Gebanibespik:Smeira

Bespikapad gebana: Smeira.

Big Vükiped?

Stop doing cadastral changes on this wikipedia! Yours wikipedia is now as a symbol of bad condition of wikipedia. Maybe you think it will look cool when Volapiuk wikipedia be at top 15 or top 10 of all wikipedias, but depth of yours wikipedia would never be 1, even after 5 years. I am not twaddle here, I just want that you think a little about Your wikipedia's condition. Thanks. --Battousai 11:33, 2 setul 2007 (UTC)

Dear Battousai,

I understand your concern. But I have what I believe to be good reasons for doing this. If you want to know, I'll explain why. Maybe I'll go to your English wikipedia page and leave you a little message, since you're worried about this. --Smeira 11:45, 2 setul 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for maybe angry previous letter. But don't forget improving quality of this wikipedia, not entirely quantity ;) Good luck. --Battousai 18:44, 2 setul 2007 (UTC)

And could you write about en:Lithuanian language? I think it's very important article for such a big wikipedia as Volapiuk. --Battousai 19:14, 2 setul 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. I like your Lietuviu kalba ;-) (Another guy had asked me to do an article on the Armenian language. If only I had more people writing Volapük articles!...) --Smeira 19:39, 2 setul 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain your "good reasons" for doing this? As the founder of the Esperanto Wikipedia, we have worked hard for 6 years now to build a good-quality encyclopedia and everything we do is in Esperanto, including discussions, but looking at your page here, I see that almost none of the discussion here is in Volapuk. Could you please explain why you are pimping your quantity at the great expense of quality?? --Chuck_SMITH

Como es que puedes permitir cambio tan drásticos como estos en esta Wikipedia. Lo que se ha hecho aquí parece por lo menos a primera vista una malintenciada necesidad que crear más y más artículos. Toda wikipedia debe crecer progresivamente en la medida de lo posible, y se que esto no escapa de tus manos, si deseas puedes detener esta creación indiscriminada de artículos y empezar poco a poco a construir una verdadera wikipipedia. He estado buscando artículos bien estructurados y su cantidad es ínfima comparada con los stubs que existen aquí, y Por favor, le debes una explicación ha muchas personas que se ven ofendidas al encontrar esta wikipedia con un contenido casi nulo; y considero que sería adecuado que la escribieras aquí en tu página de discusión. Soy Kanon6917 de la wikipedia en español, inglés y quechua. Por favor, ten en cuenta el comentario, expresa el sentir de muchos respecto a la Vükiped.

Answers?

I tried to answer individually, on each person's main user page, to the important questions and criticism mentioned above. I'm placing here also a generic answer in English, since there may be other interested people. --Smeira 00:15, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

Dear XXX,

You asked me why the size of the Volapük wikipedia is increasing so fast. In fact, I've been doing this by transferring information over placenames from other wikipedias. You say this is bad because the actual depth/quality of the Volapük wikipedia is not good; it goes completely against the basic idea of a wikipedia to have 95% of your articles be short descriptions of places, etc. I agree entirely: the quality of the Volapük wikipedia is much inferior to, say, that of the Lithuanian wikipedia (to say nothing of the English wikipedia). In fact, if you wanted to use the Volapük wikipedia as an example of a "bad wikipedia", or something a "good wikipedia" shouldn't do, I will even agree.

So why am I doing this? Basically...

• The Volapük wikipedia can never be a big wikipedia; or even a really good wikipedia. There are only about 20-25 other Volapükists in the world; half of them are beginners and can only read or write basic stuff; most of the few people who are good enough to write articles are not really interested in computers, the internet, or wikipedia. I've sent e-mails to people and to the Volapük Yahoo group, I've sent letters to the little Volapük newsletter asking for cooperation; nothing happened. The result is that the Volapük wikipedia is pretty much a one-person project, with me being responsible for it. I had at first a colleague, Manie, also a sysop (he was, by the way, the one who started entering small city stubs), but after a while it seems he got more interested in the Afrikaans wikipedia (Afrikaans is his native language). So I stayed alone; and one person cannot build a good wikipedia ("single-person bias", i.e. I'm interested in certain things that I can write about, but not everything, and the things I don't know won't be well represented, etc.). I wrote (actually translated) a number of good articles (look up matemat = mathematics, or filosop = philosophy, or fösilav = paleontology; I also like biographies: Milan Kundera, or Anaïs Nin; and also Volapükists of the past: Arie de Jong, or Auguste Kerckhoffs). But I realized very soon that I would never write enough to make a difference. I'm only one person; and as long as I'm the only one, the Volapük wikipedia would never go beyond a couple of hundred pages, mostly about things I like.
• Then I thought: what can I do about this? Since the letters and pleas to other Volapükists didn't work, I thought I could try to get some new people interested in learning the language and contributing by doing something a little crazy -- like increasing the size of the Volapük wikipedia as fast as I could, with Python programs for copying and pasting information onto pre-translated templates. In many wikipedias this had already been done (I actually got the idea from the US city articles in the English Wikipedia). Maybe this will work. At least, some two or three new people have contacted me, and may be interested enough to learn Volapük and start writing articles. My hope? Simply that more and more people will hear about this language, and among some of them there will be people interested in working and improving the Volapük wikipedia. Perhaps newbies who will want to learn it in order to contribute, or even people who learned it independently but didn't know there was a Vükiped. (Ask yourselves: how many among you -- the Esperantists excepted -- knew anything about Volapük, or even that it existed at all, before the Volapük Vükiped started growing fast?). Is this a bad idea? Well, I'm open for suggestions, in case you have a better one.

• But isn't this bad for Wikipedia as a whole? The Volapük wikipedia isn't good; other people might say: see? That shows Wikipedia is bad. Just a bunch of guys putting stupid little articles there, which nobody is interested in. But, if you think about it...
  • Any person likely to argue like this would already have sufficient material for that. S/he could ask: why are there so many little wikipedias -- some in dead languages like Anglo-Saxon (Old English) or Ancient Greek -- when they'll never have a wide readership? There are only a few specialists who can actually write good articles in these languages, and who except the same specialists will read them? In fact, if you think about it, the smallest wikipedias -- say, the last 50 in the List of Wikipedias at Meta -- are for languages that are very small and probably will never have enough knowledgeable contributors to become really good, to have more than a few hundred non-stub articles. So why? (Note that this is most clearly not my opinion; I'm just making the point that Wiki-skeptics already could make this -- in my opinion not hard to defeat -- argument even without the Volapük Wikipedia; I've already heard things that sounded like that).
  • Even the best wikipedias also did lots of "automatic adding" of little stubs. I'd say more than 100,000 articles in the English wikipedia were written that way (look up the history of articles on smaller US cities and towns, from which I originally got the idea). Other wikipedias -- French, German, especially also Polish -- have also copied a lot of them automatically. You could say I'm doing the same for the Volapük wikipedia now -- in the hope that better days will come, with more contributors, that will lead to a more interesting Wikipedia.

(What happens if this never happens? What will I do after, say, a year or two, if nobody ever shows any real interest in contributing? Well, I'm a human being. I guess if nobody ever comes, I'll eventually become discouraged and quit. Maybe I'll just keep a copy of the Vükiped on my laptop for emotional reasons, and let go of the idea. Maybe I'll shed a few tears and write a book about this poor language, which had such a beautiful promising start and such a sad fate. But right now, I'm hopeful and energetic...)

• • Does the Volapük Wikipedia "lie" to its potential readers? No -- the "quality" issue (i.e. most articles are obviously little descriptive city stubs) is in my opinion quite obvious, and even if it weren't, the text in the main page (actually in the Komotanefaleyan -- the community portal --) says so (for the 20-25 extant Volapük speakers...) and asks for help. Non-Volapük speakers could come here and read this text... but frankly, what difference does it make to them? They will either be working on (or using or consulting) the Wikipedia(s) of their own favorite language(s), not worried about one they can't even read. How many non-Cherokee speakers care about current editing problems in the Cherokee wikipedia? How many non-Quechua speakers care about the number of biology articles in the Quechua wikipedia? Or in the Guarani Wikipedia? These are problems for the communities involved with developing and improving these wikipedias, and for their potential readers.

So: some of you are "offended" or "angry" at the size of the Volapük wikipedia. But why? Your own favorite wikipedias are certainly developing well, and their development in no way depends on the Volapük Vükiped. Your wikipedias are certainly more inclusive, better organized, and better thought out than the Volapük wikipedia; why should the size of the latter offend you? Only if one thinks that article number is the only way to measure how good a wikipedia is -- which is of course not true, as any of a number of texts on Wikipedia statistics in the various Wikipedias and elsewhere on the web will quickly demonstrate (better indicators are e.g. average number of edits per article, or of editors per article). Your work on your own favorite Wikipedias is clearly of good quality; the results are beautiful and impressive. Please go on; your work and your results don't depend on the state or size of the Volapük Wikipedia. If you want, as I said at the beginning, you can even use the Vükiped as an example of what you don't want to do and why. It's usually good to have such an example to make the point.

I'm currently making little articles based on French cities (actually "communes"), of which the French wikipedia has about 30,000. My idea is to get to about 100,000 - 110,000 articles and then stop. I could perhaps continue, but with diminishing results. I will simply stop, work on cleaning up the city articles, on more articles (stars and astronomy, or dinosaurs and paleontology, or philosophy, or literature and other stuff I like), and at the same time wait and see if other people show up. Maybe, some people who will see this deceivingly large Vükiped and will come and look around will become interested, and perhaps want to help make it more like the others. That would make this 'disorganized growth' worthwhile.

That's it. These are my reasons. In sum, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. If you disagree, feel free to let me know. I'd love to hear your comments and arguments.

--Smeira 00:15, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

Smeira !

Ton initiative de créer un grand nombre d'articles et de faire progresser vertigineusement la Vükiped fait un grand choc dans les communautés qui lorgnaient le classement de leur projet en fonction du nombre d'articles (espéranto, catalan, par exemple,...). J'ai lu attentivement tes réponses et j'y ferai ces commentaires :

1. pour moi le nombre d'articles, surtout s'il n'est pas accompagné d'une profondeur considérable, voire d'une qualité dont les critères sont en discussion, est un phénomène secondaire.
2. cependant cela crée un choc dans la Vikipedio où le fait d'être la première langue artificielle et aux environs de la quinzième place était une sorte d'argument de la valeur de l'espéranto, ou dans la Viquipèdia où il y avait une certaine fierté à l'idée que ce serait le premier projet dans une langue non liée à un état à passer la barre des 100 000 articles. Ces critères sont à réviser : ils ne sont pas forcément si significatifs, comme tu le développes toi-même : en quoi la croissance de Vükiped fait-il de l'ombre à des projets d'évidence plus soignés ?
3. tu fais état toi-même du développement fort limité du volapuk, et je doute que ce soit en gonflant la Vükiped comme tu le fais que tu feras significativement évoluer la situation de cette langue.
4. il me semble que ce serait un meilleur service à rendre à Vükiped que de rédiger avec soin un par un de bons articles bien développés par exemple autour d'une thématique choisie (un centre d'intérêt particulier, un domaine de compétence, une thématique spécifiquement volapükienne, - l'histoire de la langue, ses acteurs, ses écrivains, - ...) de façon à créer un corpus d'articles de référence où toute personne qui s'intéresserait à la langue pourrait en trouver des échantillons significatifs. Il faudrait ranger à mesure de leur création ces articles dans une catégorie "Articles de Qualité" pour guider les lecteurs. Il me semble observer que la communauté Vükipedienne manque de vivacité, qu'il y a peu de discussions en volapuk, peu d'utilisation vivante de la langue. Volapuk semble une langue quasi-morte et il me semble peu probable que tu puisses la ressusciter à toi tout seul. Une langue n'a de sens que si elle permet à plusieurs personnes de communiquer ensemble.
5. l'histoire de volapuk est particulière : créée peu de temps avant l'espéranto, elle s'est rapidement développée parce qu'il y avait à l'époque un fort désir pour une langue universelle. Le dogmatisme de Schleyer et d'autres causes ont provoqué un effondrement du mouvement : de nombreux volapukistes sont alors passés à l'espéranto. A cette époque (fin 19ème, début 20ème) de nombreuses personnes pensaient que les succès insuffisants du volapuk puis de l'espéranto étaient dus à des défauts de conception et ont fleuri par dizaines d'autres projets qui prétendaient y remédier (Novial, Ido, Occidental, etc). Cependant à ce jour c'est l'espéranto qui a atteint les meilleurs résultats même s'ils sont modestes (en terme de longévité, de nombre de locuteurs, d'écrivains, de quantité de matériel culturel produit, etc). On peut discuter des raisons pour lesquels cela s'est produit. Je ne crois pas une supériorité intrinsèque de l'espéranto, je pense que c'est l'attachement sentimental de la communauté de ses locuteurs qui a été la base du succès relatif de cette langue. C'est pourquoi je suggère de faire ce travail de qualité pour donner à Vükiped un attrait qui pourrait séduire certaines personnes, plutôt que la production d'une quantité d'articles très succints qui ne fait pas illusion au-delà d'un impact publicitaire.
6. personnellement c'est le principal intérêt que je verrais à Vükiped : c'est de pouvoir y trouver des articles de qualité. Ça me donnerait peut-être envie d'apprendre la langue, alors que de prendre connaissance de quelques données rudimentaires sur toutes sortes de localités d'Europe ou d'ailleurs ne suffit pas à éveiller ma curiosité.

Bon courage !

Arno Lagrange ✉ 10:37, 13 setul 2007 (UTC)

Merci, Arno! Mes idées et mes réponses sont ici (en espéranto). --Smeira 14:38, 13 setul 2007 (UTC)

Pardonu min Arno, sed vi diris, ke multaj Volapukistoj transiris al Esperanto. Bv. donu statistikajn nombrojn. Mi havas la impreson, ke tio estas unu el la esperantistaj mitoj. Kp. pri tio ankau la "Historion de Volapuko", eldonitan de Cherpillod. --89.182.143.43 08:02, 22 setul 2007 (UTC)

Mi mem scias nur kelkajn nomojn; kp., krom la fama eo:Leopold Einstein, ankaux: eo:Siegfried Lederer, eo:Haldor Midthus, eo:Francisco Valdomiro Lorenz. Sed eble estis ankoraux pli da Volapükistoj, kiuj kreis (aux asociigxis kun) novaj(n) sistemoj(n) (Julius Fieweger, Waldemar Rosenberger, Juraj Bauer, Marie Johanna Verbrugh, Karl Lenze, Auguste Kerckhoffs), aux simple mortis/kabeis/malaperis (ekz. la fama D-ro Rupert Kniele, Moritz Obhlidal, Joseph Bernhaupt, Pietro Poletti, Sigmund Spielmann, Jan Miroslav Bakalář ktp.). --Smeira 13:06, 22 setul 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Other wikipedias -- French, German, especially also Polish -- have also copied a lot of them automatically.

When has this happend at the German Wikipedia and which kind of articles was the result of this action?

And why do you add German municipalities with population numbers of 2006 but write 2001? --87.234.91.21 19:34, 7 setul 2007 (UTC)

For the German wikipedia, I couldn't say immeditely; I'd have to look up robot activity there. My guess is French counties ("communes"). Let me go have a look when I have a moment, and I'll try to find you a good example. As for the 2001-2005, that's because I forgot to reset the year in my program when I changed from one country to another -- you may have noticed the same problem occurs with French cities (some 1999, some 2001, etc.). The formats are simply too different from wikipedia to wikipedia, and sometimes even within one wikipedia (in some cases the year is an independent field in the template, in other cases it is added as a "<br /> YEAR" comment to the population field, etc.). I hope to take care of that during cleanup. (Note that such inconsistencies can be found in other wikipedias as well. I remember seeing articles in which the population was mentioned once in the infobox with one year, and once in the text itself with a different year. In these cases, even a human translating the article has a problem, not simply an automatic program.) --Smeira 19:52, 7 setul 2007 (UTC)

Point of view

NOTA: Me permito escribir en español para expresar mejor mi punto de vista; y por ser esta tu página de usuario, y saber que comprendes el español...

• Para empezar, me parece admirable tu labor y el esfuerzo que pones en la Vükiped, sé ahora que buscas lo mejor, más no necesariamente sería considerado lo mejor lo que estas haciendo hasta ahora, para la mayoría de wikipedistas.

Si, lo se. Mis ideas e opiniones están ahora aqui, explicadas para los otros Wikipedistas. Estoy seguro que muchos no estarán de acuerdo, y me gustará leer sus argumentos. --Smeira 08:01, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

• Ya ahora, la Vükiped se ha convertido en la wikipedia de un idioma construido con más artículos, más no se puede decir lo mismo de la calidad, como tú sabes. Otro problema que se da es que al ser lo nombres de lugares mayormente no-traducibles, es seguro que por ejemplo la wiki en esperanto posea mayor número de artículo basados en vocablos propios del idioma, a diferencia de esta wiki.

Sin duda. Pero, no soy contra calidad; ¡no! Mi interés es exactamente encontrar gente que me ayuda a mejorar la calidad de la enciclopedia Volapük. Si me quedo sólo, la Wikipedia Volapük simplemente no será jamás tan buena cuanto la Wikipedia en Esperanto, aunque yo escriba y traduzca artículos todos los dias, 24 horas por dia. --Smeira 08:04, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

• Me molesto un poco lo que dijiste sobre que a un no hablante de cierta wiki no le importaría los problemas de edición de tal wiki. Y me molesta, por lo menos a mí, porque puedo decir que si me intereso por ciertas wikis menores y sus problemas (como muchos otros). He trabajado en la wiki en Herero, al principio sin saber mucho del idioma, evitando que la eliminen y que por lo menos ahora se encuentra en el incubador; también ayudo en otras menores de las cuales no conosco mucho el idioma, ya sea SiSwati, Aymara, etc. Y creeme no seran muchos pero existe gente que sí se preocupa por esto.

Ya lo se; soy yo uno de ellos (me interesan sobretudo Wikipedias en idiomas ameríndios, como el Quechua, el Aymara y el Guaraní)... Si no hubiera realmente nadie, las Wikipedias menores no existirian, ¿verdad? Alguien está interesado, alguien existe. Pero hasta ahora no conozco a nadie a quien interesen todas las wikipedias. Hay siempre wikipedias que no le interesan a una persona. Y incluso si hubiera una tal persona universal, que quiere contribuir a todas las wikipedias: fisicamente no sería posible, esa persona no tendría tiempo para trabajar significativamente en todas las wikipedias. Para cada persona existirán pues siempre wikipedias irrelevantes (no porque lo sean intrinsecamente; sólo porque cada persona tiene sus intereses y preferencias, y estos no son universales).

Pero en mi experiencia con el Volapük, fueran muy pocos los que apareceron y quisieron ayudar. La mayoría quedava algunas semanas, hacia algunos stubs sobre dos o tres temas, pero no aprendía mucho de la lengua, perdía interés y se transfería a otras wikipedias. No los critico: nadie tiene el deber de interesarse por algo. Pero hasta hoy no encontré aqui a alguien con un interés más serio. Tal vez uno de los dos o tres que me escribieron recientemente... --Smeira 08:01, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

• En fin, vuelvo a rescatar el gran esfuerzo que le pones a este proyecto, se que para mi (que no he hecho nada aquí) es facil criticar, pero por lo menos permite darte mi punto de vista: que sería preferible dedicarle más tiempo a una significativa bien organizada wikipedia; revisando artículos sobre matemática y filosofía, se ven muy completos, pero sería mucho mejor que se escrbiera algo de cada redirección en rojo.

Si, es este tipo de artículo que voy a escribir despues de terminar con las ciudades de Francia. Pero, como soy sólo una persona, las redirecciones en rojo van a disminuir muy muy despacio... (Ya empecé, por ejemplo, un artículo sobre vo:metafüd = metafísica, de una redirección roja del artículo de filosofía...) --Smeira 08:01, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

• Se que falta muchísimo por hacer, pero por lo pronto suerte con tu idea de la creción de artículos, si bien no comparto como muchos otros el afan de tener más y más artículos, dentro de tí es por una buena causa, y al ser tu el responsable único de esta wiki supongo que tienes todo el derecho de elegir el camino que debas tomar.

Muchos saludos y suerte con la Vükiped! Kanon6917

¡Muchas gracias! Y estoy de acuerdo sobre la calidad. Tampoco yo creo que un elenco de ciudades es una enciclopedia; el afán de tener más y más artículos es sólo una manera de encontrar colaboradores. No se se va a funcionar; tal vez sí, tal vez no. A ver. ¡Mucha suerte con tu trabajo y tus artículos! --Smeira 08:01, 6 setul 2007 (UTC)

Some issues for discussion

I am sorry to barge in and for writing in English but I think that there are some issues that need to be discussed on this "article count race", depth and stuffs. This page seems to be a good place to start the discussion. First of all, we need to have a better parameter than number of articles and depth. If a bot can increase the number of articles, it certainly can increase depth. Now, if we press more on depth, I am sure that there will be bots or other such nonsense programs which increase the depth by introducing nonsense in talk page or by making repeated insignificant edits which in the end do nothing other than eat up the precious space. Also, the depth is a very bad parameter in a wikipedia with bot. Eg- an article may be edited manually say 10 times to create the same information that a bot can add in a single attempt. So, for an end user, the depth of 10 times greater does not mean much difference. I think we need to focus more on the encyclopedic part first and then on these parts. All the wikipedians of all the wikipedia need to seriously think about the List of articles in metawiki. This page must be protected and any change in the list should be done only after a broad consensus just like the ones we do for electing board members. After the list is carefully maintained, we can list the wikipedia according to the presence of the articles of the list in a wikipedia, its status and length (whether a substub, stub, medium, long, good, featured etc). For those wikipediae with featured articles of ALL the given topics of the list, we can choose the better one (for listing the wikipediae) by the criteria like number of words per article, depth, number of articles etc. Thank you.--Eukesh 15:50, 8 setul 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. You're suggesting a sampling method for measuring the 'goodness' of a wikipedia. It's a good idea -- but I think it ought to be used alongside traditional measures (including perhaps even article count). After all, an encyclopedia is encyclopedic -- it must contain lots of articles on lots of topics. Using this sample will measure only how well a given wikipedia treats the topics in the sample -- which is in itself a good thing to measure. But the inclusiveness aspect -- the fact that (especially for the English wikipedia) you can find articles on lots of topics, including those usually not covered in encyclopedias (e.g. TV shows, websites, chemical elements...) -- should also count. Also the number (and/or percentage of) good, excellent and featured articles should count. (I also wonder if one should take into account whether a given article is the translation of another article from a different wikipedia or not.) --Smeira 20:45, 8 setul 2007 (UTC)

I was actaully talking of prioritization. A sampling is suitable where all entities have equal importance. However, an encyclopedia is based on pririties. So, this is what I think needs to be done-

• a list of core articles created by consensus of all wikipediae which is updated on a certain period of time.
• evaluation based on completedness of these articles
• wikipediae with featured articles on all the topics are listed on the top and the ones less complete following it
• if more than one wikipediae have featured articles in all the topics under consierdarion, then another parameter created by combining indicators like number or article, number of edits, words per article, number of featured articles, numbers of references etc. is used to rank them accordingly.

Thank you.--Eukesh 19:56, 11 setul 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smeira!

Danob oli, Smeira! In no Vükiped votik pebenokömob so flenöfo. Löfob püki obsa, so vilob keblünön fredo. Gebidob liedo te vödabuki smalik e glamat oba binon nog mükik, so okosamob oli suviko... -- HannesM 04:41, 4 setul 2007 (UTC)

Danö pro komands ola! Ägebob kösömo eli Lehrbuch pro deutänapükans. Jenöfo binob sperantapükan, ab sperantapük kontenükon obi no fovo. Denu lärnob Volapüki e gebob ati ad lautön. Velövob keblünön in literat, pükav e stelav. Ab dabinons-li vöds volapükik pro vöds nolavik as sam "classicismus" ü "amplitudo"? -- HannesM 14:29, 5 setul 2007 (UTC)

Glidis! Pidob vemo das ägesagob no sunädo, ab ebinob in Lägüptän pro kods pösodik. Ägetob nu däli de el Yahoo!Group. Änolol-li das ebegob ya bü spikot obas? Cifal dabinon-li id?! Kanoböv primön ad redäkon yegedis dö läns. Redakob kösömo so: Sudan. If at jinon binön gudo, sevükolös obi. -- HannesM 13:57, 14 setul 2007 (UTC)

Oprimob sosus mögik! Fredo koslogob penön volapüko! Eprimob ya ad lölöfükön länataibis ömik. Nu nolob kladis tefädik. Yeged dö Fransän binon sam gudik. Säkusadös pöls oba stupädik... Kösömo no mekob pölis somik, ab äbinon vig bisarik pro ob e no eplägob volapüki deg dels. <br\> O Smeira, danob pro yüf oba jeragik. Ai fredob so vemo dö nuns oba! Binol jenöfo flen! -- HannesM 20:42, 14 setul 2007 (UTC)

Glidis, Smeira! Eblüfob redakön nu yegedi balik: Yapän. Säntretükob nu valodiko te Vükipede volapüka, bi äzanob grobo in Vükiped sperantapüka. Nu mutob begön oli gönis tel gretik. O Smeira, promolöd das osufälol obi, ven sagob ole begis tel obik! -- HannesM 18:06, 17 setul 2007 (UTC)

Binos-li gudik if penob ai volapüko? So, begs obik binon tels: 1. Vilobös vobön kladi dö literat yapäna ku lautans, poedafoms, buks... 2. Begö, legolöd us: Diskutejo (sperantapükik) Danö, o Smeira, pro töbid obik! -- HannesM 11:42, 18 setul 2007 (UTC)

Hi

• Hi, I think, I made some mistakes. Please correct them. --85.97.134.65 13:53, 13 setul 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Smeira 01:08, 17 setul 2007 (UTC)

Salutacions

Hola Smeira, sento no tenir la més mínima noció de Volapük, a imitació d'altres comentaris t'escriuré en la meva llengua materna, que he vist que comprens (i davant del fort interès lingüístic que sembles tenir, no ho dubto).

He arribat a visitar la Vükiped, i suposo que no seré l'únic, degut a la forta publicitat que suposa per una llengüa minoritària arribar a les 15 primeres posicions. Tinc, com molts d'altres, els meus dubtes de que aquest projecte s'estigui desenvolupant de la millor forma possible, però no és pas per això que t'escric. Et volia transmetre l'admiració que sento per la teva capacitat de treballar pels projectes que t'interessen. No sé si dedueixo correctament allò que et mou, però em sembla lloable voler donar a conèixer (i possiblement recuperar) una llengua sencera. Gràcies al teu esforç he descobert les llengües artificials, espero no ser ni l'únic ni el més interessat. Molts ànims amb els teus reptes! Loquetudigas

Volapuque

Um brasileiro é o principal editor da wikipédia em volapuque! Parabéns pelos 100k, saudações brasileiras! Slade 22:35, 16 setul 2007 (UTC)

Olha, se eu tivesse um mínimo de entendimento em volapuque, lhe ajudava -- gosto de "pegar pra criar". Já pensou em rodar um bot de interwikis? Saudações, Slade 01:32, 18 setul 2007 (UTC)

Longe de mim! Linguagem de bot é grego pra mim! :D Mas você pode tentar o Rei-artur, ele têm muita experiência com bots, e o bot dele faz tudo; de criar artigos a corrigir typos. E porque não cria uma conta na sua Wikipédia "natal"? Interessado nas minhas sugestões? Slade 02:03, 18 setul 2007 (UTC)

Opa!

Smeira! Way to go! I'm Geban:ILVI the founder of the Vo wiki and the person who came up with its name "Vükiped". I am sorry not to have had much time to continue adding articles. I've been working on my graduate degree and teaching fulltime. I want you to know that I don't agree with the people who are complaining. I think it's great that you've devoted this much time to the Vo wiki. If the quality of the articles is measured by its length then there are hundreds of articles in all the language wikipedias that aren't of greater quality. I feel that if the amount of articles is huge it will bring notice to a little known wikipedia. Perhaps more people will become interested in learning about Volapük. And with more help some of the stub articles may get filled with information, maybe even from people in those cities and towns, imagine the surprise of someone seeing their own town listed in this wikipedia! I think you're doing a great job. Löfiko! Jacinto ILVI 13:56, 17 setul 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jay,

Thanks for your support! I'm very happy to hear that you find my work for the Vükiped worthwhile. I do, however, agree with the critics who say that quality is more important than quantity, and I would love to see longer and more interesting Vükiped articles about all kinds of topics (especially also about Volapük topics -- history of the language and its authors, etc.). It is my hope, as you also said, that more people will hear about the language because of the large article count and that some will become collaborators who will help improve overall quality...

Now, precisely because I'm also interested in Volapük history, I'm curious about the history of this Vükiped. I understand you're probably overwhelmed with your work, but would you perhaps have some time to tell a little bit of the story of how and why you decided to start a Volapük wikipedia? When and why you had the idea, which were the problems (Was it easy or difficult to get the project started? Was there opposition from Wikipedians? Who else participated in the process? Are the discussions archived somewhere where I can read them?), etc.? Also, when, why and how did you become interested in the language? (You were also (one of) the founder(s) of the Volapük yahoo group, weren't you? And you also have an interesting page on artificial languages?) I'd use the information to write an article on the history of the Vükiped, and perhaps also another one about you (if you give me enough biographic details...). Thanks in advance! --Smeira 00:21, 18 setul 2007 (UTC)

Não por isso

Hi Smeira, thanks so much for your reply. I do apologize for not having given much recent support to your efforts at the Vükiped Volapükik. Tenho um projeto muito urgente agora mesmo pela escola de Antioch. As soon as I'm finished with it I'll be able to dedicate sometime to many projects that I've had to put on hold. I hope to be done by the end of the month of Sept. '07. Things are very hectic for me at the moment. But I wanted you to know that there are people who appreciate what you've been doing for the Vükiped and for the wonderfully intriguing language Volapük. With best regards, Jacinto ILVI 02:11, 18 setul 2007 (UTC)

Zifs in Trentino-Alto Adige (Litaliyän)

Smeira löfik,<br\> Gudo, das binol i nitedälol dö sakäd at. I Vükipeds votik gebons te zifanemis Deutänapükik, bi Deutänapük binon pük balid e cälofik (70%) in el provin itreigik Südtirol/Alto Adige (nen Trentino), sekü binos gudikum gebön zifanemis Deutänapükik äs padanems, ab te zifs, kö Deutänapükans binon pluamanum. Id nem topäda binonöv nemuiko Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (nem cälofik lono). So, kio tikol-li dö? Pidob ko eprimob ya votükön yegedis nen esagob nosi ämekön jäfon kaoti. BinOL cif obik! ;-) If dälob vötükis, opäkob yegedis. Olunikumob yegedis dö zifs at. Pidob das ämeköb donü pölis stupädik. Set söko binol-li nu verätik: El Reschensee, in kel topon zif, kel päsädon. ("The Reschensee, in which lies a city that has been flooded")?<br\>Danö vemo, o flen muogretik volapükik!;-) -- HannesM 22:43, 19 setul 2007 (UTC)

Is labob vödem de Baläd Parisik (1946) ad kleilükön stadi in el Südtirol/Alto Adige:

§1. Die deutschsprachigen Einwohner der Provinz Bozen [Bolzano] und der benachbarten zweisprachigen Gemeinden der Provinz Trient [Trentino] genießen die volle Gleichberechtigung mit den italienischsprachigen Einwohnern, im Rahmen besonderer Maßnahmen zum Schutze der völkischen Eigenart und der kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der deutschen Sprachgruppe. In Übereinstimmung mit den bereits erlassenen oder zu erlassenden gesetzlichen Maßnahmen wird den Staatsbürgern deutscher Sprache im besonderen gewährt: [...] <br\> Abs. b) Gleichberechtigung der deutschen und italienischen Sprache in öffentlichen Ämtern und amtlichen Urkunden wie auch in der zweisprachigen Ortsnamengebung; -- HannesM 05:49, 19 setul 2007 (UTC)

O Smeira löfik,<br\> Gudo das ätuvobs soüli dö sakäd at. Nu dabinos vobi mödik, bi te Bolzano, Laives e Vadena binons zifs/vilags, kö Litaliyänapukans binons pluamanum. Dabinons i zifs/vilags, in kö ladinans (Binon-li atos nem Volapükik verätik pro "Ladins"?) binons pluamanum (as sam Ortisei, Santa Cristina Valgardena) e kels labons nemis Ladinapükik cälofik. Vali et omekob, mutol te xamön, if binon zusüdik (otopätükob ini klad dö yegeds menodabik).

Vilol-li vedön hel Schleyer telid? Binol mödapükan! Älärnob id pükis anik, anikis itlärniko (autodidactically), ab neai su nivet so geilik. Ab as sam Deutänapük binon mütavob pro motapükan Portugänapüka. -- HannesM 04:18, 20 setul 2007 (UTC)

Glömob sakäd dö topäd: Valle D'Aosta. Atos binon i topäd itreigik me lonem patik ("Regione autonoma a statuto speciale"). Nem verätik binon jenöfo: Valle D'Aosta/Vallée D'Aoste. Zifs in el Aosta labon te nemis fransänik kels binon cälofiks. Te zif Aosta binon baliko telpükik, so cälofiko: Aosta-Aoste. -- HannesM 07:40, 20 setul 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for closing vo.wp

For your information: [1] --Rosentod

Fin Vükipeda?

O Smeira löfik,<br\> Danö pro konsäls olik. Pidob, o Smeira, das eglömob dönu topätükön yegedi obik ini klad baiädik. No ojenos dönu! Oceinob nemis zifas e vilagas deutänapüko o ladino, if vilösol. Si! :-) Lödob in el Bolzano/Bozen, ab nu lödob ledino in el Wien. Evilob teo, das öreidikol in el "diskutejo" ad suemön gudikumo stadi zifanemas e deutänapüka in el Südtirol.<br\> Sunädo po ireidikob dö döbat, äkeblünob döbate. Binobs neriskodik; nu binon 19 vögods pro fovön proyeki obsik. Etuvobs igo fleni nulik Volapüka! -- HannesM 03:06, 22 setul 2007 (UTC)

Lartig dö Vükiped in Libera Folio

Glidis.

In http://www.liberafolio.org/2007/volapukapedio/ tuvoy lartigi dö vob olik. Glof Vükipeda esüvokon leskani gretik bevü Sperantapükans. :))

lizenz

Lieber Sérgio, was muss ich hier tun? Habe wappen von Yamoussoukro hochgeladen: http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magod:Logo_yakro.jpg. Erhalten habe ich das bild hier: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_yakro.jpg. Was soll ich nun im kommentar schreiben?

Lg --Manie 15:54, 22 setul 2007 (UTC)