Hello, we begin to face massive anonymous / non-anonymous contributions on topics related to one another such as nationalism, racism, racialism in a clearly oriented direction. example new definition : Le nationalisme est une politique dont les objectifs sont essentiellement l'indépendance, l'unité et la prospérité de sa propre nation et de son peuple. Nationalism is a policy whitch goals are essentialy the independance, the unity and the prosperity of its own nation and people. (sic but not the problem) No mistakes in translation "own nation" refers to policy. We have many "anonymous" rewriting of sensible topics such as racialism, and racism For instance, now, we explain why racism is totally understandable and acceptable especialy on a scientific point of view. The definition had had its change totally re-oriented without any discussions. These people don't intend to respect the moral contract of wikipedia. Wake-up if you just let it happen, you will face quite a problem. Now it is easy to face 3 people with a current team of ~20 active contributors, but when it will be twice as the original contributors you might be quite annoyed. I know I'll get the blame for being alarmist and «paranoid», but please if you are not convinced just wonder what if it was true ? True, that we get these people trashing all the wikipedia project's spirit and part of the content, wouldn't it worth a try to imagine the solution we can consider to face that problem ? PS: Sorry for not respecting the netiquette and posting so much so soon. -- Julien Tayon http://www.tayon.net/ http://libroscope.org/ Si la vérité est une femme, essayons de la séduire avant de la saisir.