based on the above, in my opinion, if we want to keep this Flagged Revisions module, the community needs to vote Yes/Si for it. And, of course, we can have a No vote for the contributors who don't want this Flagged Revissions module which changes fundamentally how wikipedia works.


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg No. My vote is not to have this module Flagged Revissions in ia.wikipedia. Because of the above reasons. Thank you, --Architengi 00:25, 8 maio 2009 (UTC)


Mi opinion con respecto al punctos anterior es:
1) This module introduces the message Nota: Le modificationes a iste pagina essera incorporate in le version stabile quando un usator autorisate los ha revidite. that your changes will be included only when a super-power user will have time to analyse them, will make some people reluctant to contribute. --Architengi
1. Iste texto non mentiona usatores con super poteres. In omne caso, iste texto es parte del configuration e pote esser facilemente cambiate. --Julian
1) So your solution is just changing the message. Still the contributions go to the provisory page which needs to be approved. This module Flagged Revissions changes fundamentally how wikipedia works. I was attracted to wikipedia because it was a free and open place to contribute, with no approvals from named supervisors. A peer-to-peer process. --Architengi
Wikipedia in interlingua remane libere. Si tu tenta scriber alique non neutral in un pagina multo popular de en.wikipedia , illo probabilemente remanera minus de un minuta. Un pagina stabile non significa melior o pejor, solmente mirate. --Julian
It is not free if the contributor sees someone needs to review his work explicitly. It is controlled by a group of persons, the redactors, who can simply censor whatever they want. --Architengi
2) This module introduce the notion of supervision. There are many studies that actually show too much and explicit supervision is not good at any workplace, is not good for any project. --Architengi
2. Le modulo non adde ulle concepto de supervision (surveliantia). Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 3. --Julian
2) If something needs to be explicitly approved by someone, that person is supervising that thing. --Architengi
Le articulo pote remaner sin esser mirate. Mirar un articulo non significa approbar su contento. --Julian
Yes, it does, review is followed by a submit button which the superviser needs to press in order to mark the article as reviewed. This is from my short experience as Redactor. I want to mention that I don't know any of the configuration posibilities and Nobody presented the possible configurations of this module. --Architengi
3) Reviewing modifications could be done without this module. Of course reviewing is necessary and to review articles users or anonymous persons could do it before this module was installed. --Architengi
3. Comocunque, iste modulo simplifica multo le activitate de revision linguistic, e illo es importante pro le personas que lo face. --Julian
The module does not simplify anything. If a robot touches an article adding a link to the same page in other wikipedia, this module marks the article as in need to be reviewed. In fact that article does not need any review. Review of articles is done very easy in EN, FR, ES wikipedias without this module (and here before the installation of the module, the review was very easy). Very simple and easy. Just looking at latest modified pages. This module is not needed for review. --Architengi
Le modulo registra exactemente le modificationes al versiones stabile, conserva le linea de revision linguistic in cata articulo, pro le articulos mirate monstra un alternativa stabile, ha functiones statistic pro sequer le contributiones, e es practic pro marcar le versiones stabile. Illo es multo utile pro le personas que face le revisiones linguistic e innocue pro le altere usatores. --Julian
I already mentioned the reviewing could be done without this module that locks the articles until they are reviewed. Why we need to lock all the articles? This is the same as the lock functionality existent in wikipedia. But no wikipedia locks all the articles. --Architengi
4) Who can review hundreds of modified articles to approve all the modifications? --Architengi
4. Le redactores mira, non approba. Le numero de modificationes ha (o deberea haber) un relation al numero de usatores active.
4) The redactors review the article and submit it to the stable version for intermmediate version. This is an approval process, isn't it? The question was who can review and mark stable version hundreds of articles?
Mirar un articulo non significa approbar su contento. Le redactores mira le articulos. --Julian
Yes, it actually is, the review is followed by a submit button which the superviser needs to press. --Architengi


5) We want to encourage new contributors, not discourage and discrimante them, considering them as vandals, this module makes some contributors feel this way. --Architengi
5. Iste modulo non tracta al usatores como vandalos. Le vandalos es usualmente blocate e su modificationes revertite. --Julian
This module was created against vandalism. If you are not using it against vandalism, the module is used not according to design specifications. --Architengi
Iste modulo es appellate "Flagged Revisions" (Versiones Marcate). Su function es marcar versiones stabile. Illo pote esser usate pro combatter le vandalismo o pro altere functiones que usa versiones stabile. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 1. --Julian
5) How this module encourage contributors who see their changes need to be approved? --Architengi
Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 4 e puncto 5. --Julian
Please try to answer the question above: How this module encourage contributors who see their changes need to be approved? --Architengi
6) Free encyclopedia, Open encyclopedia this concept is in danger having this module. Why we don't have here a open and free to contribute encyclopedia, with no artificial barriers and restrictions for contributors to contribute? --Architengi
6. Il non ha ulle barriera pro contribuer. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 4. --Julian
It is a barrier for contribution when you see a message that your message will not be published until it is reviewed? How hard is to understand that? --Architengi
7) This module makes contributors in this wikipedia to feel there is no trust. This seggregates the comunity. --Architengi
7. Illo es un interpretation personal. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 5. --Julian
I think I saw mentioned by you this module is against contributors who don't know Interlingua very well, to stop their contributions. This will make the contributors reluctant to contribute. --Architengi
8) We are in the elaboration and construction phase in this wikipedia. Let's channel the efforts to have more articles, because we have only 4600. In the next stage, when we will have tens of thousands, we can move some effort in the QA phase. Because for each project the cycle is Elaboration->Construction->Verification. We might waste the few contribuitors efforts on verification instead of adding much needed information. --Architengi
8. In facto, mi proposition es canalisar le effortios in meliorar le contento de Wikipedia in vice de discuter. --Julian
So you don't want to discuss anything? We should only contribute, not discuss? But keep in mind you are not alone in this wikipedia. You need to ask us if we want this module or not. It seems you want to avoid the democratic way and to avoid the voting process. --Architengi
Io non parlava de non discuter. Mi proposition es haber in mente que Wikipedia non es un foro de discussion, sed un encyclopedia. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 2. --Julian
8) When it was mentioned in the first place, it was mentioned only the name of the module Flagged Revisions and a link. I think a presentation how the module will change the normal workflow should have been presented, based on the particular configuration intentions for this module. I have never seen such a presentation. Now, that we can see how the module works, it is time to have a say if we like it or not, if we like its new introduced workflow or not. I hope you agree we need to come to a conclusion based on a vote majority. --Architengi 18:45, 11 maio 2009 (UTC)
Il esseva etiam mentionate ubi esseva usate con un ligamine a un description plus detaliate. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 2. --Julian
So basically you would prefer the others just follow your decisions, without presenting the configuration capabilities of this module or any other detail. I don't know what you discuss in private with Melanchonie about this module, but I think a fair presentation here about this module configurations needs to be done. --Architengi
9) Provisory pages. Why my changes need to be approved by someone else? Do we need the provisory, waiting to be approved pages? --Architengi
9. Mirate non significa approbate. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 4.
I think your answer to many question is always the same 'mirate != approbate'. It becames redundant, to see this answer over and over again. It is just your personal interpretation that having to view something and then press submit button is not a review of it or a supervision. I can tell you, the censors do the same thing, they need to view the media before it is approved. The question was why do we need provisory pages? --Architengi
10) There is not so much vandalism in ia wikipedia that makes this module necessary. --Architengi
10. Iste modulo es etiam usate pro facer revisiones linguistic e facer versiones stabile del articulos.
10) The English, French, or Spanish wikipedia, to mention few languages of international use, don't have any module for linguistic revision, any anonymous user can correct any misspelling or any grammar errors. Sometimes I see anonymous users were make corrections in our wikipedia as well. This means this module is not necessary. --Architengi
Illos ha un historia, un numero de articulos, parlatores native, e usatores in general completemente differente. Per favor, vide le puncto 3 in iste section. --Julian
The basic question was is there so much vandalism in ia:wiki or so much users with incorrect Interlingua to lock all the articles before they are reviewed by someone? --Architengi
11) This module Flagged Revisions is not installed in wikipedias for some international languages (English, French, Spanish) where many contributors are not native and might not know the language very correctly, and still they are allowed to modify pages with no restrictions or supervision. --Architengi
11. Il existe un grande differentia con ille Wikipedias. Le linguas anglese, francese e espaniol ha milliones de parlatores native. Ben que alicun personas parla interlingua multo ben, nemo es un parlator native.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 20:48, 8 maio 2009 (UTC)
If nobody is native speaker, why do we have this module that considers other contributors in need to have their modifications approved? Is Esperanto using this module? Are we here subject to someone experiments? Gratias, --Architengi 23:20, 8 maio 2009 (UTC)
Si, esperanto usa iste modulo. Le carentia de parlatores native face plus importante le facto de haber textos scribite correctemente. --Julian
Esperanto does not have Modify provisory version. Even if is it using this module it seems it is not configured with these barriers. I don't see why instead of letting the users write even if they don't know Interlingua very well and learn it by practicing it, you want to discourage them with these barriers. I learn Interlingua only by practicing here. Anybody could correct me, even anonymous users. The fact that this module is not used in English, French or Spanish wikipedas, which have many non-native contributors, tells the fact this module is not needed. --Architengi
Wikipedia in esperanto ha usate iste modulo pro plus tempore que nos. In Wikipedia in interlingua, le modulo es totevia in processo de configuration. Per favor, vide le puncto 6 in iste section. --Julian
I think we should have a presentation of the possible configurations of this module, how it is configured in Esperanto, and have a fair discussion with the rest of the contributors here. --Architengi
12) With this module until articles are reviewed they are not visible. What if that contributor modification is important to be immediately available, like a medical information, or other things, and that information stays under review for days or even weeks before approval? With this module Flagged Revisions the information can stay out of the search engines, out of sight. Why to have this situation? --Architengi


Io crede que es plus ben le comunitate de Wikipedia in Interlingua decider se in respecto del uso del module Flagged Revision con voto Si o No. Le voto non debe se reguardar como pro o contra un persona, le voto es in respecto del uso del module. No person must take this vote personal, in any case of the results. We can have different opinions and we should encourage them, isn't it? Nos es hic un communitate, nos es amicos. Gratias, --Architengi 23:41, 8 maio 2009 (UTC)

Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 2. Io etiam crede que facer iste discussion personal esserea un error.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 12:18, 9 maio 2009 (UTC)
When you said the module was presented, you just named the module and put a link. I don't call this a presentation of a module that changes the wikipedia workflow. A presentation would have been to write some words about the module and how can be configured. Was that done?
Gratias, --Architengi


Io ha create le patronos de voto {{Pro}} Symbol support vote.svg e {{Contra}} Symbol oppose vote.svg. Pro favor, votar si tu crede que le module Flagged Revisions, un module que cambia le wikipedia in un modo fundamental pro que le usator non pote modificar le articulo, ma solmente un nove pagina provisorie que necessita un supervisor (un usator con un conto special) de aprobar le modificationes. Multe usatores non va voler contribuir in isto wikipedia, discoragiate de isto barriera que isto module introduce. Gratias, --Architengi 18:45, 11 maio 2009 (UTC)

Le modulo solmente adde un forma pro marcar versiones stabile. Illo non face cambios in modo fundamental. Per favor, vide mi opinion in le discussion anterior, puncto 1, puncto 2, e puncto 5.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 21:32, 11 maio 2009 (UTC)
If this module locks all the articles for review, this is a big change. You can call it fundamental or however you want, it is your choice, but this is a big change. Thank you, --Architengi
Responsa al thema censura (punctos 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 9., 10., 12.) : Sincermente, io totevia non pote imaginar ubi le censura es. Le articulos es semper monstrate, con o sin version stabile. Io totevia non ha trovate un modo tal que un contribution de un usator non es monstrate usante un function exclusive de redactor. Forsan, un exemplo concrete esserea satis pro comprender isto. --Julian
Julian, this discussion with you becames more and more difficult. There is no thing about censor in all the points you listed above. You treat all the valid points above like they only talk about censorship? The censorship can apply when the redactor or the reviewer does not want to include in the so called 'version stabile' the contribution of someone. As it is now, the rest of the world cannot see the changes made by anybody unless they are approved or they have an wikipedia account. --Architengi
Julian, you play a game that you are the master of this wikipedia with all the powers to do whatever you want with it, without even bothering making a short but clear presentation of the changes you made or you want to make with this module Flagged Revisions. A clear presentation of the configurations of this module is necessary, and do not ignore us. And what is more confusing is the fact that after I asked about this module, I got from you a message to read again the wikipedia rules and regulations, with the suggestion to stop this discussion, a message kind of an warning. What was the base of that warning? You don't like to discuss important changes of the workflow of this wikipedia with the rest of us? --Architengi
Isto es forsan injuste, Architengi. Io ha experientia como administrator de un parve Wikipedia (lo cornic), e io sape que il non es multo facil de obtenir opiniones de altere contributores. On quere, on quere ... silentio. Multo sovente on debe agir sol.
Plus generalmente, le passo proxime in le disveloppamento de Wikipedia es de assecurar un bon nivel de qualitate. Flagged Revisions es un methodo que pote facer isto. Jimbo Wales ha indicate que ille spera su utilisation in omne Wikipedias; su adoptation quasi experimental per le Wikipedias in linguas german, esperanto, etc deberea facilitar un transition minus problematic in le altere projectos.
Totevia, io anque esseva multo confuse del cambiamento al origine. Io pensa que on debe adder un link verso le pagina de explication ab cata message de modification (juxta "Revider iste version", etc) e sur le pagina "Action complete". Ma io spera que le cambiamento sera un successo! QuartierLatin1968 08:55, 14 maio 2009 (UTC)
Instead of you to want transparency and clear explanation of this process of installing this module that changes the workflow of wikipedia, you want silence! It is not about too much discussion, but a clear short presentation of this module configuration capabilities. This was not done, unfortunatelly.
Even more, the valid points I raised above are not really answered, the answers always avoid a straight answer and deviate from the original question. Please do not fell into the trap of solidarity and fraternity with your fellow administrator, but use your own judjement and see my 12 points above are valid, rational and justyfied. And the consequence of having this module is not good for this wikipedia. Thank you, --Architengi 17:30, 15 maio 2009 (UTC)
Responsa al thema configuration (punctos 8. e 11.) : Nos es in le processo de configuration. Post alicun menses de uso, nos probabilemente potera trovar le configuration optime. Per exemplo, io pensa que le configuration usate in Wikipedia in esperanto es multo bon. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 11:41, 13 maio 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you is equal with we/nos. For instance, I am a Technical Lead where I work (at a research and development company) and I have the technical ability to help with setting up this kind of things, and I am an active member of this wikipedia but I get nothing from what you do behind the courtins. It would be fair for you to present to everybody here how this module can be configured, and let us know decide if it is needed or not. Instead you simply ignore everybody. ---Art
  • Symbol support vote.svg Si. Uno del maxime avantages de Wikipedia es que su texto es sempre verificate per un communitate de usatores. In general, le internet es multo susceptibile al falsification de informationes. Ma sur Wikipedia, il ha normalmente bastante editores pro verificar e corriger le informationes e punctas de visto. Unicamente Wikipedia ha iste virtute. Totevia, pois que un parve Wikipedia como nostre ha pauc editores e que illes non pote verificar toto presto, illo es de nove susceptibile al diffusion de nonsenso ... a minus que on adopta precautiones. E como Julian ha dicte, Flagged Revisions non presenta in veritate un barriera al contribution de ulle. QuartierLatin1968 22:21, 11 maio 2009 (UTC)
  • No. pro que le verification del articulo non es necessare si un robot cambia le articulo quando illo adde un ligamento a un articulo in altere lingua, e le verification es manual como ante, ma un usator anonyme no pote hacer le verification . PaceFlama 07:02, 9 junio 2009 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg No. pro que le module Revissiones non es necesario -Matt 04:09, 15 septembre 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Non proque le "menacia" de usatores anonyme esse minus que trivial. Le modulo FlaggedRevisions debe esser removite o disactivate. Almafeta 14:22, 22 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Si nos remove le modulo, nos perdera le stato de revision de al minus 2000 articulos. Un enorme quantitate de tempore essera perdite. --Julian (disc.) 11:42, 27 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Version provisori pro usatores anonyme

Salute! Io recentemente consultava Melancholie super le possibilitate technic de monstrar per predefinition le version provisori del articulos al usatores anonyme. Isto es technicamente possibile. In facto, illo es jam facite in altere projectos. Io considera que nos etiam poterea facer lo in iste Wikipedia. Que opina vos? --Julian (disc.) 22:22, 6 maio 2009 (UTC)

Si; un cambiamento de iste genere deberea satisfacer le critica que Flagged Revisions diminue le character aperte del encyclopedia pro usatores anonyme. QuartierLatin1968 22:21, 11 maio 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg e Symbol support vote.svg: Salute! Io videva un die de iste septimana le articulo James Cook. Io me espaventava un pauc per que videva que in le parte superior diceva: version stabile e version provisori del contento del articulo. Etiam, io faceva un parve modification como usator anonyme pro probar si isto esseva un hallucination mie o esseva ver... e io videva que, in facto, illo esseva ver e etiam que le version monstrate al usatores anonyme esseva le version stabile. Io non es de accordo con isto. Io pensa sincermente que Wikipedia es un encyclopedia libere (nostre slogan!) , e per isto ilnon debe haber versiones stabile de paginas o versiones provisori. Simplemente debe haber un version currente pro cata articulo. A parte, io considera que le statos de revision de un articulo es necessari, ben que illo significa haber multe labor pro totes de mantener le articulos revidite, non solmente pro mantener le grammatica e orthographia de cata articulo in le melior stato possibile (io, per exemplo, non ha certemente un excellente nivello de interlingua), sed etiam pro revider (quando sia possibile) le exactitude del information. Iste statos poterea esser multo utile, sed io pensa que nos debe respectar le modificationes del usatores anonyme como le "version currente e stabile". Considera le Wikipedia latin (per exemplo le articulo la:Aequatio, ha iste systema de statos de revision sed il ha solmente un version currente. Cordialmente, ―André. 21:59, 5 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Salute! Io ha un vision similar al de André. Io volerea que le articulo mirate e le articulo non mirate ha quasi le mesme messages in lor interfacies. Le articulo non mirate haberea un option extra pro vider le articulo mirate. Sed, per predefinition, il es monstrate le articulo (con le configuration actual, 'articulo' pro le articulo mirate, 'version provisori' pro le articulo non mirate), e non un revision de illo ('version stabile' pro le articulo non mirate). Illo etiam significa que le 'modifica version provisori' esserea 'modifica' (identic al caso mirate) e le 'version provisori' esserea 'articulo'. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 11:06, 6 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Io es de accordo con que in le parte superior del pagina, in le "linguettas" (tabs) del interfacie il sia monstrate: "articulo", "version mirate", "modificar", "historia". Si un usator anonyme modifica le articulo, le modificationes appare in "articulo". Quando un usator registrate ha revidite le modificationes, iste modificationes es nunc parte etiam del version mirate. Isto es, le "version mirate" es un condition special del articulo currente e non le "version provisori" es un caso special del articulo currente. Nonobstante, io pensa que le melior forma de facer isto non es haber un nove "linguetta" in le interface, io pensa que il esserea melior monstrar un ligamine in le patrono (que realmente non es un patrono) de stato de revision del pagina. Per exemplo, on pote monstrar:
FlaggedRevs-1-1.svg Version actual: non revidite. Vide le ultime version mirate.
Etiam, de iste maniera il poterea haber versiones mirate in grammatica e orthographia, e versiones verificate in quanto a lor information (le referentias bibliographic non es dubitose, le datos ha referentias, etc., etc.)... Isto poterea esser multo utile pro le labores de revision e polimento e le patronos de {{revision}} e {{polimento}} esserea innecessari. ―André. 17:59, 6 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Certemente, illo me sembla melior que le currente configuration. Regrettabilemente, io non cognosce in detalio le implementation del modulo, pro dicer que cosa es possibile e que cosa non es possibile (o multo difficile). Comocunque, io ha vidite le configuration que le wikipedia in esperanto usa nunc, e me sembla multo melior. Io crede que le proxime passo poterea esser usar ille configuration (o multo similar). Illo monstrarea plus clarmente le function de iste systema de marca de articulos. --Julian (disc.) 19:35, 7 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Julian, io es de accordo con le configuration de Wikipedia in Esperanto, sed si tu pote utilisar le modulo de flagged revisions pro eliminar le patronos de polimento, revision, sinreferentias, etc., o si alicuno de nostre communitate pote facer isto possibile, io pensa que il esserea multo melior. ―André. 00:08, 12 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Requesta facite. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 14:15, 13 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Cambios cosmetic

Salute!

Durante le proxime septimana, le robot Synthbot currera un programma in python pro facer cambios cosmetic. Le cambios cosmetic es cambios que non cambia le texto presentate in un pagina, sed cambia levemente le codice fonte del pagina pro meliorar su legibilitate. Iste programma es parte del framework pywikipedia. Illo es specificate (in anglese) in le pagina cosmetic changes.py.

Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 01:43, 30 maio 2009 (UTC)

Depost de multe probas, cosmetic_changes.py ha monstrate esser satis stabile pro esser currite regularmente. Io facera que Synthbot curre regularmente iste script pro facer cambios cosmetic.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 22:43, 10 augusto 2009 (UTC)

Licentia de Wikimedia

Salute! Le resultatos del voto super le actualisation del licentia de Wikimedia ha essite publicate. Le contento de Wikimedia essera tosto sub le duple licentia GFDL e CC-BY-SA. Le detalios del passos sequente es etiam monstrate. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 18:55, 1 junio 2009 (UTC)

Vamos!

Amicos, on parla, on parla e on parla... Totes es grande amicos del lingua commun (=interlingua)ma nostre dictionario es de ~4.500 entartas. Troppo pauc pro le lingua international (e anque pro le european). Forsan, finalmente nos comencia a facer alique? Ben Hirsh.

Io pensa que forsan nos poterea crear peciettas con parolas simple de uso commun. Per exemplo, bira e domo non deberea haber ligamines rubie. Le idea es que ille articulos contine:
  • un definition de un phrase
  • un imagine
  • un categoria
  • un ligamine interwiki
Al initio iste articulos esserea definitiones de dictionario, sed con alicun tempore illos poterea crescer.
Que opina vos? --Julian (disc.) 23:00, 10 augusto 2009 (UTC)
Io certemente es de accordo. Julian, io ha tentate facer alique como illo sed io non poteva! Io fracassava per duo rationes: io non ha satis tempore pro facer isto e io scribe lentemente in interlingua; io debe vider le dictionario frequentemente. Sed si il ha voluntarios, nos poterea facer alique multo bon... Nos poterea initiar creante un Wikiprojecto de articulos basic e coordinar ab illac le creation de tote le peciettas del articulos basic (WP:AB)... Io poterea, per exemplo, crear le texto de un articulo de un o duo paragraphos con information con referentias e citationes e altere wikipedista poterea revider e corriger mi grammatica e ortographia. Que pensa vos? ―André. 00:08, 22 septembre 2009 (UTC)
In le stato currente del Wikipedia in Interlingua, ulle activitate conta como un "projecto." ;) WP:AB esse un lista relativemente breve; si nos pote convincer 10 usatores que crear aun sol un (1) pecietta cata die pro un septimanas, nos pote completer le lista ante que le Natal.
Un bon initio pro un articulo, un strategia que io usa, esse que traducer le introduction de un altere articulo. Le introduction de un articulo ben scribite esse sovente un bon "mini-articulo" de 2 a 5 kilobytes. Almafeta 06:11, 22 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Le dictionario de Interlingua esse controllate per le organisation que controlla le grammatica e vocabulario del lingua, le Union Mundial pro Interlingua. Si le stato del dictionario de Interlingua non vos place, les dice... ;) Almafeta 06:11, 22 septembre 2009 (UTC)
Io creava le categoria:appendice de imagines. Su paginas contine imagines de objectos del vita quotidian. Si isto vos place, on pote extender su grandor e su paginas, e usar lo como un lista additional al WP:AB. --Julian (disc.) 11:27, 27 septembre 2009 (UTC)

The LocalisationUpdate extension has gone live

The LocalisationUpdate extension is now enabled for all Wikimedia projects. From now on new localisations that become available in SVN will become available to your project within 24 hours. Your localisations get into SVN from translatewiki.net typically within a day and at worst in two days. This is a huge improvement from the old practice where the localisations became available with new software. This could take weeks, even months.

The localisations done by our community at translatewiki.net are committed to SVN typically every day. When the system messages in English are the same as the local messages, they will now be inserted in a file and are available for use in all our projects in a timely manner

What this means for you

Local messages have an impact on the performance of our system. It is best when messages are as much as possible part of the system messages. In order to remove unnecessary duplication, all the messages that have a local localisation and are exactly the same as the system message will be removed. What we ask you to do is to compare and proof read the messages in translatewiki.net and the local messages. You can then either remove local messages when the translatewiki.net message is to be preferred or, you can update the message at translatewiki.net.

Messages that are specific to your project will have to stay as they are. You do want to check if the format and the variables of the message are still the same.

Why localise at translatewiki.net

When you localise at translatewiki.net, your messages will be used in all Wikimedia projects and eventually in all MediaWiki based projects. This is how we provide the standard support for your language. When messages change, at translatewiki.net you will be prompted to revisit your translations. Localising is more efficient because we have innovated the process to make you more efficient; there is text explaining about messages and we have applied AJAX technology to reduce the number of clicks you have to make.

Translatewiki.net update

  • Currently 99.96% of the MediaWiki messages and 97.53% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at translatewiki.net. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 09:58, 29 septembre 2009 (UTC)
  • Currently 100.00% of the MediaWiki messages and 99.67% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at translatewiki.net. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 16:22, 4 januario 2010 (UTC)

How can we improve the usability for your language

We expect that with the implementation of LocalisationUpdate the usability of MediaWiki for your language will improve. We are now ready to look at other aspects of usability for your language as well. There are two questions we would like you to answer: Are there issues with the new functionality of the Usability Initiative Does MediaWiki support your language properly

The best way to answer the first question is to visit the translatewiki.net. Change the language to your language, select the “vector” skin and add the advanced tool bar in in the preferences and check out the new functionality. And make some changes in your user page. When there is a need to improve on the localisation, please make the necessary changess . It should update your localisation straight away. We would like you to report each issue individually at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_issues.

When there are problems with the support of MediaWiki for your language, we really want to know about this. It is best to report each issue separately. In this way there will be no large mass of issues to resolve but we can address each issue on its own. Consider issues with the display of characters, the presentation of your script, the position of the side bar, the combination of text with other languages, scripts. It is best to try this in an environment like the prototype wiki as it provides you with a clean, basic and up to date environment. The prototype wiki is available for five languages but you can select any of them, change the preferences to your language and test out MediaWiki for your language.

We would like you to report each issue individually at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language issues. The issues you raise will all be assessed. It is important to keep each issue separate, because this will make it easier to understand the issues and find solutions.

PS This text has been approved by Naoko, Brion and Siebrand. Thanks, GerardM 09:58, 29 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Small request

Hello! I am a Polish wikipedian and I would like to ask you for writing a new article about former Polish President who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 – Lech Wałęsa. I have looked for his article in your Wikipedia but without success. Polish Wikipedians will be grateful for your help. Thank you so much in advance! PS article in English you can find here. Best wishes from Poland, Patrol110 20:18, 30 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Strategy Volunteers Still Needed

Please forgive the posting in English. Would someone please translate?

Hi all,
Although we will soon remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area advisors or to sit on task forces that will study particular topics and make recommend short- and long-term strategies for the Wikimedia projects and Foundation, and the wiki movement.

To apply to serve on a task force or be an advisor in a specific area, visit http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is a year-long collaborative process being hosted at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome there, and will drive the process. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and anyone may join fully in their work. We hope to include as many community members as possible in the process.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe 03:41, 4 octobre 2009 (UTC)

Campania de donationes

Car omnes: a partir de ora, le campania actual de donationes del Fundation Wikimedia es disponibile tamben in interlingua. Clicca simplemente super le grande bandiera in alto de cata pagina. :) – Martijn 03:36, 14 novembre 2009 (UTC)

Gratias, Martijn! --Julian (disc.) 13:42, 14 novembre 2009 (UTC)


5000 articulos

Le 29 de novembre 2009 nos attingeva le 5000 articulos in Wikipedia in interlingua. Io da mi plus grande congratulationes a illes que ha fide in iste projecto e ha laborate con effortio pro meliorar lo.

--Julian (disc.) 00:27, 1 decembre 2009 (UTC)

Interlingua

Hi, I am new to Interlingua. I read in the English article about Interlingua that this language has the most international vocabulary:

"In 1967, the powerful ISO (International Organization for Standardization), which normalizes terminology, voted almost unanimously to adopt Interlingua as the basis for its dictionaries."([1]).

This fact, which is important, among others, does not appear in Interlingua article in Interlingua language.

My question is:

What happened with ISO vote to use Interlingua vocabulary as the base for its international vocabulary dictionaries? Was it applied? What were the facts that happened after that decision?

Do we really need Interlingua as international language? Why do you personally use this language?

Can you present 3 facts why a person that is not English native would learn Interlingua? And 3 facts why Interlingua is better than English? And 3 facts why English is better than Interlingua?

I need your opinion on this. Thanks.

Thank you, Mushi 20:23, 26 novembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Le question super le votation del ISO es interessante; io non cognosce le continuation de iste historia, ma si io trova un responsa a tu question, io te lo facera saper.
Non me place le question de qual lingua es plus “bon”. Io prefere responder a un altere question: qual rationes o motivos existe pro usar interlingua, e quales existe pro usar anglese? Mi responsas es incomplete, proque tu me limitava a tres punctos... io poterea scriber un tote libro super isto. :-)
Motivos pro usar interlingua como lingua auxiliar international:

Interlingua has the most international vocabulary (voted by ISO in 1967)

  • 1. Interlingua es le unification in un lingua concrete del “vocabulario scientific international” commun a quasi tote le linguas de Europa e del mundo. Dunque, interlingua offere un function propedeutic pro cognoscer melio le vocabulario intellectual del proprie lingua materne. Secundo un methodo consistente e reproducibile, cata vocabulo de interlingua ha essite derivate de un certe numero de linguas natural existente, reducite a un prototypo comprensibile per medio de recercas etymologic, e regularisate in familias derivational. [1] Cognoscer interlingua significa cognoscer non solmente le signification, ma tamben le composition del parolas international presente in le proprie lingua materne. [2] [3]
(1.) Because Interlingua has the international vocabulary (scientific and more than that), why is it not used in international organizations, or in European Union organizations? (Mushi)
Isto es un longe historia super le qual on pote scriber un libro, ma mi responsa curte es: (1) nos nunquam disponeva del medios financiari pro un promotion apte; (2) le grande organisationes non prende seriosemente un cosa sin promotion professional, sin brochures lustrose e sin budget de centos de milles de euros; (3) nos interlinguistas non sape como facer marketing effective e non es motivate de facer lo; e (4) le societate in general ha prejudicio pro anglese e contra linguas percipite como “artificial”. In mi opinion, IALA faceva un grande error per promover interlingua principalmente como lingua scripte, negligente lo completemente como lingua parlate. Nulle lingua pote viver sin esser parlate. In scripto, es difficile convincer le gente; ma quando io parlava interlingua a iste conferentia in Portugal, le audientia immediatemente lo acceptava como natural. – Martijn 22:23, 27 novembre 2009 (UTC)

Interlingua is understandable at first read (listen)

  • 2. Interlingua es comprensibile a prime vista (e a prime audita!) a centos de milliones de locutures de linguas neolatin. Un portugese non comprende italiano e un romaniano non comprende espaniol, ma tote le “neolatinophonos” comprende instantaneemente le factor commun, concretisate in interlingua. Considerante que le cognoscentia del anglese non es ben diffundite in iste populationes, interlingua pote esser un excellente alternativa. (Personalmente io provava iste concepto primo in novembre de 2008: io pronunciava un discurso a un conferentia super autismo in le citate de Porto, Portugal, totalmente in interlingua, sin preparar le audientia; io les surprendeva. Secundo le consenso general, interlingua se comprendeva plus facilemente que le anglese parlate per mi amica e co-orator. [4] Le organisator nos re-invitava in junio 2009, e iste vice nos dava un serie de sex seminarios durante duo dies, toto in interlingua.)
(2.) Because Interlingua can be understood at first read/listen and because it is an old language (it has more than 50 years) why people don't know about it? For instance, Esperanto is known, it is a bit older and maybe first real international language, but still Interlingua is quasi unknown. Why? Is it gonna be the same in the future, is there any chance that interlingua will become more known, as one valid option for Constructed International Language? (Mushi)
Vide mi responsa al puncto 1, hic supra... le rationes es le mesme. Io crede que internet da nove opportunitates al promotion de interlingua, ma primo, il es essential disveloppar un communitate de personas qui parla interlingua activemente e non solo lo scribe como hobby. Le communitate existe, ma es micre. Con un communitate plus grande, le requisite medios financiari e professional pote esser attrahite. – Martijn 22:23, 27 novembre 2009 (UTC)
Io oblidava adder que 58 annos de facto non es del toto vetere pro un lingua human. Altere linguas que nos parla ha seculos, forsan un millennio. Interlingua ha a pena comenciate. – Martijn 06:22, 29 novembre 2009 (UTC)

Interlingua is very easy to learn, it has the easiest grammar

  • 3. Interlingua es multo facile de apprender e de usar activemente, multo plus facile que anglese o qualcunque altere lingua national. Le grammatica es regular e minimal. Le vocabulario es systematic, concrete e ben definite; il non es necessari preoccupar se de subtilitates idiomatic o cultural. A personas ben educate, le majoritate del vocabulario es ja familiar ex le linguage formal/intellectual del proprie lingua national; e vice versa, a personas sin education formal, apprender interlingua porta le beneficio additional de acquirer le cognoscentia del “parolas difficile” del proprie lingua. Novicios que assiste al curso pro comenciantes a un conferentia de interlingua generalmente parla interlingua passabilemente post un septimana de immersion. Interlingua es un investimento favorabile: on recipe le supra-mentionate beneficios pro effortio relativemente minimal.
(3.) I agree the grammar of Interlingua is easier than English grammar and easier then all the other (at least European) languages. But talking about vocabulary, Romanian is easier to learn. This is because Romanian is 99.9% a phonetic or phonemic language. This means direct link between spoken and written with no exceptions. No double letters, no phonetic sounds that can be written with the same grapheme (like "ph" and "f", or "si" and "ci", or "se" and ce" in Interlingua), no different pronunciations of different graphemes because of the context. Especially the double letters is a drawback for a constructed language, because you expect more from a constructed language. Double letters are not used in Spanish as well and they are a problem when writing a word, because one has to memorize what words need doubles, for reading there is no problem, because in reading the double is simply ignored. But why this overhead in a constructed language? IMHO, there is a big mistake for a constructed language to be more complicated in vocabulary writing then a native language. (Mushi)
Mi responsa in puntos:
  • ‘Si’ e ‘ci’, ‘se’ e ‘ce’ de facto se pronuncia de maniera distincte (si, tsi, se, tse). ‘Ce’ totevia non es un parola de interlingua.
  • Como io ja explicava, interlingua non es un lingua construite, ma un lingua derivate. Isto es un differentia fundamental. Es un error judicar interlingua secundo criterios applicabile a un lingua construite como esperanto.
  • Io contesta firmemente que le vocabulario del romaniano es plus facile de apprender que illo de interlingua. Como omne lingua national, le romaniano include multe parolas non international, e on perde le avantage del familiaritate prior. Le vocabulos, incluse illos que es international, ha assumite formas evoluite. Lor origine, composition e connexiones familial ha essite obscurate: il generalmente non es possibile derivar un parola regularmente del altere como in interlingua 'integr-e', 'dis-integr-ar', 'integr-itate', 're-integr-abile', etc. – totes basate in un mesme radice. In linguas national, tal connexiones es generalmente perdite, p.ex. un espaniol non pote vider facilemente que 'integridad' es le qualitate de esser 'entero'.
Romanian language vocabulary writing is easier to learn than Interlingua for anybody. There is no need for spelling in Romanian, all the words have direct writing from the sounds, Romanian being a phonetic language like Esperanto and LFN is. Writing/Reading in Romanian is much more easier then English, and is easier than Interlingua. This is because English is very hard on the link from spoken to written, but Interlingua is closer to a phonetic language (still having exeptions like: double letters, how to write sound "f" using "ph" or "f"?, how to write "tsi" using "ti" or "ci"?). Not many exceptions in Interlingua, compared to English, though. Interlingua is close to a phonetic language. The Interlingua language was constructed to be simple, having a simple grammar (even simpler then English, so it was not used the rule of majority when the grammar was constructed, why then the rule of majority when the "phoneticism" of the vocabulary was constructed?). For a constructed language, even constructed from vocabulary of existing languages, to have exceptions and not being a phonetic language is unbearable. And not only for native speakers of phonetic languages, but for everybody, because nobody wants complications, and to memorize all the exceptions. Hey, but I'm not here to criticize Interlingua, it is still better for an International language than English (and easier to understand at first sight than Esperanto). Regarding Romanian in the previous example:
Lng Substantivo Infinitivo Participio Subst. derivate Maestro del action Habilitate de action Habilitate de action repetative Infinitivo opposite
IA integr-e integr-ar integr-ate integr-itate integr-ator integr-abile re-integr-abile dis-integr-ar
EN integer to integr-ate integr-ated integr-itate integr-ator integr-abile re-integr-abile to des-integr-ate
RO intreg a integr-a integr-at integr-itate integr-ator integr-abil re-integr-abil a dez-integr-a
RO aspirat a aspira aspir-at aspir-atie aspir-ator aspir-abil re-aspir-abil a dez-aspir-a
RO loc a locu-i locu-it loc-atie locu-itor locu-ibil re-locu-ibil a dez-locui
RO cant/cantec a cant-a cant-at cant-are cant-ator cant-abil re-cant-abil a dez-canta
RO vizita a vizit-a vizit-at vizit-are vizit-ator vizit-abil re-vizit-abil a dez-vizita
RO construire a constru-i constru-it constru-ctie constru-ctor constru-ibil re-constru-ibil a demola (dezconstrui)
RO fapt a face fac-ut fac-ere fac-ator fac-ubil re-fac-ubil a des-face
RO profesare a profes-a profes-at profes-are profes-or profes-abil re-profes-abil a dez-profesa
RO imbracaminte a imbrac-a imbrac-at imbrac-are imbrac-ator imbrac-abil re-imbrac-abil a dez-braca
RO fabrica a fabric-a fabric-at fabric-atie fabric-ator fabric-abil re-fabric-abil a dez-fabrica
RO inspirare a inspir-a inspir-at inspir-atie inspir-ator inspir-abil re-inspir-abil a dez-inspira
If you look at the first 3 (RO) rows you can see the Romanian language is much more regular and genuine in word formation based on its root word than English. For instance "aspirator" in English is "vacuum cleaner" or "sucker", with no relation to the verb "to aspirate". In other words there is no "aspirater", there is no "aspiratable". The second example is even more meagningful, and there are many examples like this. (RO) "loc" translates to (EN) "place / location", (RO) "a locui" translates to (EN) "to live", (RO) "locuitor" translates to (EN) "inhabitant", (RO) "locuibil" translates to (EN) "habitable / livable" so:
(RO) "loc - a locui - locuitor - locuibil"
(EN) "place - to live - inhabitant - habitable"
(RO) "fabrica - a fabrica - fabricator - fabricabil"
(EN) "factory - to make - maker - makable"
(RO) "fapt - a face - facator - facubil"
(EN) "fact - to do - maker - doable"
As one can see, in English, there is not always a derivation from the root word and it is not as regular as in Romanian. Mushi 00:20, 1 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

  • Como regula, interlingua conserva omne aspecto historic del orthographia que es conservate in al minus duo linguas de origine. Le orthographia de interlingua es dunque “conservative”, proxime al latino medieval, proque isto es le origine commun del quales le linguas de origine de interlingua se deriva: linguas como anglese, germano e francese es equalmente conservative. Isto resulta in un orthographia naturalmente familiar al majoritate de su usatores potential. Facer alteremente rende le lingua minus facile de scriber e de leger pro grande gruppos de personas.
  • Le elimination de ph, y, etc. de facto elimina information utile pro le pronunciation: iste litteras indica un parola de origine grec, pro le qual vale generalmente un altere accento tonic que on expecta in un parola de origine latin.
  • Le elimination de consonantes duple pote similarmente obscurar parolas composite o prefixos assimilate (p.ex. assimilar = ad- + simile + -ar). Isto impedi le function propedeutic de interlingua: es plus difficile comprender le composition de parolas, e le formation libere de nove parolas.
  • Le grammaticas traditional pote dicer que le consonantes duple pote esser ignorate in le pronunciation, ma io certemente non los ignora. Pro me e multe alteres, le presentia de un consonante duple reduce le longitude del vocal precedente. Isto pro me es le pronunciation natural, e reduce le numero de homophonos in le lingua. In le interlingua vivente a conferentias, parolas como ano e anno, casa e cassa, papa e pappa se pronuncia de maniera distincte.
  • Pro personas qui insiste que le consonantes duple es troppo difficile de usar, le 'ortografia colateral' existe, que face de interlingua un lingua phonetic como tu lo prefere (e modifica tamben le pronunciation). In le practica, isto es solo un question pro amatores de debattos linguistic: tote le interlinguistas active prefere le orthographia standard, incluse le locutores de linguas con orthographia plus phonetic. Proque pensa tu que isto es?
  • Io nota que le consonantes duple in anglese non pare presentar problemas a te; tu scribe sin errores orthographic. Nonobstante, le anglese ha le relation inter orthographia e pronunciation le plus irregular de tote le linguas europee! Isto totevia non ha impedite su dominantia como lingua auxiliar international, lo que me pare provar que iste question es de pauc importantia pro le acceptation de un lingua international.
Martijn 22:23, 27 novembre 2009 (UTC)
Motivos pro usar anglese como lingua auxiliar international:
  1. Communication inter locutores non native: Anglese es le lingua international dominante a causa del domination cultural anglo-american. Centos de milliones de personas de paises non anglophone ha apprendite le anglese.
  2. Communication con locutores native: Anglese es obviemente superior pro communication con anglophonos native (si on lo parla e comprende ben; le pronunciation native del anglese es difficile de comprender!).
  3. Superior ressourses pro apprension: Existe un enorme communitate de parlantes non native del anglese, amplissime ressources in omne pais del mundo pro facilitar le apprension e exercitio, inseniamento in scholas ubique, un magne litteratura, etc. etc.
Le argumentos pro anglese es ben cognoscite, e io non vole elaborar los. Nemo ha le illusion que interlingua pote supplantar anglese como lingua auxiliar international. Ma io es absolutemente convincite que le cognoscentia de interlingua es un superbe e profitabile complemento al cognoscentia de anglese. Interlingua es un medio pro major comprension del aspectos international del proprie lingua materne, pro diverter se in le micre communitate de interlinguistas, e pro communciation con non-parlantes de interlingua. Secundo mi cognoscentia, interlingua es le sol lingua in existentia que pote effectivemente compler iste functiones.
In fundo, io pensa simplemente que il es un grande placer exprimer me in nostre belle interlingua, que ha tote le elegantia del simplicitate, e tote le peso linguistico-cultural del historia commun de Europa. – Martijn 07:16, 27 novembre 2009 (UTC)
  1. Gopsill, F. P. (1990). International languages: a matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society. ISBN 0-9511695-6-4. OCLC 27813762. 

(message original)

Salute !
Io es completemente de accordo con Martijn.
Io volerea adder que in espaniol il ha ambiguitates de scriptura ab le pronunciation.
Alicun exemplos:
  • 'intersección' (intersection) poterea esser incorrectemente scribite 'intersexión'
  • 'lluvia' (pluvia) in quasi omne pais hispanophone poterea esser incorrectemente scribite como 'yubia'
  • le parolas 'casa' (domo) e 'caza' (chassa) es pronunciate equalmente in America Latin
  • in alicun citates de Espania, le parola 'Navidad' (Natal) es pronunciate (incorrectemente) [na.vi.'da] e le parola 'mercado' (mercato) es pronunciate [mer.'kao]
  • le scriptura 'whisky' es le plus usate in vice del scriptura 'güisqui', suggerite per le Regal Academia Espaniol.
In espaniol, il ha etiam exemplos de confusion etymologic como le parola 'abogado' (advocato) que perdeva le littera 'd'. Illo sembla esser 'ab + ...' e non 'ad + ...'.
Gratias Mushi pro tu interesse in interlingua.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 15:23, 29 novembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Hi Julian,
Thank you for your answer. I believe in Spanish any "ci" can be incorrectly written with "si", which is one of the things that makes Spanish maybe only about 97% phonetic. (I know also about "ll"->"i" and "n tilde"->"ni"). It is still good, English having less than 50% of words that are phonetic.
Interlingua has some small drawbacks in phoneticism: it has "ph"->f, "ci"->"tsi" and "ti"->"tsi" and double letters (these defects Spanish does not have)
Interlingua is better in some aspects then native (in Interlingua "ci" is read as "tsi: which is phonetic being unique link)
I think Interlingua is about the same like Spanish, about 97% of words are phonetic.
French has maybe 70-80% phonetic words. Again, Romanian language has more than 99% of the words being phonetic (no double letters, no exceptions). This is just a simple evaluation.
  • I can write a C++ program to analyze each Interlingua word if it is phonetic, if you give me a file with all the words. And the same for Spanish, and see the exact number phonetic words vs. non-phonetic words. Can you help me here?
  • Does anybody know any article or book about "the phonetic languages"? Maybe there is none because the main dominant and "conquistadores" languages (like English, French, etc) are not phonetic and they don't really want to talk about the main defect in their languages... :-)
Mushi 01:51, 2 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Le linguas phonetic non sempre es tanto facile de usar pro nove parlatores. Per exemplo, esperanto include alicun litteras nove, con respecto al alphabeto latin, pro poter pronunciar differente phonemas. Le problema es que multe personas non pote distinguer inter le differente phonemas. Pro illes, alicun phonemas representa le mesme sono. Ergo illes ha le mesme confusion que con le linguas non completemente phonetic.
Io ancora non ha le file con le lista de parolas in interlingua, sed le lista de parolas in espaniol es facile de obtener in dictionarios electronic. In le pagina de mozilla, il es possibile facer un discarga del dictionarios, per exemplo de espaniol. Le files contine internemente un texto structurate pro facer derivation automatic de parolas.
Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 01:22, 4 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Create an Interlingua dictionary

Can we create an Interlingua dictionary on sourceforge.net or googlecode like this one? http://mozilla-arg.sourceforge.net/

  • Mushi 22:41, 4 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Car Mushi, ora tu pote discargar un version experimental del Dictionario de Interlingua pro Mozilla. Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 15:51, 13 decembre 2009 (UTC)

Territories where an IAL (International Auxilliary Language) is official

Hi Imladris, I see there are two countries or territories where Esperanto is/was official and you wrote 2 nice articles in Interlingua about them:

I see you know Interlingua very good and also I think you like Esperanto as well. I am relatively new to Interlingua, can you convince me why I should learn this language? Is this spoken by many people, or is this a better language then the existing languages, or what is the benefit, what is the catch? Thank you, Mushi 22:21, 10 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Io pensa que Interlingua non es tanto cognoscite como Esperanto, ma Interlingua es un lingua con multe plus ricchessa de expression que Esperanto. Interlingua es un lingua natural, basate in le latino, e non mixtura de linguas totalmente differente, como Esperanto... ((Imladris50 01:41, 11 decembre 2009))


Hi Imladris,
You say "Interlingua is not that known, like Esperanto is". My question is why, and what can be done about this? Is this because Interlingua's age is about 50 years and Esperanto's age is about 100 years, or is this because Esperanto is better than Interlingua?
You say "Interlingua is richer in expressing things than Esperanto is". I have no idea about this, is this because Interlingua has more words, more synonyms, better verb status, better word formation from a root-word? :) Thank you :) Mushi 17:58, 11 decembre 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Request for translation

(message original)

Lista de patronos (List of templates)

Hi, is there a list of templates somewhere? I'd like to find one just by writing "patrono" (or maybe "template") in the search field. Wakuran 12:18, 26 martio 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Hi Wakuran,
A list of templates/patronos is here (in categories, but the list does not include all the templates, because many templates do not include a category inside their definition page):
* Categoria:Patronos
* Categoria:Patronos_infobox
* Categoria:Patronos_de_navigation --------- PaceFlama 04:23, 19 augusto 2009 (UTC)

Learn Interlingua

Just heard of this language tonight but I think I need to learn it!

------------- (data del precedente commentario es: 22 julio 2009, 206.55.187.178)
Hi / Hola, if you want to learn Interlingua you can use the site
www.interlingua.com or you can use the help page (help="adjuta")
Adjuta:Referentias_pro_apprender_interlingua. --------- PaceFlama 04:23, 19 augusto 2009 (UTC)

(message original)

Contento de Discussion Wikipedia:Portal del communitate

Salute,

Io copiava le contento de Discussion Wikipedia:Portal del communitate al Taverna. Io prendeva iste version. Nos ha ora le discussion global de Wikipedia in interlingua integrate in un sol pagina.

Cordialmente, --Julian (disc.) 15:43, 13 decembre 2009 (UTC)

Community Projects for the Community Portal in Interlingua

Hi, Does anybody have any idea for community projects to be listed in the Community Portal? In my opinion one project I think of:

(message original)

Removing content and then blocking discussion on pages without any consent from the OP

J. has removed all the content from this discussion page Discussion: Portal del communitate. And then he has blocked all the access for discussion on this page Portal del communitate. Why nobody can discuss anymore on a discussion page?

Is anybody entitled to leave comments on the discussion page regarding that page? If yes, why he is deleting/moving discussions without asking the original contributor if she/he agrees with the move?

It is the third time he is removing/moving the discussion from the Portal del communitate page to Taverna without asking the persons who wrote those comments, and even after having the disagreement on the move from the original contributors. Moreover he blocks any comment on the discussion page. There are specific on-topic discussion regarding the Portal del communitate page that is updated by different contributors, including me, content that is now removed from there by him. I already told him about the fact he does not understand what he is doing, and that I placed my contribution there on that discussion page for a reason. He simply makes sole decisions on removing and moving content with no consent from the original posters on that page, and even against the will of the original contributors.

He also moved the message I left him on his discussion page. He is moving content placed on those discussion pages for a reason by other people, without asking the original contributors if they agree with the move. Even if the original contributors do not agree with the move, he does not care, and he removes/moves the content added by other people on the discussion pages. This outrageous, this is not normal.

Instead on focusing on a peaceful climate here, instead of encouraging people to comment or contribute, he makes sole decisions in disagreement with the original contributors. This is not sane. People should be encouraged and let them contribute. The community is small and his action jeopardize this community.

Instead on focusing on contribution and let other discuss on what page they want as long the discussion is on-topic, he creates false issues that impede people from focusing on contribution. His actions are direct conflict with the original contributors have gone too far. His actions have no reason, they don't give any value to the Interlingua Wikipedia content; are in profound disrespect for other contributors; he is blocking discussion pages. We cannot discuss anymore in a discussion page. The discussion page was meant, was designed by Wikipedia to allow people to discuss. He removed and blocked the discussion page.

This is too much. This cannot go on like this. We need an explanation. -- PaceFlama 21:55, 18 decembre 2009 (UTC)

Felice Christmas e Bon Natal!

Felice Christmas e Bon Natal!

--PaceFlama 18:56, 20 decembre 2009 (UTC)

Felice anno nove e bon fortuna durante le anno 2010

Felice anno nove e bon fortuna durante le anno 2010!

--PaceFlama 19:05, 20 decembre 2009 (UTC)