Admin Abuse 
Anthere, A group of editors and admins refuse to allow a balance of material and links. Gamaliel, Robert McClenon, Jpgordon, JamesMLane, and a few others now own the pages. Any attempts to modify the page is met by thier gang edits. They allow only links to pro kennedy sites, none to negative sites regardless of the wealth of content they may provide. They push their pov on all of the Kennedy pages. It's because of editors and admins like these that Wikipedia is doubted as a source. ie; the New York Times published policy against Wiki as a source. The group refuses to agree to consensus when it is against them. I've now been blocked by Jpgordon in an abuse of admin priv. My act was not vandalism, it's simply not agreeing with their one sided pov. I am not willing to endure any more arb or mediation. These guys are out of control. 220.127.116.11 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave this message on Wikipedia as well, but I wanted to make sure you got this. At Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, a couple users and myself are attempting to gather consensus about a possible change in editing. So as not to keep the community out of the loop, we've been posting to user talk pages, which seems to have worked. If you can add your thoughts to the talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. We've gone over a few issues, ranging from perception of anti-wiki to time limits, and recycling pagemove code, so you might want to check out #Rehashing to get up to speed. Thanks in advance, Mysekurity 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Tu ne vas pas aimer 
fr:Wikipédia:Prise_de_décision/Admissibilité_des_guides,_manuels_et_recettes : au courant ? Les recettes de cuisine sont encore ... sur grill si j'ose dire ... Bises. villy ♦✎ 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) je commence à me lasser un peu de refaire 25 fois les mêmes discussions.... marre marre marre. merci Anthere 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Salut de Miami Beach! 
Je viens de lire dans le budget de Wikimedia que vous avez un budget aussi pour le lodging et voyages et que ca coute 3.8% (?) du budget total. Ce que je vous propose, c'est de vous loger chez quelqu'un de Wikipedia avec qui vous pouvez etablir aussi une amitie meme si professionelle... Je ne sais pas si vous avez deja fait ca, mais je pense que cela vous aidera beaucoup et vous aidera avec la reduction du budget.
- Bonjour Daniel. Si, nous avons bien entendu déjà fait... quand nous le pouvions, mais ce qui reste le plus cher est quand même le déplacement lui meme. Par exemple, quand je suis allée à Amsterdam il y a un an, j'ai été invitée par Elie, c'était très sympathique. Il est tout de même préférable de connaitre un peu les personnes :-) Anthere
some more stuff, but is it really meant to me or to Angela ? 
I am coming to you because there is nowhere else to go with this. I fear a mega troll has been able to so firmly entrench himself within wikinews with meatpuppets and sockpuppets that he has obtained virtual control of the site. Now he is attempting to expand his power into Wiktionary. . He simply uses his authority and extreme time availability to wear down and force contributors who are in his way off the site. He has also managed to drive a wedge between Admins and non-admins (basically forming a club-like clique among admins) to the point where a reasonable Rfda;  fails with 6 admins opposing and 9 non-admins supporting the Rfda. Amgine's dedication toward prioritizing group loyalty is manifest with this edit of his; "Your approach to Wikinews, in my opinion, is focused on articles. This is a common approach, but probably not the most valuable. I suggest you reconsider that Wikinews is not about articles, but about developing and maintaining an online community; the articles are secondary. - Amgine / talk 14:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)". Amgine also uses multiple signatures leading to different sites and one that leads nowhere.
The administrative abuses are historical fact and are listed below and although the "troll" accusation is based on circumstantial evidence; I am also showing it at the bottom. The section below is from 
- Regarding Amgine's activities as an administrator for en.wikinews, I have checked and double checked the information/links below and find the statements accompanying them to be true. Amgine abuses administrative authority consistently and has done so for at least 6 months. His user page comments even show he has a troll-like connection as an administrator with the project as he openly announces that he has "left the project" while being the most active in terms of conflicts and blockings; acting as a foreman or "boss" rather than in a collaborative fashion.
- Here are the examples of administrative abuse. Amgine has had multiple long lasting disputes with many editors with Neutralizer being the most recent and intense. Amgine has not hesitated to abuse his admin powers by blocking/punishing editors like Neutralizer who disagree with him; even though wikinews guidelines clearly state that an admin should NOT block an editor with whom they are having a dispute (they should,instead, allow a different admin. to apply any necessary blocks to that editor). It now seems that the wikinews contributors can not get rid of Amgine no matter how hard they try; Amgine is able to deflect and explain away his misdeeds in a fashion that puts Shakespeare's "Artful Dodger" to shame. You may expect that he will become increasingly accusatory and employ vicious attack methods to get what he wants. Re Amgine; its a lot easier to get him in power than to get him out of power. Fair Warning !
- Amgine displayed his arrogance by summarily rejecting the resolution,suggestions of a mediator, Ilya (a wikinews Bureaucrat) after a mediation. "I do not accept your suggestion that I limit my administrative privilege use either to "vandalism or very clear violations of objective policies only, and to explicitly let some other admin deal with Neutralizer" or "submit a self-de-admin request." 
- Dan100's list. of Amgine's "bullying and poor behaviour" (Dan100 is an admin. in good standing at wikinews).
- Apparent vendetta blocks:
- A shows 4 of the spurious blocks Amgine levied against Neutralizer which were all later rescinded when other admins got involved .
- B shows the last block against Neutralizer done after Amgine and he clearly were in conflict
- 02:13, 6 November 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 6 months
- Admin abuse; blocking Ed Brown for 1 month  04:27, 11 December 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Edbrown05" with an expiry time of 1 month ; Amgine soon withdrew that block as he claimed a "software problem" had been the cause of the unjustified block. This time selection of 1 month for a long standing good contributor like Edbrown shows an abusive use of blocking
- talk page blanked and frozen by Amgine ( in the middle of ongoing disputes with this same person)  This is especially interesting as he did it just one hour after the talk page was made to prioritize the question of whether Amgine and another admin. are the same person. As you can see below (6); Amgine has no problem accusing others of being sockpuppets but when he stands accused? Hell; just delete the evidence.
- More Disruption by Amgine; not assuming good faith:
- Amgine accused vonbergm of being a sockpuppet; "I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet."
- Just a few days ago he accused Edbrown of being a sockpuppet
- Additional "Troll" indicators
- 1. Enigma = Amgine backwards
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/enigma •nig•ma (-ngm) KEY NOUN: One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable. A perplexing speech or text; a riddle. Anything that arouses curiosity or perplexes because it is unexplained, inexplicable, or secret: conundrum, mystery, perplexity, puzzle, puzzler, riddle. Definition sounds a lot like a definition for "troll" to me; "puzzler,perplexing,conundrum"
- 2. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Amgine says “left the project”
translating messages and wikimediafoundation 
Hello Anther, I've translated some messages for "fund drive" but i can not translate the translations on wikimediafoundation. It says need approval for membership. Do you suggest for me to approve, i already translated the needed parts on meta. I'm an active sys-op on tr-wiki and az-wiki(in az-wiki just trying to help them).--Ugur Basak 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the awkward comminication. Neutralizer 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Fund drive translation 
Thanks for uploading my version onto the page. I'm sorry if I didn't go through the proper channels to get it on, but I'm glad it got fixed. Reading over the page, I couldn't help but notice that glaringly bad wording, and while it's still not perfect, I must say it is a little better. Thanks again, Mysekurity 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Anthere, 18.104.22.168 recently added this rule to Stewards/elections 2006 - that candidates must have 3 months on meta and 200 contributions on meta. I'm writing a Wikipedia Signpost article on this and wasn't sure whether or not that that was a rule. Could you clarify? Thanks! Flcelloguy 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind; someone has reverted those changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy 22:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note that I consider that someone inactive on meta should not become a steward, since the steward by definition should follow what is going on in terms of requests. So, it is very likely that not only will I vote against those inactive on meta. Some editors are complaining that stewards are not answering requests on meta pages quickly enough. It is not by electing someone who just created an account on meta last week ... that we will improve the situation. No matter how trusted these editors might be on their own project, if they do not help answering requests, they are not useful so should not be given the status. It is useless inflating numbers just for the satisfaction of inflating numbers.
- Thanks for the clarification! Would you mind if I quoted you in the Signpost's article, since it seems like Ral315 is running a bit late and hasn't published yet? Thanks! Flcelloguy 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Stewards/elections 2006 : consignes aux votants pour éviter le bourrage d'urnes 
J'ai rajouté, dans la section "Rules" de la page Stewards/elections 2006, les lignes suivantes :
- "Voters: Anyone can vote provided that he has a valid account on meta with a link to at least one user page, on a project where the editor is a participant, with at least 3 months participation (not just to his userpage but) to the project.
- In case of suspicion of sock puppetry, checkusers could be asked to check and sock puppet votes cancelled."
Galician wikiquote 
We're a bit confused about what's become of the request for bureaucrat access on galician wikiquote for the users Alyssalover and Xosé. It's been archived twice without having been granted. The requests have been archived in Requests for permissions/Archive1#Galician_Wikiquote and Requests for permissions/Archive1#Galician_Wikiquote 2. We're particularly surprised by the fact that a similar request for the Galician Wikibooks didn't meet any problems. We'd be thankful if you could explain to us what the difficulty is in this case.
I take the opportunity to communicate that, following your message of Aug 15 2005 ( "Hi, At the top of each page, we can read the mention"Na Galipedia, a enciclopedia libre en galego.", but the name of the project is Wikipedia. So, should not this be corrected ? Anthere 10:09, 15 agosto 2005 (UTC)" ), we've edited this text so that it now reads "Na Galipedia, a wikipedia en galego").
Hoping to hear from you soon, --Prevert 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
the best is to ask the one who gave the status rather than myself. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions%2FArchive1&diff=253038&oldid=252646 : it seems it is Yannf. Why dont you ask Yann ? You can similarly look at the other archive to see who fulfilled the request. It may be that a change in software is the reason for the problem ? It already happened a few months ago to me with the german wikipedia. Perhaps a lack of translation in the interface in particular.
Anthere 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Solved. Thanks. --Prevert 22:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Election vote 
Anthere, thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to trace me and tell me about my mistake! Have a lovely Christmas, Dan100 10:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Request for account 
- answered there. Ant
Problème de monobook 
- J'ai recopié deux de tes codes dans mon monobook.js :
- Liste de suivi - Gestion améliorée
- Ajout de liens internes (bistro, PàS, etc.) dans la boîte de navigation à gauche
- mais, même après avoir réinitialisé, ça ne marche pas.
- Peux-tu voir mon monobook et éventuellement le corriger. Merci d'avance. Néfermaât 30 décembre 2005 à :07:49 (CET)
- Avec Firefox, j'ai bien les icônes au dessus de la boîte de modification ainsi que les ajouts (Bistro, pAdQ, Bots...) dans la colonne de navigation, mais par contre, rien de changé dans la liste de suivi. Néfermaât
Il paraît que tu as déjà vu ce problème. Peux-tu quelque chose pour moi ? Merci Néfermaât 07:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
euh, je n'ai peut être pas l'esprit frais ce matin, mais que dois je voir ou pas voir ? Je suis sous OSX, et j utilise generalement safari (firefox est aussi installé si nécessaire). Je n'ai pas ie pour comparaison Anthere
Louvre et droit d'auteur 
Bonjour Anthère, j'ai vu l'appel de Wikimédia pour la traduction de l'article de Traroth concernant l'interdiction de photographer au Louvre et je l'ai traduit en italien ici. J'ai vécu moi meme une expèrience pareille dans ma ville pour photographer une scène de Nativité (à Noel) dont je conserve une "bonne" mémoire... Salut et heuureux 2006! --Mauro 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- merci :-) je passerais l'article sur le site de la Foundation :-) 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Aie, ben oui... si on édite à deux endroits différents.... :-( Anthere
sh Wikipedia 
account request 
Hi, I've seen your comment on requests page. You talk me to send the information by a username not by an IP, but I don't know how to do it if I can't make an account... sorry, probably I don't understand what do you wanted to say. Thanks -- estemon - 18:10, 8 january 2006 (UTC)
-- Hi, thanks. I just understand you. I didn't seen that I was redirected to meta :P I've an account yet, I remake the request for an account in foundation. Thanks for all! --Estemon 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
wikimediafoundation account 
Hello Anthere, you have said that "account created". I still don't receive e-mail. I'll give you e-mail addresses again.
- ugurbasak at gmail.com
- ugur_basak at hotmail.com
Thank you--Ugur Basak 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- mail sent Anthere 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
technique / politique 
Bonjour, Anthere ! J'ai une question technico-politique. Qui pourrais-je contacter ? Qui sera la meilleur person ?
DIG 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- ca dépend de la question :-)))) Envoi la moi par email à anthere AT wikimedia.org et je te donnerais le nom du meilleur contact (si c est une question privée, sinon, écris ici bien sur). Anthere 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, ça alors !.. J'aurais pu deviner moi-meme ! ;-)) Je vais l'envoyer par e-mail, ma question: ce n'est pas si privé que ça, mais je préfère de ne pas l'écrir ici. Ou bien je vais essayer de te trouver sur IRC, d'accord? DIG 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
My request 
Hello Anthere and thanks for your answer to my sysop request.
I have 2 additional questions:
- We want to create custom namespaces. Where shall i put this request?
- The requested namespaces are:
- "Übungen" and "Übungen Diskussion" Subpages: yes defaultseach: no
- "Prüfung" and "Prüfung Diskussion" Subpages: yes defaultseach: no
- Is there already a interwikilink für de.Wikiversity.org?
thanks for your help
greetz Tomen 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should either ask on email@example.com, or if you have access to irc, on the #mediawiki channel ? Otherwise contact Brion Vibber on meta. He should be able to help you. I do not think there is an interwiki link yet (though I am not sure), probably because it is not yet a wikimedia project. Anthere
thank you :) Tomen 22.214.171.124 08:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Board approval of new stewards 
<Datrio> Angela, jwales, can I give the 9 users who passed the elections steward status? <jwales> yes it is fine with me
And, well, that's it. I've sent a reply to your email at foundation-l. Once again, sorry I didn't wait for you, but I was sure that you won't be against. Even though knowing that, I'm sorry, Anthere. Datrio 13:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- okay. So all is well. Anthere
well :) 
Tu es joli Florence :). I've been to your city last year. I loved it. Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Romanian situation 
As you already know (we already spoke about this issue) at rowiki just the administrators are invited to vote in elections regarding administrators and bureaucrats. We are four bureaucrats overthere. As good news: in the current checkuser election all users active for more than one month and with more than 50 contributions have the right to vote. -Romihaitza 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser on Ar_Wikipedia 
Hi Anthere , I havn,t known previously about the condition of number of Voters , acually we need this permission in Arabic wikipedia for some urgent issues related to Voting and socks puppets , anyway we have restored the Voting now to be continued , but still i think the number of 25 voters is somehow high for small wikipedia's so if we try to reconsider this condition in the policy , it would be better as i think ..thanks for ur kindness --Chaos 13:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well Chaos, the point is the value of 25 votes was set on purpose, so that small projects (who are not as likely to make big use of checkuser tool as big projects with higher needs) do not get jumped upon by a small group of "friends" who might in this way take over the project. So, no, I think this will not be reconsidered. Already, on very small projects, we give without vote, a sysop status to people, who sometimes later behave like a cowboy with newbies. We had to unsysop these people later on. This is reversible fortunately. However, checkuser actions are not reversible and engage our responsability (Foundation), so, we need to be more careful. This is the explanation I can give you. If ar grows quickly, this issue will be handled quickly enough imho. Cheers Anthere 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand totally ur points , and i know exactly the danger of authority which we try our best not to be in the hand of one person or few inresponsible persons , That is one of reasons for Wikimedia success as i think ( i,m strong supporter of Anarchism ) ... I will try my best for continuing the Vote to get some sysop 25 Votes to get the checkuser permission , Thanks alot for ur Kindness --Chaos 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for understanding. I heard ar was growing quite rapidly these days, so I expect you'll be back soon. Meanwhile, of course, do not hesitate to adress to us for any request if needed. And keep is updated on ar status ! Cheers. Anthere
Thanks for ur interest , I just wanna explain what i meant by "reconsidering" . I just suggest to make the applied policy more relative , so If 25 voters is required for En_ and De_Wikipedia , I think that 15 or 12 voters is enough for wikipedia's under 50'000 articles .. it is just suggestion ..Thanks alot for ur support --Chaos 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
|Thanks for voting!|
|Thanks for voting on my RfA; I'm happy to annouce I was promoted!. I look forward to being able to do more good work for Meta, and if there is anything I can do for you, let me know.|
Checkuser at pt 
Anthere - very sorry about the confusion. The relevant vote is here, in which the community decided to simplify the process by granting bureaucratship and checkuser status to the same users. Their bureaucrat elections have also just finished, and one of the elected bureaucrats (Nuno Talvares) made the request on meta. In response to your comments here, there are no old bureaucrats; all three of pt's current bureaucrats were just elected yesterday. Several users were also de-bureaucratted, and I certainly did not grant them checkuser status.
I read the CheckUser policy, and it did not occur to me on reading it that it should be necessary to have separate elections for these positions; this is my mistake, for which I apologize. I will be more careful in future. — Dan | Talk 16:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Anthere. I'm not sure whether you were refering to me as to an eventual discussion at IRC. Anyway, here am I. I am acessible at IRC, MSN or Skype, or by mail. I'd prefer the second, but that's up to you. I'm looking forward to reach an agreement between meta policy and pt's recent policy on CheckUser rights. Please reply ASAP. Best wishes, Nuno Tavares 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
hiya both of you. I talked with Muriel about the whole issue. Let me clarify. You guys are checkuser because your community voted for you to be checkuser. And because there were enough voters (25-30) as the policy says. You are not checkuser because you decided that all bureaucrats will be checkusers from now on (and please, for next bureaucrats elections on pt, make that clear). Here is the reason why. On small projects, we basically give sysop and even bureaucrat status with basically no vote (because there is no community to vote). So, people can be alone on a project and get such status, without a minimum of certainty they are really okay and sometimes only after a few days on wikipedia (so, with very little knowledge on how it fully works). In some cases (I remember at least one african language wp), we had to unsysop the only sysop urgently, because he was doing unacceptable things on the wp. The checkuser policy was drafted on purpose in such a way that *only* big enough projects could get users with such status (in short, projects with reasonably big communities such as pt). Because the status is potentially problematic (release of private data). For this reason, it is quite dangerous to set a precedent, with one project saying "all our bureaucrats will have the status automatically", because smaller projects could use that precedent to say "same for us"; and a project with only one bureaucrat/sysop becomes a sort of local god. This is dangerous. So, for this reason, I think we must not write anywhere that you guys became checkusers just because you are bureaucrats (eg, automatically); but because pt community agree with you having such status. And same for later bureaucrats. So, I have no problem with you being checkuser as long as any voter on pt knows perfectly what they are agreeing to. But please, make it independant from the other status to avoid us having to be harsh later on with small communities. Do you understand my problem ? Thanks in advance. Anthere 14:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anthere, thanks for the clarification, and please forgive the delay. I think it might be a matter of readjusting the elections. Once again, best wishes. Nuno Tavares 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ça va, Anthere?
Are you a steward?
Emilio 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Media in Africa conference paper 
Hi Ant, nice bump! (Soon now I think.) Just to say that I left a note on the Media in Africa conference paper's talk page saying that I don't know now if I'll be able to do much for this. The deadline for abstracts is a week and a half away (15th) so we'd need to get something "on paper" soon. I've got other work commitments at the moment so i can't devote lots of time to it but if you wanted to get some ideas and info or even an outline down I c/would help out with editing, adding, proofreading.. Cormaggio @ 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's absolutely no problem! Here's wishing you all the best through it all :-) I'll be thinking of you.. Cormaggio @ 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Page RCO 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=École_de_la_Rose-Croix_d%27Or_%28Lectorium_Rosicrucianum%29&redirect=no Chère Madame Le site RCO a été de manière durable bloqué, et selon toute apparence, nous allons vers la rédaction de brouillons qui aboutiront éventuellement à la création d'un article commun. voir brouillons Bel Air et Manchot. Ceci dit, je m'inquiète de l'agressivité incroyable de certains internautes. De plus, j'ai été attaqué personnellement sur la page "suppression de l'article" concernant ma famille et les bénéfices financiers que je tirais de mon fond de commerce( la RCO, bien sûr !) Je ne sais franchement de quoi il peut être question... J'invite qui veut l'entendre à un minimum d'éthique ce qui pourrait servir aux utilisateurs de Wikipédia, au principe encyclopédique et finalement à Wikipédia.
Il a été délibérement créé
un bandeau "ébauche secte"
qui selon moi dé-catégorise l'article et fonctionne uniquement à charge. ce qui donne , compte tenu des désaccords violents cette kyrielle de bandeaux qu'il faudra des lustres pour retirer et donnera donc définitivement aux personnes qui consultent Wikipédia une image salie et non neutre. Les interventions d'Ethernaute sur la page discussion sont très claires sur ce sujet. C'est pour moi une sorte d'abus de procédure ( ébauche sectes , c'est très clair) et d'ailleurs Wark Dark a lui-même travaillé a la disparition d'une catégorie "secte ayant un article dans Wikipédia" mais il doit y en avoir beaucoup comme cela en réserve et De plus, toute personne, proposant une vue différente de la charge "anti-RCO" se voit instantanément qualifié d'élève de cette Ecole et de sectaire, de non-neutre. Dans la création de l'article original, il était question d'un plan que j'ai adapté du schéma AMORC le but me semblant être une comparaison des mouvements rosicruciens dans leurs doctrines et histoire.il y aura encore beaucoup de chausse-trappes de cet ordre. Cette comparaison me semble capitale car il existe beaucoup de confusions à ce sujet, et que sous mon angle de vue, le mouvement rosicrucien ne peut se résumer à une réputation qui s'avère du fait d'un monopole d'images, désastreux. Je ne vous demande pas de prendre partie pour moi-même ou pour Manchot, ou Ether ou Poppy...Mais peut être de juger de fond sur la tenue des débats. Ceci dit, l'illustration qu'use Manchot pour la rédaction de son ébauche" ainsi que les nombreux bandeaux critiques présente un symbole un caducée d'Hermès associé à un Temple (château de la Haye ) Guerville. Le caducée est un symbole de sagesse. Je ne désire pas que cette photo (que j'ai prise) soit associée, tant en tant que symbole que de lieu à des tels bandeaux,critiques infamants que je juge, en vue de la situation blasphématoires.C'est pourquoi je vous invite a proposer sa suppression et si vous le pouvez à neutraliser ces débats qu'ils soit neutres à charge ou à décharge; Pour ma part j'ai proposé un plan
qui aurait pour but d'inclure les idées à charge.Critiques etc...
Mais je puis accepter que la critique soit d'emblée mise en exergue dans la création d'un article.
Pour se répéter un peu bêtement accepteriez vous que l'article "Pape' ait pour préambule"Assassin condamnant t l'usage du préservatif" avec pour ébauche "Favorise le SIDA (ébauche à compléter" venez partager vos connaissances) ps Entre temps , je constate qu'il n'y a rien de mis à ce chapître, mais le but n'est pas Ébauche, c'est le bandeau pour lui-même Et Ebauche "Pédophilie" venez témoigner! puis il y un doute Ebauche Inquisition etc...etc... puis si les parties "parvenaient " à un accord forcément neutre le petit Ethernaute pourrait rajouter ((sans avoir besoin de se justifier) un bandeau " secte juive, ébauche à compléter" et cela ad infinitum.
Pour ce qui me concerne, je vous invite à bien réflechir aux fondements éthiques de ce travail. Croyant peut être que la réflection sur l'Ethique de Wikipédia est une garantie de non intoxication
Franchement, si aujourd'hui je veux voir parler des Rose-Croix, ou de Lectorium Rosicrucianum l' "Universalis" suffit amplement, et je me tiens à votre disposition pour un copié collé conforme aux Idées d'Antoine Faivre Directeur d'Etudes qui occupe la chaire d'Histoire des courants ésotériques et mystiques dans l'Europe moderne à l'Ecole pratique des hautes études (section des sciences religieuses) ou de Roland Edighoffer, professeur émérite à la Sorbonne .
Leur avis,même en désaccord avec mon expérience fondant mes convictions, m'importe bien plus que les inquiétudes religieuses du site intégriste "Prévensectes" ou des avis fulgurants de Manchot.
Sur un autre plan les "membres dirigeants " de la RCO , se tiennent à votre disposition pour toute demande de preuve, de documents et ne désirent guère vous en transmettre 2 kg (lol) à moins que vous le leur précisiez ce qui vous intéresse. Dès que j'aurais le temps, j'irai ou créerait un site "rapport parlementaire" pour l'aborder dans le fond...
J'ose espérer une réponse de votre part;.
Cordialement P Lerond