User talk:Deon Steyn/Archive2

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 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 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for my remark in the last edit summary to Koevoet article. Emotions took advantage of me at that time. - Darwinek 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

CW: references, weasel, rigour
I agree that the Craig Williamson article requires some references. But I am guessing you read the newspapers, you know what was said at the TRC? Just a slight rewording of the paragraphs you have tagged "weasel", etc would make them encyclopedic. The effect of your edits seem to cast more doubt that necessary on the article. A slightly different approach would give a better article. Some of the allegations remain just that, but they were made and CW has as good as given them the wink. I think better to go for a slight rephrasing rather than plaster the article with "I don't agree" labels. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And it seems that is what has happened and all are happy? The whole point is to end up with a better article in the end and that is perhaps what you provoked.  Paul Beardsell 10:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Koevoet
The "Rooi Gevaar" has passed, no? I think you are using partisan language from the past. Whatever! But your edit seems to say that ONLY swapo accused Koevoet of dirty tricks. I think there is a tendency for everyone (me and you included) to try and get their own particular spin into the introductory paragraph. Sure, commie backed, but that almost seems incidental, now. And Koevoet was apartheid-backed. That is NOT in the introductory paragraph. I imagine a discussion as to what was the greater evil, apartheid or communism, is not one you want to enter into. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * refs very untidy. suddenly got busy.  will revisit.  Paul Beardsell 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right wingers from the past
There does sometimes seem to be a strong revisionist presence at some of the SA related articles. Perhaps I am too sensitive. I agree with you entirely that references are to the good. Paul Beardsell 11:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a pity that some people want to balance out the above right-wing POVs by shoving left-wing POV adjectives, descriptive phrases, quotes or even content into such disputed articles. What a way to get things neutral! --WickedHorse 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please ignore this poster's uninvited commentary. I suppose if one person accused me of being a right winger and another of being a left winger I'm doing something right?


 * Why should anyone "ignore" my commentary? I made a valid point about a trend I observed as described in my comment. I did not refer to you specifically but found Paul Beardsell's comment above a good place to leave my comment afterwards. My comment was an expansion of what he said. Using left-wing gimmicks to cancel out right-wing POVs (and vice versa) is not on. This comment is not necessarily directed at you but at anyone who reads this. --WickedHorse 12:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was having a "conversation" Paul when you chimed in, my discussion with you ended last week and I have asked you not add more to it, yet you persist. I can only surmise that you are watching my talk page, please desist it is for my use not yours. Please stop making these irrelevant, unwelcome comments. --Deon Steyn 13:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They shoot horses, don't they? Paul Beardsell 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight
You supported ISTAR, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Harley-Davidson engine template
Awesome work with the template. I've tried to add some of the rest of the "family", but feel free to revert if you'd rather implement that in another way. –BozoTheScary 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ducati table
Hey thanks for adding that, it looks great. I've not used the Wikitable before, so I've learned something new! Izaakb 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 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 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WR progressions
Nice work!!! I have changed the table format slightly on World record progression 200m medley by using a simpler - and more standard - wikitable layout. I also added a separate column for the nationality with a full country name (it is sometimes difficult to distinguish countries by flags alone, e.g. east/west germany, ussr/china). I also reduced the wikilink density. Let me know what you think and if you like it, I can do the other pages too. Thanks again for the great page! Deon Steyn 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Want my honest opinion? Don't like it all, although it's a more standard wikitable layout. Having said that, standards are there to be broken, from my perspective. There's not enough space, too much density in info, that's why I used "width: 18em" for instance. So I'm not very pleased with your changes to be honest. Regards, Darius Dhlomo
 * You can shrink, but that doesn't change my opinion; I think the standard I used lookes much better - and is much more effective in presenting data - than the simple table format, which seems to be common. Darius Dhlomo
 * You can shrink, but that doesn't change my opinion; I think the standard I used lookes much better - and is much more effective in presenting data - than the simple table format, which seems to be common'
 * I just thought a common wikipedia look is preferred to a unique look that might not appear best with all user settings, because it's quite distracting when you view many different pages and stumble upon one that looks completely different? Even if you stick to swimming topics, most pages have tables and most have the standard layout? I reduced font to 90%, does it look better now? Deon Steyn 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe in diversity, not in dull unity, so I'm not convinced at all. Or should we change the standard format? How can a page distracts you when the data is presented in a clear manner? I really don't see the point. I thought it would be a good idea to use this format, as explained above, and to edit the other events in this style as well, but right now I'm thinking of changing my mind.Darius Dhlomo
 * I see your point, but it could get a little messy if every table looks differently? If we use standard construct users can set their preferences accordingly? Your format currently takes up more spaces vertically (less rows are visible at a time). I suppose there is no rule or guideline against the first format. Some things do need to change though, especially the link density. I would also prefer full country names and no flagicons for the location? Deon Steyn 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't get messy when all swimming tables are run in the same way. About the link density: ok, but the same counts for the country names I suppose. Full country names yes, no flagicons no.Darius Dhlomo
 * It could be perceived by other readers as a little snobbish, apart from just annoying them?
 * Is this an argument or what? Snobbish, for all edits I've done? Ever heard of the "feel free"-principle? I think we are getting in the dark zone now. But annoying? Yes, that does ring a bell....
 * Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough. I meant that other readers might perceive the swimming content as "snobbish" for trying to be different to the rest of wikipedia. I was just trying to help and point out that it is nice to be part of the larger community instead of trying to be too different? Deon Steyn 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I see. But you're actually not helping me by demotivating me and pointing out that we should stick to something old. Where's the progressive way of thinking here? Try to see it as a new format, although I agree it takes up more spaces vertically, and we can bring back the link density. I still am part of a larger community, simply by adding information to Wikipedia. Being different is a compliment, being the same as everyone else is not from my perspective. Darius Dhlomo
 * I just pointed out a simple standard tool that I thought would make your life easier. Being different isn't always a good thing, that is why wikipedia has so many guidelines (granted this isn't one... ). Would I be progressive and cool and creative if if I made an article background blue and text red and font size larger? Sure, but would that be a good thing to do? I thanked you for adding these excellent pages and still want to award you another wiki medal as encouragement. I was going to add them to the see also sections of their respective events if you haven't already, but just wanted to point out some tweaks that might improve them which is what Wikipedia is all about after all: incremental communal improvements. Deon Steyn 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 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 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben Johnson (runner)
I've reverted your recent edit because it was factually incorrect. Ben Johnson's disqualified record time was 9.79 (from September 24, 1998), not 9.83 (which would have been surpassed first by Maurice Greene in Edmonton in 1999 - ahead of Tim Montgomery). The 9.79 time was eventually bettered by Tim Montgomery on September 14, 2002 when he ran 9.78). Thanks. Yankees76 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sniper (Lon Horiuchi)
Why have you removed the entry for Lon Horiuchi? I don't understand.... HiramShadraski 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that list has grown very long in the past and teh article itself its already way too long. In a recent effort we have trimmed down the article and this list and sniper that are a lot better known have been dropped from the list. There is some discussion on the discussion page about this... personally I think a separate "list page" is a possible solution. As for the Horiuchi case specifically I don't think he is that remarkable (as a sniper) and not that well known either (even in the U.S.) so if we have to keep the list trim he wouldn't make the cut. I didn't check, but his page should be in the sniper category (another alternative to just adding it to the sniper page). --Deon Steyn 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. I also agree that he's not remarkable, but disagree that he's not well-known (the name may mean little to the average reader, until Ruby Ridge is mentioned).


 * I thought that the objection might be that he is a police sniper, not a soldier, and the article specifically makes that distinction earlier.


 * At any rate, I see your point about keeping the list down to a manageable size. I'll check his page for categories.  - HiramShadraski 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 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 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaans
Als je Afrikaans bent/kent, dan kan je vast ook wel een beetje Nederlands ? :) SportsAddicted | discuss  10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Natuurlik, goed genoeg om jou te verstaan :-) Deon Steyn 11:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Altijd leuk zoiets :) Mijn zus is er twee maal geweest en met hele mooie verhalen thuisgekomen. Ik moet er zelf ook zeker een keer langs. SportsAddicted | discuss  12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ja, miskien kan ons huise ruil! Ek is in Kaapstad, die mooiste stad in SA :-) Deon Steyn 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, ja Kaapstad lijkt me inderdaad een geweldige stad om eens te bezoeken. Een huisruil? Dat klinkt interessant, hoe had je dat in gedachten? SportsAddicted | discuss  13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huisruil is miskien te ingewikkeld :) Maar jy is welkom om te besoek, miskien kan ek verblyf reel! Ek het my wiki e-pos enable, dat ons kan e-pos stuur... Deon Steyn 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ik heb nog nooit met wiki email gewerkt, maar ik zal is kijken of het lukt :) SportsAddicted | discuss  07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to learn Afrikaans, however I must say, to the English eye, it can look a bit like a lot of randomly scribbed words.


 * I suppose any foreign language would look like "randomly scribbed words". Please create a Wikipedia account and sign your comments to make communication easy and simple (see Talk page guidelines). Deon Steyn 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST 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 February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deon I have a solution to the Goedgevonden/ Ventersdorp incidents
I think that they are totally seperate incidents and were about totally different issues, however I've looked at your comments and I agree that since Goedgevonden incurred no fatalities it's not a battle, I'll rename it the Goedgevonden Incident but that the ventersdorp one was.

BOV1993 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks. Ventersdorp is technically also not a battle, but the names stuck, because it became known as such in the press. It should ideally have been called The "Battle" of Ventersdorp, but there you go. Also be careful when reading sources on the topic as many are extremely biased. --Deon Steyn 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Deon, just so you know, BOV1993 has been blocked for a month for some edits he made anonymously and under a previous username. Zaian 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately his edits up to this point looked decidedly biased, but we should soon be able to clean up most of it. --Deon Steyn 08:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Goedgevonden incident
No I reverted it because I had a "stupid moment". :) Apologies. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it was just a matter of recognizing my stupidity. Not sure how much sorting out that takes. :-D --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One revert and one talk page post.... heeeehehehe --Deon Steyn 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 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 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning of Martinusvanschalkwyk's username
Verskoon my, maar ek wil net weet hoekom jy oor my gebruikersnaam gekla het. Ook hoekom jy so geintereseerd was in my aksies? Ek is nie 'n vandaal nie. Antwoord gerus. MJ -Martinusvanschalkwyk- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.118.117 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Eeenvoudige antwoord: die naam breek 'n wikipedia reel en die adminstrators het dit ook so gesien en gevoglik die account vir eers gestop.
 * Lang antwoord: die paar edits wat jy gemaak het (as jy inderdaad die oorspronklike user is), was duidelik biased, want jy het sommer heel stukke verwyder en met swak edits vervang wat niemand help nie. --Deon Steyn 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms userbox
A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund (Talk 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, adding or  to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. Thanks! (re: List of One-day International cricket records) &mdash;Moondyne 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to apologise! I was just letting you know. Cheers. &mdash;Moondyne 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 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 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige differences from novel
Deon Steyn, I just wanted to let you know that since you suggested adding a Differences from novel section to The Prestige (film) article, there have been no further comments either in support or against. This issue has been dormant for well over a month (no edits or comments have been made to the temporary page whatsoever since its creation). Consequently (coupled with the article going to GA since the issue was first raised), I'm assuming the question of whether to include a "differences" section to the article is answered for now.

This notice has been added to the The Prestige Talk page, and unless someone has any objections, I'm going to request that the temporary page be deleted within the next 24 hours. I will archive the content on one of my user pages, however. Thank you for your interest in improving the article.

&mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deon, that temporary page was created and advertised over a month ago, on March 1. Please assume good faith, no one is trying to fool anyone. Editors were informed of the temp page and expressed concerns (all perspectives) at the time and invited to provide references and discuss the appropriateness of the section in that format in the article vis-a-vis WP:TRIVIA. No one is "abusing the Wikipedia rules for verifiability" by asking for sources for "something obvious": others had already pointed out that noting differences could be considered original research, so focusing discussion on a temp page seemed a productive and amicable method for reaching consensus.


 * During that time no one contributed to the discussion to re-add the page to the article whatsoever.


 * I'm sorry you missed the announcement.(Really). &mdash;   Jim Dunning  talk  : 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deon Steyn, I just noticed that the date for the edit I wrote announcing creation of the temp page is missing (or I neglected to put it in), so I can understand any consequent confusion. Note, however, (1) the chronological placement of the announcement on the Talk page, (2) the wording that announces the temp page's creation over a month ago, (3) edit history showing its creation on March 1, and (4) the edit summary on The Prestige (film) article's history on March 1 announcing the removal of the Differences section from the article to the temp page. None of this was done behind anyone's back, although I feel badly now that I didn't take the extra step to notify you on your Talk page (perhaps this would have prevented any feelings of an adversial process). I assumed that you were still watching the article and talk page and would notice what I did.


 * Consequently, I've restored the temp page and posted an invitation to interested parties to address not only WP:OR concerns, but WP:TRIVIA concerns as well. How about if we extend review for another two weeks? If consensus can't be achieved, then we should consider recruiting an arbiter to assist, perhaps someone from WikiProject Films. Again, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.


 * &mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries man :-)
 * I should have been checking the page more carefully, but in all honesty this article's editing process is more time consuming than most AND more time consuming than it should be. I feel, a contributing factor to this is the unusual methods followed, e.g. creating sub-pages and asking for comment. The normal method is to keep the piece in question in the article and make incremental improvements to keep it visible to new editors and keep changes visible to all editors. To this end, I have restored this section and cited several sources. Deon Steyn 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't take this as a personal criticism of you, but of some of the steps you've taken regarding the Prestige article. I have the impression that many of your edits are impulsive and you don't always read content completely before acting. For example, you misinterpreted the subpage events (especially the timing) and jumped on me, implying that it was I who had acted hastily. Somehow you missed the Talk page notifications and significant edits to the article of over a month ago (your edit history, however, indicates you've been active and not taking a break during that time). Even when you replaced the copy into the article, you overlooked an obvious format problem (please use Show Preview before saving edits). You also cite WP subpage policy in your criticism of my "non-standard" resolution steps, but overlook that it actually says the opposite of the point you're trying to make.


 * This brings me to the next point: your interpretation and application of WP guidelines and practices. I'm not criticizing so much your actual efforts (gods know I'm always learning new things and have made my share of mistakes), but your quickness to misquote or misinterpret policy in criticism of others without first carefully reviewing the policy. The subpage issue, for instance, and your belief that it is a non-standard method to resolve disputes and that the very creation of subpages for this purpose is against policy. Please look at Subpages and find the Allowed Uses sections. It actually says that creation of Talk namespace subpages is not only allowed, but specifically recommended for this situation: "Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, usually formatted Talk:Example Article/Temp, . . ." and a bit further on it expressly says that for, "Writing drafts of major article revisions . . . write these in the talk namespace, e.g. Talk:Example Article/Temp ."


 * You initially said it was okay to lift a section of unverified (and poorly written) content from one article and place it in another, and then claim it is wrong for someone else to delete it. It's interesting to see that you only have a problem if it's your text that's affected; you didn't show the same concern about others' viewpoints that were counter to yours. It's also interesting to review your edit history and see that you have no compunction about deleting large amounts of text as long as it's someone else's work. Again you cited WP practices about "being bold," but failed to consider guidelines that say, "Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism." (Plagiarism example is not pertinent, but does illustrate problems to be avoided.) In this case you dropped content full of significant errors in fact and little more than a trivia list (see WP:TRIVIA) into a well-written article close to GA with little apparent concern for readers and other editors.


 * Anyone doing this should have researched the accuracy of the copy before copying it, and maybe should have been more than a little familiar with both works. Even after doing this you have spent virtually no time improving that content until the past few days. In fact, please review who has done most of the editing. You just said, "Here!" and walked away from the actual work, returning only to engage in written battles, not actually to improve the article.


 * I, too, have been busy expressing my opinion, but I also have made improvements to the content (admittedly by showing how many of them were redundant, simplistic and just plain wrong). So, let me make this clear so no one is uncertain about my views on this Differences section: I am opposed to including it in The Prestige (film) article in any way similar to its present form.


 * I am not the only editor with this view, whereas the opinion you expressed is apparently held by only a single editor. Numbers aside, this means there is a dispute, and the civil thing to do is to take steps to achieve consensus. "Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. . . . Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." More to our situation, the policy goes on to say, "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus." You (and any potential others supporting your position) have been offered standard methods for resolving this dispute (I've bolded that word so that it's clearly understood there is a dispute), and you have met these multiple offers with what appear to be provocative actions, such as reverts and verbal attacks.


 * Initially, you ignored the invitation and opportunity to work on improving the content for a month. The disputed content was moved to a subpage (a standard practice — see Hippie dispute for an example). Despite no one expressing interest in including the section in the article (or concern about its removal, for that matter), it was left available for a month. When I decided to delete it I announced this on the article Talk page, your Talk page, and even saved the copy in my Sandbox in case the issue came up in the future. (Since no one was interested enough in improving it, I am glad that it was not left in the article as is while we were pushing for GA status.) These moves were all in the spirit of civility and good faith, and provided adequate opportunities to resolve the disagreement.


 * When you chose this moment to jump back in, you attacked and immediately reverted the article edit, again ignoring the offered olive branch and the standard path to dispute resolution. At this stage, not only did I restore the content (with your edits) to a new temp page, I suggested getting an objective third-party involved and you appear to be rejecting that. Despite that, I am placing a request for assistance at WikiProject Films so an amicable solution can be reached. I hope you involve yourself.


 * In the past you've criticized my long discussions. If you find them tedious, I apologize. I wrote this because I agree with your observation, "this article's editing process is more . . . time consuming than it should be." You go on to say, "I feel, a contributing factor to this is the unusual methods followed, e.g. creating sub-pages and asking for comment." I hope you come to see that not only are the "negotiation" and "invitation to comment" steps more productive, but key to the success of Wikipedia, and that you deal in good faith with other editors in the future.


 * Just so you know, if I were to follow your instruction to "be bold", I would revert your edit (but moving your cite edits to the temp page); note that that hasn't been done. GF.


 * &mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, please be more concise, life is too short and there are too many articles. Some problems I have with your comments:
 * I didn't drop this section in, I merged it from another article as suggested by other editors (who felt it more appropriate to be part of the film instead of novel page), regardless of it's quality.
 * This is completely different to deleting the entire section, because of minor concerns that could more appropriately be addressed by editing (as described in your quote of consensus editing).
 * Editing articles is not a race to GA status, if someone nominated an article for GA status before it was mature enough then they should not be surprised if it has to go through another cycles of nomination/approval etc.
 * --Deon Steyn 05:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup statistics
I understand the reasoning for changing most of them around but the one I don't really get: best bowling figures in an innings. Why sort by wickets and then runs conceded? Economy rate seems _much_ more sensible, to me anyway. And listing 4-23 (7) above 4-23 (8.4) makes no sense at all. And I don't think that just because the source has it that way is good enough reasoning, personally... If I was them I know I'd change it. Cheers. AllynJ 11:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that economy rate is a valid alternate way of looking at or comparing performances, but the number of runs – regardless of economy rate – is the commonly accepted comparison, not just for this source, but all cricket websites, experts and historians. You will find this method for all records or list of achievements. --Deon Steyn 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, wasn't aware of that. Okay then. :) AllynJ 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 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 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good move
I support your deletions. I'm doing the same. Too much uncited waffle from biased sources by that editor. His talk page contributions are generally very disruptive too. Zaian 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, just today I had to archive Talk:Boer, because this user uses it more as a forum (against which I have warned him, citing the Talk page guidelines). In this archived talk page he mentions having recently been banned for 30 days and he contributed anonymously the past week or so. Your help on the Ventersdorp and other South African pages are much appreciated, there seems to be a cluster of right-wing related topics attracting some revisionist edits, mostly trying to create a nation/ethnic group where there really is none in order to further others claims (you need an nation to demand your won country or claim genocide etc.).. pages included (Boer, Afrikaans, Volkstaat, Battle of Ventersdorp, South African farm attacks... probably AWB etc.) --Deon Steyn 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A huge number of them come from one right-wing British teenager. His biography is at User:BOV1993 but more recently he has edited as User:JBAK88 and often anonymously from 82.* and 86.* IP addresses. He has had several other accounts, at least two of which have been blocked permanently. His only sources of info on South Africa seem to be two documentaries about the AWB, Arthur Kemp's website, and chatting with right-wing South Africans on various forums. His contributions waffle on and one incoherently, are seldom neutral, and almost never cite sources. He also argues with everyone in sight. He thinks he's a useful contributor, but everything he adds dilutes the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm not going to get involved in the Boer article but I am doing what I can to protect various other articles from his regular input. Zaian 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosy conversation gents.

82.3.81.225 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you two are funny little creatures (particularly you zaian), it's a bit of a mother's meeting. Anyway, thanks for saying right- wing, not extremist like the last time.

82.3.81.225 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO.
You two are hilarious, the great force of deon and zaian, KEEPING ORDER ON WIKIPEDIA. You two need your own website for all of your 'waffle', I'm glad to be the centre of attention, however, you two, oh so powerful (bends down and prays to the two God's of wikipedia), administrators need to understand that, soon enough there'll be an anti- Josh patrol team, you two really think I just use one computer? I have like 4, I'm a different person on each of them, you'll never figure it out.

Half of this guy I've made up (oops) was Rob and Giles, you see guys, JBAK1993, BOV1993, JK2, WilliamDevino, JBAK and whoever else are all three of us. You've dealt mostly with me on the Ventersdorp and Bophuthatswana pages, some of the Boer page, some is Rob. Giles did the stuff on Jimmy Burke, William DeVino and all the other mobster stuff.

Whenever Rob and Giles come over another edit 'happens', for two super wikipedian masterminds such as your self I'm surpised you haven't figure. Anyway it's my birthday in a couple of days, so I'm in a gooooood mood.

I come home from school every day and look forward to my 'wiki time', having said that I have a genuine interest in the AWB and Boers/ Afrikaners.

82.3.81.225 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See my response on User talk:JBAK88. FWIW, Josh, I don't need to work out exactly which kid is editing which article; I just judge the contributions. Zaian 11:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think many of my edits have reached the standards wikipedia requires and I don't feel that they have been judged fairly.

JBAK88 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject
Hello Deon Steyn. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)