User talk:Deon Steyn/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have fun with your gun project, but I admire your dedication and shudder at the amount of movies you must have watched for that project. Happy editing! V. Joe 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I haven't watched all these movies though, I'm merely trying to tidy up pages as I find them by consolodating the information. This particular phenomenon of listing movies and video games a particular firearm appeared in on the firearm's page is quite annoying to myself (and several other users).

List of camouflage patterns

I have rewritten and reorganised this list. Since it is your 'baby' any input would be appreciated. 81.104.47.20 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wiki myself and it's nice to see how page evolves: first there was no list of camouflage patterns and patterns weren't even in a category, then I created the list and now it can start growing, thanks for the input!!! In keeping with Wiki ideas I'll make some modifications:
  • putting square brackets around a title even though it doesn't have a link turns the word red and encourages people to go and create the page (which is the next step I'd like to see)
  • I'd like to return the continental headings
  • Only the country of origin can be listed and the long list of user can be reserved for the page on that particular camo itself.
I'll add these comments to the discussion page of that list too...
You should create yourself an account, so you have a space where for communicating and also cool features like a "watchlist" to see when pages of interest are modified.Deon Steyn 06:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


AP mines

Thanks! -- Securiger 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New firearm infobox

Although I appreciate the effort you're putting into standardizing the firearms infobox, I would like to ask you to keep the exact information contained in the previous infoboxes, graphy included, and try not to change anything in the process. Thank you. —Squalla 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just got your message, thanks for the reply! Just a few things I want to point out: I realize that some of the fields were not there in previous infoboxes, so I perfectly understand that you've added to them with what you felt was more appropriate; no problem at all. I was refering more to smaller things, such as using upper cases, proper dashes and such things (you know, style-related things) rather than these other points which we can discuss:
  • en dash/em dash: I used to insert html tags for these as well, but lately I have been changing them to actual characters because I thought that would be less "scary" for new users, and therefore it would help them editing these fields in the need of corrections. I have no objections for using the html version, however.
  • Caliber: I've added the caliber to some of the weapons that already had them, but yes, it's optional, and some of the weapons are probably better off without them. For instance, FN P90 or Five-seveN — putting "5.7 mm" on the caliber is kinda redundant, since the cartridge name already implies it; on the other hand, it's probably a good idea to add the caliber information to weapons using cartridges with designations in inches (.40 S&W, .50 BMG, etc.), since in these cases the round caliber is less obvious (or at least I think so...).
  • Image sizes: No objections, actually I don't even think I noticed any changes... heh.
  • Five-seveN/sights: Another thing that I was not sure what to do. We should probably keep the "Sights" field to the standard sights of the weapon, but even then there are weapons with countless variants with different sights, and so on; this makes standardizing (is that a word?) pretty difficult. On the open/iron sights matter, I've used "open sights" because the Five-seveN, like most pistols, use open sights rather than aperture sights (which are used on longer weapons). It was more of a specification thing than personal preference over "iron sights", which can mean both open and aperture sights (check the Iron sights article for more info).
  • Types: When specifying the type of a weapon, I believe it would be more appropriate to have the primary type on the field, but being more specific depending on the weapon. For instance, rifles like the FN FAL and HK G3 should definitely be classified as battle rifles, since it is a very specific and quite distinguishable type of rifle. However, when it comes to machine guns, it's not as simple, because a single machine gun model may be classified as a light machine gun/lightweight machine gun, medium machine gun, general purpose machine gun, and even automatic rifle, depending on the "doctrine" or region. Since this is usually explained further within the article, I suggest that the field is left as "machine gun" where applicable. As for other types, here's a few personal preferences/examples of types I'd add:

I guess it's always up for debate, hope we can sort it out. On a side note, would it be worth adding something like "platform" and "target" or something similar to the infobox? This would specify if a weapon is crew-served (medium/heavy machine guns, etc.) or individual (rifles, etc.), and if the weapon is used against personnel, vehicles or what have you (although "target" would probably not vary much). Just a thought.

Thanks for the message, and keep it up! —Squalla 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean a sort of "sub type" or "specific type". This could be a good idea. Another one might be an optional one for "rifling", because many pages have information for this (e.g. 1:12 right hand twist, 6 lands and groves). You should add suggestions like this to the discussion page for the Project that created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry_task_force where they seem to have an active discussion on it, of maybe on the infobox's discussion page!

M24 SWS

Hi. I see you removed a section on M24 SWS. Please do not check "minor" when making such a large change. --GunnarRene 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mixed up the changes and confused my update, which was NOT marked as minor) with the one following mine, which I agree should definitely not have ben marked as minor. Deon Steyn 05:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. --GunnarRene 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sniper rifle

I'm really close to giving up. I don't think this guy will accept any point of view other than his own's. If you have any idea on how to solve this via an administrator or such (dispute, etc.), I suggest you do so. I'll back you up. —Squalla 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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.

mass delete vandalism on sniper rifle

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwasty 09:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, rewriting a paragaph is not "page blanking" or "delete vandalism". I have suggested that we submit the current discussions for this article (Sniper rifle) for mediation. Deon Steyn 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd really like to let this issue rest, but truth is truth and lies are lies. Here's some truth:
  • Deleted 4 paragraphs, and rewrote one diff
  • Deleted 3 paragraphs - the whole section, and replaced it with a run-on sentence diff
Your own edit notes make heavy use of the word remove. Bolded below for easy reading:
  • 07:41, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - Clean up irrelevent info)
  • 07:38, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Range vs. accuracy - clean up irrelevant information in attempt to trim bloated article exceeding size guidelines)
  • 07:32, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Accuracy - remove advertising)
  • 07:15, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - remove unreliabel source (conversation cant' be used, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources))
  • 07:11, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - factual errors, spelling, grammar)
  • 07:08, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove factual error ("original research"))
  • 07:07, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove irrelevant info (belongs on sniper page))
  • 07:06, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Distinguishing characteristics - unrevert)
  • 07:05, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove invented "anti-personnel rifle" category)
  • 07:02, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove "sniper" information (see discussion))
Qwasty 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All my edits were standard edits to clean up the article and remove violations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Deon Steyn 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Award

It's muchly appreciated! --Commander Zulu 11:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I though it was time to give credit where it's due as there are a few names that keep popping up in my watch list and some "Original", "Working Man" and "Minor" Barnstars were definitely in order. I also think they help others distinguish serious/competent contributors/editors from the flakes :-) -- Deon Steyn 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Deon, I'd also like to thank you for The Working Man's Barnstar, much appreciated. I see Commander Zulu has already given you the Template Barnstar! —Squalla 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Pleasure, you guys deserve it and I hope people don't just dish them out willy nilly. My barnstar is a couple of months old and it's only now that I have gotten around to looking at the concept and thought it was a good tool to strengthen our community of military editors... and it's fun :-) --Deon Steyn 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

I'd be grateful for your further thoughts on the South Africa theory - disputed so that we can improve the article, as necessary.Phase4 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 -- 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing the shooting sports infobox into a template

Thinking of your improvements on the ISSF articles, perhaps this note from my user page could also be of interest to you:

I was just merging Running target into 10 m Running Target and noticed that the shooting sports share an infobox that you made. Perhaps making it into a template would be useful. --Swift 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been meaning to address this (as it seems to be a good suggestion), but my knowledge of templates is very limited. Perhaps you could be the one to save us? -- Jao 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a lot of work for myself :-)
Deon Steyn 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is demanding you to do this, I just got excited that things are actually happening on these pages. Do as much as you wish in the pace that you wish to do it, and I will be very satisfied. -- Jao 10:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I will see what I can do. The poor shooting sports are always so neglected and now on Wikipedia too :-) At least this is one area we can change :-) --Deon Steyn 10:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new infobox template: Template:Infobox Shooting sport and added it to one page 25 m Center-Fire Pistol. Let me know what you think. -- Deon Steyn 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! -- Jao 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it, I have now convert the pages to use the new infobox so if we want to change the look (colours maybe), it's easy to change it in one place. -- Deon Steyn 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance

Given your comments in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration, I was interested in your thoughts on the RSTA/ISTAR/STA/etc debate that can be found at Talk:C4ISTAR. -- MCG 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cassinga

Hi, nice work on fixing the Battle of Cassinga article. I've been meaning to fix it for a while, but I've had virtually no free time for Wikipedia editing of late. Your work on other military related articles is also greatly appreciated, as it's definitely an area of Wikipedia which has been either ignored or so poorly-covered as to be useless in the past. I think we're going to have our work cut out for us on most of the Border War due to the massive amount of propaganda floating about that tends to obscure what facts are available about the conflict, but it should be worth it in the end. Cheers, Impi 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem man, as a South African I'm always paying attention South African topics, especially sports and military things and you have made some pretty impressive contributions yourself... good to know there are some brothers in arms out there. On the topic of this battle, I have also made major changes to Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.
As a matter of pride I guess I want articles on our country to at least fit in (layout and infobox wise) and be up to a fairly good standard. It is generally difficult to keep a NPOV with military things, because as the saying goes "truth is the first casualty of war", but biased stuff like Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 really bake my noodle.
Keep up the good work! --Deon Steyn 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was reading the Cuito article a few minutes ago, it's very well-written for such a contentious topic. I must admit, I particularly enjoy the quote by Col. Ferreira... I share your sentiments about the Lockerbie conspiracists, so I'd recommend you take a look at the Samora Machel and Vela Incident articles for more examples of the same sort of nonsense. It's amazing how often people will want to insert conclusions that are absolutely devoid of facts just because it confirms to their own particular worldview. Unfortunately, one of the most important things I've realised in the past few years is that the accepted 'truth' is just what the majority of people seem to believe at a particular point in time, and it's often incorrect.
Incidentally, on a purely procedural level, the tradition on Wikipedia is to reply to one's Talk page messages at the other person's talk page, as it makes it easier to know when a reply has been made without needing to check everybody's talk pages. Admittedly, it took me a bit of time initially to figure that out.
Cheers. — Impi 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The Vela and Machel pages include lots of rumours, but at least they make the effort to state that nothing was concluded and there is no proof either way. I always just replied on my own talk page so the thread stays in one place, but thanks for the heads up!. --Deon Steyn 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you should see the talk pages. I've done what I could to keep both articles from reaching any unwarranted conclusions, but one user in particular was dead keen on making both articles say that SA did it. He seems to have quieted down a bit now though, which is fortunate. As for the replies, I do see your point, and it does make the thread appear more organised. Perhaps a compromise might be to double-post? — Impi 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: M109 howitzer rating

No problem, and thanks for taking the time to assess some things; our backlog is unpleasantly large! :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners

Hi, sorry but I do not share your politically tainted view of the term Afrikaner. The Afrikaners are an internationally recognized ethnic group, you may refer to several academic works in this regard, especially the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the work by Hermann Gilliomee, entitled Afrikaners.

A German is a German, a Jew is a Jew, a Xhosa is a Xhosa and a Afrikaner stays a Afrikaner. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. -Gemsbok1 07:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To use your example, what would the child with one Zulu and one Xhosa parent be called a Zulu or a Xhosa? This is exactly the problem with the term "afrikaner", because very few people can trace their ancestry back to properly so at best you are left with the fact that your surname qualifies and you speak Afrikaans and you then wish to be associated with the original "Afrikaners". Just because I have an Afrikaner surname and I speak Afrikaans, does not mean my mother was not English or French or Xhosa for that matter and for this reason the "afrikaner" classification is so weak as be useless and only based on choice. --Deon Steyn 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Your argument would leave the world without any ethnic groups whatsoever. That would indeed be a very sad day for diversity and the treasure it symbolises. Social preference will decide whether the child is Xhosa or Zulu, but children usually adopt the ethnicity of the mother. If Okkert Brits's mother is not an Afrikaner, then your point may be accurate. The term Afrikaner is not a political one, it is only your POV, you may refer to the article on Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners to see it being used long before any political motives were connected to it. No matter how you look at it, as I said, the world still has the English people, the German people and the Jewish people. The term Afrikaner is not weak, as no ethnic Xhosa, German, Anglo-African or any other ethnic person could become an Afrikaner merely by choice, their children may through intermarriage, but definitely not them.-Gemsbok1 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting debate and the two most important points are:
  1. Social preference will decide whether the child is Xhosa or Zulu
  2. If Occert Brits's mother is not an Afrikaner, then your point may be accurate
This is exactly the problem with Afrikaans speakers, they are most often English and Afrikaans and in the modern world. For 17th and 18th century biographies I have no problem with the classification, but for modern persons when you are not exactly sure of the ancestry you can not classify a person as such.
The most important problem for most is however the political connotations the term carries so much so that many Afrikaans speaking people that could rightly claim to be "Afrikaner" which to distance themselves from the term and prefer "Afrikaanse" (Afrikaans speaking).
As for the political nature of the term, I wasn't referring to it's origins, I agree with you that it is a very real and valid term and ethnic group, but in modern South Africa it is so difficult to establish whether someone belongs to that ethnic group that it has become a choice and sadly has gained certain political connotations that most wish not to be associated with and may seriously object to it.
For now, I think it is best not to classify someone as such, unless there is proof or they have classified themselves as such. If we want a category called "Afrikaans first language speakers" or something simpler, then I wouldn't have any objection against lumping everyone in there.
As for choice, let me clarify: you obviously can not belong to an ethnic group by choice, but persons that possibly qualify the "Afrikaner" ethnic group have the right whether they want to be labelled as such and belong to it and you can not make that choice for them, because like you said you don't know Okkert Brits' exact ancestry. --Deon Steyn 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek is 'n Afrikaner, en het myself as sulks al in die buiteland en in Suid-Afrika in die openbaar beskryf, en ek het nog nooit enige politieke konnotasie daaroor ervaar nie. Indien Okkert se ma Engels was, sou sy moedertaal Engels gewees het. Afrikaans is 'n taal, nie 'n etniese groep nie. Die Afrikaner etniese groep is vandag nog net so relevant as 200 jaar gelede. Dit was nie Afrikaners wat rasse segregasie ingestel het nie, en 'n groter persentasie Afrikaners het "ja" gestem gedurende die 1992 referendum as Engelse. Indien jy in jou identiteit twyfel, is dit jou probleem, nie die res van ons sin nie. --Gemsbok1

Afrikaans is 'n taal en ek is trots daarop om Afrikaanse te wees, maar die term Afrikaners in moderne Suid-Afrika het verander waar dit nou 'n romantiese assossiasie met die dae van die voortrekker is of andersins 'n konserwatiewe kulturele groepering. Ek wil beslis nie met ieders assossieer word nie. DIe punt is jy kan nie met presiese sê of iemand geneologies 'n Afrikaners is nie (want daar is nie so iets om mee te begin nie, weens dit oorspronklik mengsel van Frans, Hollands, Duits etc.) so dit beteken dan dat mens iemand dit nie kan sommer kan noem nie. Afrikaansprekendes en Engelsprekendes verskil, maar dis "Afrikaners" is nog iets anders en sterkers. Daar is baie Afrikaansprekendes wat nie met "Afrikaners" label behang wil word nie en jy moet hulle dit gun. Jy kan my nie sommet net 'n Afrikaners noem, omdat my van Steyn is nie. As jy 'n kategorie wil maak vir "Afrikaans" is dit okay, maar ek dink jy wil nie, jy wil "wit afrikaansprekende" as 'n kategorie hê en daar is nie ruimte vir sulke politiek nie. Wiki is 'n akademiese werk en die feit is dat jy nie iemand 'n "Afrikaner" kan noem nie, want die groep het 'n baie grys definisie.
Op 'n ander noot, dink ek dis amper hartseer en frustrerend om nie regtig 'n kultuur of geskiedenes op groep te hê om aan te behoort nie, veral vir "wit afrikaansprekendes" (ek veronderstel vir "bruin" groepe ook), want om meeste weet nie regtig uit watter groep hulle gekom het nie, nou gryp party maar Engelse (Engeland) wortels ok konneksies aan, terwyl ander net met die voortrekker of "Afrikaners" van 1800s oorbly, ongelukkig het dit nou baie ander baggage (en tot 'n mate is die ge-highjack deur baie). Kultuur is 'n interessante kwessie, maar wat is nou oor. Die NG Kerk? ...wat 'n grap, die nie eers 'n regte internasionale kerk nie. Die stem?... Die ou landsvlag? ...Dalk die tranvaalse vierkleur? ...braais? ...of dalk "die taal"? Daar is nie baie oor nie is daar... --Deon Steyn 06:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nee meneer Steyn, verwys gerus na die Encyclopaedia Brittanica wat duidelik aantoon dat Afrikaners wel etnies bestaan en dat die klassifikasie verdedigbaar is. Ek het heelwat liberale vriende wat nie skroom om hulself Afrikaners te noem nie, ek vind by uitstek dat dit slegs 'n klein groepe elitistiese wit mense van die Kaap is wat reken dat hulle verhewe bo die term Afrikaner is. Dit mag miskien nie "cool" in jou vriendekring wees om te erken dat jy 'n Afrikaner is nie, maar dit is jou en jou groepie vriende se probleem, nie myne of die erkende etniese groep wat as Afrikaners bekend staan sin nie. Volgens jou moet daar dus ook nie Australiërs bestaan nie, wel word wakker en ruik die vars lug. -Gemsbok1 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ek dink ook nie "Australiër" is 'n etniese groep nie. Ek dink steeds die term is in moderne konteks te dubbelsinnig, want Okkert Brits se stamboom toon dalk aan dat meer as 50% van sy voorsate van 'n herkoms anders as holland of selfs eers "afrikaansprekende van europese herkoms" is. Wie is jy nou om te besluit wat op hom van toepassing is??? --Deon Steyn 11:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jy moet minder probeer dink en meer op bewyse en bewese gebruike fokus vir inspirasie. Wie is jy om te besluit wat nie op hom van toepassing is nie? Weens al die omstandigheidsbewyse, soos sy van, moedertaal en land van burgerskap, is dit korrek om hom as 'n Afrikaner te klassifiseer, tensy daar spesifieke bewyse tot die teendeel is. Wil jy voorgee dat hy in een of ander "limbo" hang en nie aan enige etniese groep behoort nie? Ras of stamboom speel wel 'n rol, maar dit is nie die beslissende faktor nie, daaglikse gebruike van die individu is eerder deurslaggewend.-Gemsbok1 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nou wat het jy besluit is die kwalifiserende "daaglikse gebruike"? --Deon Steyn 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek het niks besluit nie. Verwys na die artikel Afrikaners, maar 'n meer omvangryke verwysingsraamwerk mag dalk Hermann Gilliomee se boek wees, daarin behoort jy 'n lang lys van gebruike op te spoor waaraan Afrikaners geken kan word in die post-moderne tyd. Gemsbok1 13:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek is verbaas dat jy na die Afrikaner artikel verwys, want die artikel stem juis met my oogpunt saam en verskil van joune. Dit wys juis die twispunte rondom die term se hedendaagse gebruik. Die kwessie van "nasionaliteit" versus "ethnicity" versus "kultuur" ensovoorts is natuurlik 'n moeilike een veral in koloniale populasies en ek wonder of Suid-Afrika nie amper uniek is, in dat ons europese "immigrante" van soveel plekke gekom het en hulle daardie identiteit verloor het met die gevolg dat hulle nie nou 'n obvious europese "ethnicity" het nie (Frans? Nederlands? Duits? Brits? ens.). Vir Afrikaansprekendes is daar nou die gelaaide term "Afrikaner", maar dit het verskillende betekenisse in verskillende kontekse, die twee mees bekende daarvan is tog sekerlik die oorspronklike een vir Hollandse boere aan die Kaap wat hulself 'n nuwe identiteit wou gee, maar die laaste een was weer die nasionalistiese drang om 'n eenvormige identiteit te skep. Ongelukkig was die laaste poging 'n bietjie eksklusief en sterk en nou is die term daaraan gekoppel en nie almal wil daartoe verbind word nie, want dit voel soos 'n package deal, die HNP se koerant heet bv. "Die Afrikaner" ens. ens. --Deon Steyn 06:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Die verklaring vir "Ethnic group" is "People of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture" (WordWeb2.2). Pres. Thabo Mbeki en almal wat nie Afrikaners is nie, verwys na ons (en jou en Okkert Brits) as Afrikaners, in toesprake, artikels en berigte. Die feit dat jy op 'n knop getrek is oor slegs 46 van die Afrikaners se 300 jaar bestaan is werklik waar net jou probleem. Bou 'n brug en kom daaroor. --Gemsbok1 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jy praat in sirkels man, gaan kyk na die bespreking op die talk page vir Afrikaners en jy sal sien dat dit nie so clear cut is nie. Al wat ek kan sê is dat ek absoluut niks in terme van kultuur te make het met "afrikaner" nie en die "wit afrikaansprekende" geval uniek is, omdat dat geen meer kulturele of genetiese basis is daarvoor nie. Ek het grootgeword met 'n vriend met afrikaansprekende ouers van 'n afrikaanse huise, maar hulle vanne en voorname is Engels, want hulle is direkte afstammelinge van die 1820 setlaars... so is hy nou 'n Afrikaner of nie?

Verstaan jy nie my punt nie. Jy kan nie sê wie, wie is nie.... so al wat jou mitiese groep nou 350 jaar later met mekaar deel, is dat hulle Afrikaans praat en SOORT VAN (80%? 90%?) "wit"/"europees" is en leef in 'n fantasie wêreld van. Klim nou asseblief van my talk page af en gaan pla iemand anders. --Deon Steyn 06:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jy is so lief om Hermann Giliomee se boek te noem, wel hier is 'n deel van 'n onderhoud met hom, waar hy self sê dat die term "afrikaner" politiek van aard is (my eie klem/bold): [1]

GB: En die term Afrikaner wat u gebruik? Uit u boek blyk dit dat dit nie ’n term is wat van die begin af gebruik is om die betrokke groep te benoem nie, maar u kies doelbewus om die term steeds te gebruik ...
HG: Ek dink dit sou belaglik wees om Afrikaner as term te verwerp. Die term Afrikaanses het nie veel van ’n toekoms nie. Ek beklemtoon in die boek dat die definisie van die term Afrikaner in ’n baie hoë mate ’n politieke definisie is — dit wissel na gelang van omstandighede — maar daar was altyd (behalwe in die 1950’s en 1960’s) ’n baie sterk neiging om die term Afrikaner oop te definieer sodat dit nuwe mense kan insluit. Ek is nou die dag sommer hier in die Wildtuin gevra wat is my definisie van ’n Afrikaner en ek het gesê — dit was aan Engelssprekendes — enige iemand wat lief is vir die land en wat lief is vir Afrikaans; ek sal dit so wyd maak. Toe sê hulle, maar dan is hulle ook Afrikaners! Ek dink dit is ’n politieke definisie en dit kan een wees wat ruim is en nie eng nie.

So daar het ons dit nou van 'n historikus en die skrywer van die enigste werk wat jy heeltyd voorhou. --Deon Steyn 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek dink jy moet weer die aanhaling lees. Hy skryf dat die term "Afrikaners" steeds relevant is, heelwat meer mense insluit as wat jy voorgee en dat die term "Afrikaanses" nie veel van 'n toekoms het nie. -Gemsbok1 13:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ek geen ook nie juis om vir die term "Afrikaanses" nie, maar dis nie nou hier ter sprake nie, wat wel ter sprake is, is die term "Afrikaner" en dat dit politiek gelaai is en verskillende dinge op verskillende geskiedkundige tye beteken en dat ons nie in Wikipedia links en regs mens sonder bewyse met so betwisbare term kan klassifiseer nie. Wat can 'n kategorie genaamd "possibly of Afrikaner descent". --Deon Steyn 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nee, die vraag is of mense geklassifiseer kan word as Afrikaners of nie. Jy het met politieke draaie gekom as jou rede waarom jy nie self 'n Afrikaner wil wees nie. "Possible" kategorië voeg nie enige waarde tot 'n ensiklopedie toe nie. Indien dit nie deur feite en gebruike gestaaf kan word nie, het dit geen nut nie. Die Afrikaner klassifikasie is 'n feit soos ook bewys deur jou aanhaling. -Gemsbok1 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaner was nog nooit 'n "ethnic" groep nie en voldoen nie aan daardie vereistes nie. Dit was net 'n politieke term wat verskeie male opgeduik het om een of ander cause to probeer bevoordeel. Wat is die ekwivalente kategorie vie Britse Setlaars of ander "europese engelsprekendes" vandag? Daar is nie so groep nie, want die bestaan nie. Die enigste "groeperings" klassifikasie is volgenstaal, nasionaliteit en ras. Selfs jou die historikus waarna jy gereeld verwys beskryf dit maar as: enige iemand wat lief is vir die land en wat lief is vir Afrikaans. Daar bestaan nêrens elders 'n ekwivalente klassifikasie nie. --Deon Steyn 06:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Verwys na die artikel Anglo-African vir die Engelse etniese groep. Jy het geen sosiologiese aanvaarbare bewyse vir jou stellings nie. Etniese klassifikasie berus op sosiale reëls, nie suiwer wetenskap nie. Gaan vertel jy vir al die universiteite en ensiklopedië wat die Afrikaner as 'n etniese groep erken dat ons eintlik nie bestaan nie. Haal asseblief vir my die akademiese bron vir jou stellings aan. -Gemsbok1 07:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek verstaan regtig hoekom soveel maal oor en oor dieselfde dinge moet verduidelik nie, jy mors my tyd met belaglike stellings, aannames en foute in logika en enige etniese groep het of 'n "common ancestry" of deel sekere "kulturele aktiwiteite" in welke geval dit meer as 'n "kulturele groep" beskou word. Teen beide die aanvaarde maatstawe gemeet kan geen regdenkende obbjektiewe persoon enige "Afrikaansprekende persoon van Europese herkoms" wat in die laaste 60-70 jaar gebore saam groepeer nie, maar nie saak onder watter etniese groep nie. --Deon Steyn 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ek stem saam, jy moet ophou probeer verduidelik en vir my Akademiese bewyse verskaf wat jou wilde stellings steun. Dit klink asof jy glo dat die Afrikaners van 100 jaar gelede net bloot opgehou het om voort te plant. -Gemsbok1 08:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Die term is in die eerste plek amper 300 jaar terug gebruik en my punt is juis dat daardie groep mense nie meer as 'n homogene groep bestaan nie, juis omdat hulle nou baie meer vermeng en integreer is, veral Engels en Afrikaans, maar tegniese seker ook met ander rasse. Jy kan dus onmoontlik nie nou net iemand met die van "Visser" automatiese in 'n genetiese groep plaas nie. As ons nou na die laaste 60/70 jaar kyk was dit weereens net 'n politieke truuk om 'n groep 'n identiteit te gee. En hou tog op om my pleidooie vir akademiese bewyse net terug te speel, dis kinderagtig. --Deon Steyn 09:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hierdie is 'n ensiklopedie wat op akademiese feite berus, jy is kinderagtig omdat jy nie akademiese werke kan aanhaal wat jou logika staaf nie. Jou logika is foutief omdat etnisiteit nie bloot 'n produk van homogene genetika is nie. Ek het reeds na Akademiese werke verwys wat my punt staaf. -Gemsbok1 10:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek het reeds jou enigste twee voorbeelde (Britannica) en Giliomee verklaar. Ek wag steeds vir enige werke wat actually jou punt ondersteun, ek het nog nie een gesien nie. Waar is dit? --Deon Steyn 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ek het al twee werke genoem wat volgens jou, geagte alwetende sosiale opperbevelhebber a la robert mugabe & adolf hitler et al, nie aanvaarbaar is nie (hoewel die hele wêreld dit steeds gebruik). Jy het nie 'n enkele bewysstuk kon voorlê nie. -Gemsbok1 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jammer maar ek moet saamstem met Deon Steyn. Afrikaner as etniese groep is heeltemal te spesifiek vir jou om bloot alle wit Afrikaans-sprekende Suid-Afrikaners as "Afrikaners" te merk. Ek het grootgeword in Bellville en ons buurseun het 'n Afrikaanse van gehad van slegs 1 pa van 1 generasie terug; al die vorige generasies was Vlaams met Vlaamse vanne. Hy lyk selfs Vlaams, maar praat Afrikaans. So kan jy hom werklik 'n "Afrikaner" noem? Sy naam is Werner Greeff. Hoekom aandring op wetenskaplike aanhalings en verwysings (soos jy aanhoudend vra) as hierdie eenvoudige voorbeeld alreeds aan jou bewys dat "Afrikaans + Wit = Afrikaner" eenvoudig net nie werk nie. Jy het baie meer politieke "wishful thinking" tentoongebeeld as Deon Steyn, dus moet ek aflei dat jy die een is wat politieke motiverings agter die debat van kriteria van Afrikaners deurvoer, nie Deon Steyn nie. Kom ek vra jou 'n vraag: as jy 'n bekende persoon (sport of nie) op Wikipedia as "Afrikaner" merk, en die persoon reageer daarteen, wat sal jou reaksie dan wees? Sal jy die "Afrikaner" merk verwyder, of sal jy hom/haar forseer om Afrikaner te wees (volgens Wikipedia) op grond van die algemene (valse) kriteria? --WickedHorse 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Indien Okkert se ma Engels was, sou sy moedertaal Engels gewees het." - lewer gerus 'n verwysing vir hierdie heeltemal ongegronde (en verkeerde) stelling. "Moedertaal" beteken nie dat jou moeder dit ook gepraat het nie. Of het jy Okkert se ma persoonlik geken? Sien ook gerus Mother_tongue : "The term "mother tongue" should not be interpreted to mean that it is the language of one's mother. In some paternal societies, the wife moves in with the husband and thus may have a different first language, or dialect, than the local language of the husband." --WickedHorse 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"...en 'n groter persentasie Afrikaners het "ja" gestem gedurende die 1992 referendum as Engelse" - waar kom jy hieraan??? Net omdat meer as 60% van die Suid-Afrikaners wat kon stem, "ja" gestem het, beteken dit nie dat daardie 60% die wit Afrikaanssprekendes was nie! Dan noem jy hulle nog "Afrikaners" ook! --WickedHorse 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Verwys na die bron oor die uitslag van die referendum, dit is duidelik aangedui. --Gemsbok1 17:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary source does not include any reference to independent primary source. Statement and citation thus removed from article 1992 South African Referendum. --WickedHorse 19:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Koevoet

Thanks for the headsup, I'll definitely keen an eye on both pages. Unfortunately, the user in question is the same one with whom I have tangled previously over Machel and other pages. Good luck. — Impi 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Haai daar

Thought I'd drop by --[[User:Adriaan90|Adriaan90 ([[User talk:Adriaan90|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adriaan90|contribs]] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username={{urlencode:Adriaan90}} count]</span>)]] 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stempersentasies

Ek is bly dat jy by die Volkstaat artikel gaan loer het, dit was skandelik hoe die artikel aan die begin daar uitgesien het en elke bietjie werk help om die skeeftrekkings uit die weg te ruim. Jy het aan die wiskunde rondom die VF se steun gewerk, maar jy het as deler die totale bevolking Afrikaners geneem en nie net die hoeveelheid wat gestem het nie. Jy moet by jou berekening uitsluit die persentasie van die Afrikanerbevolking wat nie ouer as 18 is nie (vanaf sensusdata), asook die persentasie van stemgeregtigdes wat nie gestem het nie("voter turnout", vanaf die OVK se webserf). Ek het nie die 18% steun van kiesers uit my duim gesuig nie. -Gemsbok1 13:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As jy die akkurate syfers het van hoeveel "wit afrikaansprekendes" gestem het (wat ek nie op die OVK site sien nie), dan sien ek nie 'n probleem met 'n "persentasie van stemme" nie. Weereens dink ek dis moeilik om te weet presies wat 'n "Afrikaner" is, want daar is baie "wit afrikaansprekendes" wat glad nie deel is die etniese groep nie en direkte afstammelinge van Britse setlaars of ander is, so "wit afrikaansprekendes" is about as good as it's going to het. --Deon Steyn 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jy kan solank begin deur diegene onder 18 uit die bevolking te haal. Jy moet verantwoordelikheid vir jou berekening aanvaar. -Gemsbok1 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Volkstaat

Apologies. I'm not listing it back. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 - 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD on pop culture pages

Hi, just giving you a heads up to this debate, if you don't already know about it. Looks like we're going to just have to keep deleting the trivia out of the main articles. Riddley 09:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Campaign against you" ?

Hi, I thought it would be better to sort out this issue here instead of cluttering up the Talk:Volkstaat pages. What you regard as a "campaign against you" is merely my effort to shift those articles (or sections) that were formerly aligned to the right side of the political viewpoint spectrum (which I admit they were, and created by others as well, not me), that you attempt to shift over the neutral border all the way to the left side, back to the middle (neutral) viewpoint. If you continue with that, you are no better than those who create and shift those sections or articles to the right side, in the first place. Two Wrongs don't make a Right. Please try to understand that and also trust that all my efforts regarding this issue are performed in Good Faith. Thank you in advance. --WickedHorse 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you conveniently want to discuss the issue away from the article, when you have yet to explain why your first edit to that article was to move a section I worked on right to the bottom. Clearly that was not a good faith edit. And while we are at it, I suggest you consult someone with a better command of the English language before "correcting" grammar that is already correct. You are behaving like a typical internet troll that seek attention from others by entering into long boring drawn out debates (now also on my own Talk page) and unfortunately Wikipedia provides a perfect outlet for this. So, I'm still waiting for the explanation (preferably on the Volkstaat page) of the timing of your first edit to the Volkstaat article. I'm not interested in anything else until you explain that. --Deon Steyn 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall not enter into any personal discussion with you the Volkstaat Talk Page. See explanation given there. Thanks. --WickedHorse 09:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence structure does not make sense and more importantly you have still failed to explain your dubious motives on either page. --Deon Steyn 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you, but since you are so adamant in comparing the precise timing and order of Wikipedia editing events with each other, I am sure you will notice that other editors have accused you of exhibiting non-neutral POV with regards to that Volkstaat section, before you raised your suspicions of "dubious actions" against me. So, with this important timing issue in the background, why don't you start first by commenting on my first paragraph here. My claim: looking at some of your edits, it becomes clear that you attempt to shift right-sided POV over the neutral border all the way to the left side. Why? --WickedHorse 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Still avoiding the main question and still making unfounded accusations about some bizarre shifting of the bias. It is only your opinion that this is the case. The section in question started at the top and some editors want it moved, but they never questioned it's NPOV. STILL awaiting your explanation for the first ever edit to this page? --Deon Steyn 10:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I shall (once again) assume Good Faith and answer your question you seem to be stuck on, in the hope that you will answer mine (ours?). Actually, I thought that my answer would be quite self-obvious to you, based on my first paragraph here. A while ago I became aware that you were editing sections or articles that portrayed non-neutral POV (I will provide some examples later) to get rid of the POV and make it more neutral, to which I of course agreed. Then later, I realised that you were starting to go too far: not only were you making articles more neutral, you were also (in a very subtle way) editing them in such a way that it would become POV again, but on the other side of the political viewpoint spectrum. Thus, you were becoming no better than those who created the POV articles or sections in the first place. It would seem that you were on a personal vendetta to get back at anyone who dared raise a right-wing POV, and punish them with slashing back a left-wing POV. Although this might seem to you as a way to balance the sections, this is unfortunately not how Wikipedia functions, and previous POV sections MAY NOT be balanced out by a new POV on the other side of the political viewpoint. Corrective edits should bring the section back to NPOV again. Wikipedia is not a harmonic pendulum where rightist POV should be swung back to leftist POV before stabalising to NPOV. No, it goes directly to NPOV, and after noticing that you applied this subtle action to the Volkstaat section, I immediately moved it further down to balance its POV in terms of placement position in the article. Something similar happened with the 2010 World Cup article and that sparked the need for a check from my side regarding the Volkstaat section that I knew from previous experience, you created (potentially POV), which I corrected by moving it down. So, you may not agree with this answer, but I think it does indeed answer your question?
And no, the other editors did question the NPOV of your section, and I think they are pretty wise to mean its contents and position, not just the title of the section at the time. User:Wikiwizzy stated that it is POV to place it where you did, and User:Guinnog also recognised that you portray POV by insisting that the article be written with the position of the section which you insist on. Both are of the opinion that the section be at least moved further down.
I hope this makes it clear for you? So now, if you please, comment on my first paragraph? And try to give a clear answer instead of diverting attention away to trivial non-relevant matters like the lengh of my answer here, or any grammar or spelling mistakes in my answer here. Thank you in advance. --WickedHorse 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, wasting everyone's time with a overly long pseudo intellectual arguments pretending to hold up wikipedia principles. Your track history of making a roughly equal number of edits on Talk pages and articles in your SHORT history on Wikipedia shows that youi are more interested and prone to arguments. I have over 2000 edits to more than 800 distinct articles in my year+ on Wikipedia and I don't need your ham fisted, badly formatted illogical recitations on wikiedia rules and guidelines. You would bet better advised to read these guidelines yourself instead of quoting all the buzzwords and abbrevations like POV as you come across them. And once again you are avoiding the question and twisting the truth with statements like User:Wikiwizzy stated that it is POV to place it where you did, and User:Guinnog also recognised that you portray POV by insisting that the article be written with the position of the section which you insist on. you are again implying that I placed the section there when it was there and they never used the terms POV.

Please, please, please stop contributing to my talk page you are donig the same thing as on the various article Talk pages in trying to drown out everyone else --Deon Steyn 10:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So, now suddenly you want me off your Talk Page, after insisting several times that I answer your question. I will try again to answer your question, using examples as promised, you just need to tell me if I should try again (as you claim I am still "avoiding the question"). No ifs or buts, a plain and simple "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice. --WickedHorse 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, NOW you want to answer the question. Spare me please, because I know you will have some complex illogical 2,000 word long "explanation" when the simple fact is that we had a disagreement about something on one article following which you went to a different article you had never before edited and moved a section I had worked on right to the bottom of the page... please leave me alone now. I am not interested. --Deon Steyn 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A simple "No" would have been enough, as I stated. And by the way, your "simple fact" is absolutely correct. And I have already explained myself. Be as it may, both our comments and opinions have been stated, and readers who read this can decide for themselves. In terms of my input, the discussion is now closed. --WickedHorse 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Still no answer and still too many words, but if you stop posting about it, it will already be of some consolation to me. I have stopped counting the number of times I have referred you to Wikipedia:Talk pages, but please read it (again) for guidelines on indentation etc. --Deon Steyn 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deon_Steyn/Archive1&oldid=1139020538"