Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sugaar (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 2 December 2006 (→What do you think this means?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

/Archive 1

Arafat

How you doing, i see it's my first post? Go on talk page and see, some people need some changes done, hopefully others will agree, it makes sense to write about jerusalem birth in the beginning, not at the end.

Isle of Wight Rubbish

Interesting proposal and thanks for asking my views. This information is already available at iwight.com, and does change now and again. It's unlikely to be useful to anyone unless the actually live at the location concerned. I don't think it's notable. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Note also that in England we say 'rubbish' not 'trash'. All the best Naturenet | Talk 08:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd use German, but only I'm afraid it's become somewhat rusty.--Albinomite 18:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think this means?

I wonder what this means? Something about the Black people article probably. J'inciterai le jour prochain un vote de direction à la page "noire," ta presence sera absolument nécessaire, au même que l'apparition des autres (L. et M. inclus).--Albinomite 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) from User talk:LaBotadeFranco. autotranslation: I will incite the next day a direction vote to the page "black," your presence will be absolutely necessary, to the even that the appearance of the others (L. and Mr. include). Possibly they are hoping to get a "vote" to move the page to their prefered title. Should we report this as meatpuppetry? Alun 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do either. On the one hand I'm considering applying for an request for investigation, on the other I don't think they really know what they are doing. I don't get the impression that they have any idea how robust wikipedia's administration is, or how difficult it is to keep changes once they have been made if the changes are against consensus. I have my suspicions about meatpuppetry, lots of new users all with the same "agenda" appearing at the same time. The change of the article title was certainly provocative, but I wonder if they had any idea what they were doing? As far as I can tell they haven't done anything really wrong, made a few "newbie" mistakes like trying to use vandalism "warns" inappropriately etc. I'm relatively unconcerned, I don't think they can do any long term damage, any major changes will soon get reverted. Even if they try to "force" some sort of "vote" for a change in article name they are likely not to succeed, a consensus is not a simple majority, and votes on wikipedia are usually open for about a week or so. I don't think there is likely to be any sort of majority for a change in article name and massive voting by new users is suspicious enough to warrant investigation. There are already enough strange messages on the respective talk pages for an investigation if there is a major attempt to change the article. They certainly seem to have some sort of racialist agenda. I'm of the opinion that we continue as normal and just keep an eye on them. I'm sure they are doing the same to me and will read this message. It's good that they know that we can watch each other, nothing is secret here. We can always refer for an RFI if there are any problems. Likely they will get bored soon enough when they realise that it's just impossible to impose a single POV onto an article. Articles can only ever change through consensus, there's just too many people ready to revert any POV pushing. They seem to have realised now that intimidation doesn't work, and what are fascists when they can't be bullies? Alun 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Albinomite has made 30 edits, not one to an article mainspace, all to talk pages.

User:LaBotadeFranco (falangist stuff on user page) has made 39 edits, none to an article mainspace, all to talk pages.

User:Balino-Antimod (Jean Marie Le Pen on his user page) has made 50 edits, four to an article mainspace (3 to Black people, 1 to White people).

Considering these people claim not to be racists it seems odd that they are exclusively concerned with the Black people ans White people articles. I don't understand why they are not more interested in improving the articles about their political ideologies and the people involved therein. Alun 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bring this issue to ANI. It's about time.

The correct translation of the French text is actually (I think): I will incite the next day a direction vote in the page "black," your presence will be absolutely necessary, the same that the appearance of the others (L. and Mr. included).

In my understanding these people are clearly coordinated outside of Misplaced Pages and are making an assault with an ideologically defined agenda. Or so it seems form the text and the more than apparent relations between Albinomite, LaBota and Baliño (see the PAIN case against Baliño, aka Balino-Antimod). --Sugaar 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)