User talk:Deon Steyn/Archive3

Suidafrikaan

On the subject of edit summaries: It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, not an absolute imperative

I appreciate your help, and have learned a lot. I welcome comments that do not take a patronizing, school masterly tone. While we no-doubt disagree on political issues, there is no need for our differences to descend into a tit-for-tat editing war. I am sure I am not the only contributor that needs editing - please see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Suidafrikaan 09:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my tone offended you, that was not the intention, but I would appreciate it, if took note of the guidelines on edit summaries. These guidelines exist for very practical reasons.
Futhermore:
I don't understand your last sentence and reference so Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. I happened to have edited most of the pages you are now editing and as such they appear in my watchlist and I evaluate most edits to them. --Deon Steyn 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay WP:COOL. Edits like this aren't helpful - it looked like an honest mistake which he then corrected by moving the comment to your talk page. Zaian 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was the only warning template at hand and I added it before I noticed the edit to my user page has been removed. It merely intended to point out the policy. I preferred and official warning template, because the user doesn't respond to other requests on their talk page (simple deletes them) and neither to they provided edit summaries or enter into discussion on article talk pages (save for one instance on the back and forth POV tag on the AWB page. Not very civil or easy to deal with. --Deon Steyn 11:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my advice if you want, but you're obviously annoying him, and he's getting nasty in response. That all leads nowhere. Zaian 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His last outburst really is unacceptable, especially accusation of racism ("baaskap") and being a member of the apartheid SADF which I never have been (not even national service). I don't know how else I should have notified him of his disruptive editorial style (in fact counter to Wikipedia guidelines)? In other edits I praised his work (regarding the template). I will disengage from discussions on his talk page for now, because it does not seem to yield any constructive results, in fact quite the opposite. --Deon Steyn 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it was unacceptable, and I placed a WP:NPA warning on his page for it. He could improve his editing style, sure, but you're right that giving him advice has backfired. Zaian 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suidafrikaan has withdrawn the comments. Hopefully we can go forward more constructively now. Cheers, Zaian 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is still making ridiculous demands. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that I've been editing this group of South African related pages (including farm murders, crime in SA, even 2010 world cup) – and fighting against right wing bias as you well know – for over a year and they are all in my watchlist, hence I look at all edits. As for his edit behaviour it violates wikipedia guidelines and it has to be corrected. I used standard templates that point out relevant guidelines, which he construed as some sort of witch hunt. Is 99.9% of his edits marked as minor or not? Is 99.9% of his edits sans edit summary or not? All I ask is that we all stick to the guidelines that are there to facilitate smooth operation. Just yesterday I pointed out these same guidelines to another editor and he thanked me!!! --Deon Steyn 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the above. In my experience, thin-skinned editors either mellow out, burn out, or leave in a huff. Those with better collaborative skills tend to hang around longer. Zaian 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeugkrag

Dear Deon,

I can see that you are someone who has contributed to Wikipedia over a long period. I would appreciate your advice. It would appear as if 'Suidafrikaan' posted an item on Jeugkrag on wikipedia, in which he links me with the fact that Marthinus van Schalkwyk has accepted money for himself and for Jeugkrag from Military Intelligence (MI). I found out, like the rest of the public, that Marthinus accepted funds from MI, and I wrote to him at the time expressing my utter disgust at his betrayal, because he has brought the organization, and all associated with it - as this wikipedia post proves - in disrepute.

It is unfair, however, to assume, as you he has done in this post, that others associated with Jeugkrag at the time, had knowledge of, or were somehow associated with MI. I was one of the founding members of Jeugkrag and our aim was to establish an alternative movement (as oposed to the Afrikaans Student Union - ASB) for Afrikaans students that was oposed to apartheid and that actively work for creating an alternative democratic future. I contributed to drafting our founding principles and it was revolutionary at the time in that we rejected apartheid and promoted a true (one man one vote) democratic future. I was a member of the Student Representative Counci at Rand Afrikaans University at the time and my personal left of centre politics was well known. I was the first Publicity Secretary and later the Director of Fundraising of Jeugkrag. During that time I raised funds from several corperate and private foundations. Amongst others we did things like arrange school and student camps where we brought youths from all races together to start a national dialogue about our future together. I had no knowledge of any links to the South African Government, especially not MI, and there was nothing in the policies or work of Jeugkrag that I had knowledge of, even with hindsight, that could have served the interests of the apartheid government.

I moved on from student politics (and Jeugkrag) and joined the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in Aug 1988, and in 1989 and half of 1990 I did my compulsory national service. I spent the first year at the intelligence school in Potch, where I did an officer's course and qualified as a 2nd lieutenant. As I am sure you are aware we did not choose where we went for our national service. In 1990 I spent a further six months at MI, before I returned to DFA in July 1990. In early 1990, I was promoted to 1st lieutenant, as was the practise for all graduates. My national service, like I am sure for most of us, were the most uneventful and unproductive time of my life. This is especially true for my time at MI where I mostly spent my time playing chess. Contraty to his insuniation, I think my politics saved me from becoming involved in anything sinister. There was no link between my involvement with Jeugkrag and my national service.

I regret, but accept that because Marthinus accepted funds from MI for himself and for Jeugkrag, that the whole organisation and what it has achieved, is now discredited. However, there were many ordinary people involved in Jeugkrag who genuinly used it as a vehicle to mobilize against apartheid within the Afrikaner community, and I believed Jeugkrag played a role by sending a message to the Afrikaner elite that a significant portion of the Afrikaner student leadership rejected apartheid and chose a democratic future. If MI funds were used in this process then I, for one, enjoy the irony that they contributed funds to an organization that contributed to their own downfall.

I would like to find out from you how one can protect yourself from someone posting such insinuations about yourself on wikipedia. I would appreciate it if he would remove any suggestions that I knew about MI funding for Jeugkrag, or that such funding is somehow linked to my national service. If that is not possible I would appreciate it if my version could be posted alongside his.

Best wishes

Cedric de Coning 

(cedricdc@yahoo.com)

Dankie, Deon

Dankie vir jou vriendelike woorde i.v.m. my bydraes, asook die redaksionele raad. Sê maar net as daar nog artikels is wat jy dink hulp nodig het, of wat nog geskryf moet word. Groetnis, Dok

Airsoft WikiProject

You expressed interest in joining the Airsoft WikiProject. If you would still like to be a part of it, add your name to the list. The Pelican 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raad, asb.

Ek tob oor 'n raaisel wat jy my miskien kan help oplos. Sover ek onthou, het ek 'n blad vir Ben Marais geskep. Ek het dit op my eie blad aangedui.[[1]] Maar nou is die artikel vermis.

Die vraag is of ek die blad wel geskep het en dit vir een of ander rede uitgevee is?

Hoe kan ek uitvind? Die lys van bladsye wat onlangs uitgevee is help my nie.

Nou wonder ek of ek ooit die blad geskep het, en of ek besig is om my laaste bietjie albastertjies te verloor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocDee (talk • contribs)

(Answer in English, another guideline of Wikipedia :-)
According to the deletion log [2], the admin Xoloz, deleted it with reason A7. From Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, it seems this refers to a specific category of "Speedy Deletion" (deletions that don't require discussion) which is that the article doesn't assert notability (see WP:CSD#A7). According to the section: Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?#What you can do about it, you need to discuss it with the admin that deleted it, in this case (User:Xoloz). He can restore the page, but obviously you need to convince him that the article is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps you can provide some links that prove this (maybe this doctoral thesis abstract: [upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-06032004-100426/unrestricted/00front.pdf]) and propose to rewrite the article intro to better show notability and include references? Good luck. --Deon Steyn 06:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft cleanup permision

Who do I talk with about this I would like to delet the comparisons with paintball section. Also I would like to move and re-name some sections. I thought I would ask before editing so I am not marked for vandalisam. (Sheetz 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Anyone is free to make any edit, but a major one is probably best discussed on the articles talk page first. I see you have posted a topic there too. I will provide answers there so other interested editors can also comment. Please check out Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, new topics go at the bottom of a page ;-) --Deon Steyn 05:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Jesus and Mary Chain

I responded on the article talk page. Sorry to revert your revert without discussing first, but I have to run out for a few hours, and I feel confident in my arguments. You have my permission to revert me if you're not convinced. :-) --PEJL 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very painless, indeed. Thanks! --PEJL 11:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Capitalisation

This has been discussed before: see Talk:Rugby league#Capitals, Talk:Rugby league#Rugby League vs Rugby league, Talk:Rugby_union/Archive_1#Title Incorrect ?.

Please do not make any changes to articles without checking the talk page and leaving a comment. In aprticular don't move pages without discussion as it causes links to break down.GordyB 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions did not address the proper Wikipedia naming convention (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)), which is that proper nouns should be capitalized, e.g. White House, not "White house", because it isn't a white house, but THE White House. "Rugby Union" and "Rugby League" are in fact proper nouns, because it isn't a union or league related to rugby, but a sporting code, e.g. "Which type of rugby do you play, Rugby League or Rugby Union?". I will create a new discussion topic on the Rugby Union talk page, to involve other editors. --Deon Steyn 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuito Cuanavale

As you may have seen there seems to be a new player named Timpis who is engaging in several changes that I've rv'd. I'm not as knowledgeable on Wikipedia protocols for handling things like this, any advice on what to do at this point?Virgil61 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

81.107.77.133

If he starts editing again after the block expires, I'd suggest a longer 1-3 month block. That most definitely is JBAK/BOV evading his indef.--Isotope23 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, his IP is changing constantly though and I have already had several users and IPs blocked. --Deon Steyn 07:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of Ibanez players

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of Ibanez players, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Deiz talk 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Ibanez players

List of Ibanez players, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Ibanez players satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ibanez players and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Ibanez players during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deiz talk 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez

I've sent this to AfD, it's a bare "Intersection by location" list. It is not comparable to List of Beatles songs, as the Beatles have produced a finite amount of songs. The inclusion criteria are not in any way clear - mentioned in liner notes? played as the primary guitar during their career? picked up once? The fact that many editors have worked on an article is included in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, hence all of your reasons to contest the prod are extremely shaky. As the Beatles AfD is still open, it's strange to attempt to use it as some kind of precedent. As I noted at the Beatles AfD, if you want to see a good, policy-friendly list check out List of Dinosaurs. Deiz talk 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowser! I don't know if it should be kept or not I just though it was borderline enough to merit discussion, but bear in mind that I'm not too familiar with AfD discussions and rules. I just quickly looked up some examples and found the Beatles one listed. I don't have a particular attachment to the article, technically I started it the actual page, but that was just to get it out of the main Ibanez article... perhaps it should have been killed there already? I will ad comments too the nomination page... --Deon Steyn 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I see one is "It is unencyclopedic" which was in fact the original reason in the "prod" nomination :-) --Deon Steyn 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez

Nice work on the list. Deiz talk 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;-) Perhaps someone can start in on some of the other brand lists in a similar fashion. --Deon Steyn 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for Rugby world cup table

Thanks for sorting all the info into that table Tom 11:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure. Actually it's more of a disease, I can't help sticking things into tables or tweaking them endlessly ;-) Deon Steyn 06:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M24 Vs. M40 Photograph in Question

I have reviewed the image of the photograph in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:040521-M-1012W-013usmc.jpg which is featured on the sniper article and I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a M24 SWS and not a M40 sniper rifle. Please see my arguement on the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sniper#Picture.2Fcaption_question -TabooTikiGod 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this photograph to compare the images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Overlay_of_Sniper_Photo_in_Question_copy.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TabooTikiGod (talk • contribs) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gretsch 6136 AfD

Gretsch 6136, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Gretsch 6136 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gretsch 6136 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (JSC ltd 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)). You are free to edit the content of Gretsch 6136 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JSC ltd 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories

Thanks for your help with Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Any chance you can lend a hand with some of the articles that have been linked to it? Also see State-sponsored terrorism. Cheers Socrates2008 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deon, the following edit you made to the article seems to be your own personal point of view rather than a sourced critique:
"The most glaringly obvious deficiencies in the theory —that clearly rules it out even as a remote possibility— are the following:
  1. There are much simpler and more specific ways of assassinating a single person.
  2. Blowing up a civilian airliner of a foreign super power would draw an unnecessary scrutiny.
  3. Booking cancelling and cancelling tickets for the same flight would obviously arouse suspicion?
  4. The theoretical assassination plan would have an impossibly low chance of success:
    • A bomb had to be smuggle onto a commercial flight in a foreign country at short notice
    • The target person had to be convinced to change to that specific flight
  5. None of the official investigations ever pursued this theory seriously.
  6. The supposed advantage gained by Carlsson's death seems negligible:
    • Namibia independence agreement was still signed the following day.
    • Namibian elections and independence followed as and when agreed upon.
    • The UN could have simply replaced Carlsson with another commissioner."
If this is the case, I suggest you move the text onto the article's discussion page so that we can talk it through.Phase4 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of my statements are opinion it is clear fact. If you want to remove conjecture, speculation, original research, then almost the entire section should be moved. Remember that original research includes connection two unrelated facts (even verifiable and cited) in a speculative manner. Someone has to bring balance and neutrality, because the article surely can not only include ridiculous speculation. You must remember that most newspaper articles seek to push a certain point to sensationalize. --Deon Steyn (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, which of the points in question are not facts? --Deon Steyn (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, Deon! As we all know, there are lots of facts out there. Unfortunately, the only facts that can be included on Wikipedia are those that can be verified. So, I'm afraid, all your facts (and/or opinions) have to go to the relevant talk page until such time as you can provide the required citations.Phase4 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So which of these aren't facts? Content isn't buried in talk pages, because someone doesn't like it! No, fact tags are added etc. --Deon Steyn (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a fresh look at Talk:Patrick Haseldine, where the fiction continues Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored terrorism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State-sponsored terrorism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I have no opinion, at the present time, as to which of you is correct or supported by Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case resolved, PJHaseldine blocked for 1 week for conflict of interest and his sock puppet, Phase4, blocked indefinitely.
— Deon Steyn (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFD: South Africa luggage swap theory

South Africa luggage swap theory is now listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 24. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Happy New Year

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any extra articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 Carbine Revert War

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba in Angola

Regarding this: Please do not use all-caps, it only produces heat, and no light. Further, regarding removal of the merge tag, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. It did not happen in a deliberate effort to harm Wikipedia, so it's clearly not vandalism. User:Dorftrottel 15:12, January 12, 2008

I don't know what they told you on your talk page, because it is in German, but it was the second time ( [3] and [4] ) this user (Sundar1) reverted the article (including the work of several editors), both times removing the merge tag. I thought it best to highlight this issue with my second correction (and add a note to their Talk page). In my note on his Talk page I also raised my concerns and noted that it can be considered vandalism, i.e. should be continue to remove it now that he has been informed. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that there are some tensions surrounding the article. Nevertheless, Sundar1 is acting in the innocuous belief that his contribs are improving the encyclopedia. Consider that some sensible rules, like WP:POVFORK have led to many avoidable edit wars, simply because their meaning is often not immediately clear to all. Therefore, carefully evaluating and —if necessary— patiently explaining the sensible editorial steps one at a time is all the more important.
Also, I believe what Sundar1 is looking for is rather help how to behave and act correctly. That's why I dropped you the above note. There's no need or potential merit, as I'm sure you're well aware, to inciting further anger when tensions are already high.
As to the issue at hand: From what I gather, Cuba in Angola is something of a content fork from the more immediately plausible topic Angola-Cuba relations, and the intro of the former reads more like a section than like an article intro. All in all, I think merging the articles is not a bad idea for the time being. As a construction compromise, the majority of the current Cuba in Angola page could be copied to a subpage of Angola-Cuba relations, with subsequent incorporation of content into Angola-Cuba relations as far as possible, and/or densifying and claryfing the topic and possible content of a more concisely circumscribed topic to split off into its seperate article. Maybe "Cuban political/military involvement in Angola"? User:Dorftrottel 20:04, January 14, 2008
Thanks for your calming and insightful assistance. Merging this new "article" is what all the editors —save for Sundar1— have agreed to. It is a complex and controversial topic, but essentially Cuban-Angolan relations are made up almost entirely of the time Cuba spent in Angola as participants in the Angolan Civil War (which overlaps with the South African Border War, especially the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale). The problem is that Sundar1 created this new page with fairly biased content which created the perception that it was an attempt at pushing a particular point of view. Their subsequent refusal to discuss the issues, blanket reverts and accusations of vandalism didn't help their position either. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted at Sundar1's talk, trying to explain the basic contentions and concerns. As I said, this is a frequent problem when someone innocuously creates a content fork, convinced they are doing the right thing. Let's wait and see where it goes from here. User:Dorftrottel 16:29, January 15, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your neutral assistance in the matter. — Deon Steyn (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkor v Rippel Effect

Hi Deon, Milkor v Rippel Effect:: If you have the time give oom andries Piek a call at Milkor (www.milkor.net) to clarify the difference between Milkor and Rippel Effect and their products. Milkor has some cool new kit that could go into the MGL entry. Rgds Zerbet Joburg

Stealth

Please refrain from reverting factually accurate and relevant information and you will not then be considered a vandal.--Downtrip (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarck bike

I notice that you made several edits to the Track bike article. There is a deletion discussion on the article Tarck bike at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarck bike. Please weigh in there if this is a real topic that deserves its own article or at least explain what this topic is so that others can decide if it should have an article. Thank you! Royalbroil 13:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]