Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lukas19 (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 6 December 2006 (→Civility). 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)

Filll don't let yourself be unduly alarmed by these kooks, if you have any questions come to us will answer satisfactorily any of your doubts as to our intentions which are really the same as yours, to make the articles the best and most veridical they can be.Cheers--LaBotadeFranco 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, there's no need to call anyone else names. If your intentions are as you claim then I fail to understand the secrecy, or the apparent conspiracies regarding the Black people and the machismo articles, maybe it's in the nature of fascists to be furtive and you are good faith editors, I hope so. If you are good faith editors then we all welcome you. Alun 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Take a look at the edit that Albinomite made. I reverted it but now they are talking about getting a "quorum" and having a "vote" on the article. It's just what I said would happen yesterday. Well let's wait and see. Cheers, Alun 13:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I think your comment here really hit the nail on the head in an elegantly simple way. Keep it up! Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Swahili Translations of Frère Jacques

Unfortunately, I was only ever taught this song orally from my mother. I can only describe its sounds since I don't know any romanized Swahili. I haven't found anything close to my version on the net.

UPDATE: I found in a Swahili dictionary that a word for "brother" is ndugu, which is DEFINITELY in the song I know. That helps a little! (It at least means that my version is actually Swahili and not another language used in Kenya.)

--Earthsprite 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Bonjour. You are my hero. Your understanding of some of the BS foisted onto our consciousness by the Religious Creationists is outstanding. I'm using some of your arguments with the Christian lunatics who seem to surround me. I'm so glad I'm Jewish, but I wish I could just ignore this argument. But I'm a scientist too, and when I heard what they were teaching my son in high school, I nearly thought about using some natural selection on my son's "biology" teacher. He got reprimanded for teaching religion in a class that was probably 25% Jewish. Idiot, but that's what I've come to expect of the deranged Christian Right. Yeah, I'm a little angry about these people. Muslim fanatics and Christians fanatics--both killed my people over the centuries, both suppress Democracy, and both sound exactly alike. I feel better now  :) OrangeMarlin 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I Alun, award you Filll, this Barnstar, in recognition of your patience and understanding, and general common sense on the Black people talk page. You probably deserve about ten. Keep up the good work. Alun 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Black_people. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars.

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on User_talk:Wobble. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Reffering to other editors as "It is amazing the number of different views, and racists of various stripes." "But wow...some of these people are sure difficult." is unacceptable. Lukas19 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill why don't you show so your support. They're probably going to revert me and I've used up my 3 reverts for the day, so if they revert me again it would be nice if you came to my defense Cardriver 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not EO. I think the primary split should be between those who define black based on color and those who define black based on ethnicity or ancestry. Conflict over which definition should dominate is a major source of problems. If you have long advocated a split, now is the time to make your voice heard Cardriver

I do not think you should take this too personally as Lukas19 has made it his self appointed task to "warn" every one who disagrees with his narrow point of view in the slightest. --- Skapur 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Civil2 This is my last warning. Next time I'm going to report. You've already said to me:

"You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here."

So it's not hard to connect that and:

"I do not want to fight about whether white Americans or black Americans are a "pure" race. I do not want to deal with more racist religious creationist types who believe people were made black as a punishment by God or something, and do not believe in natural selection's contribution to color differences" Lukas19 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)