User talk:Nroets

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

optimal erasure codes with arbitrary parameters
On Talk:Optimal erasure codes with arbitrary parameters, we are lamenting the fact that the images have been deleted from the article. If you drew those images, would you mind uploading them. Again, sorry! Also, please tag each image with one of the Image copyright tags such as Public domain - pd-self. Thank you. I would be happy to copy those images from http://rational.co.za/fec/ to Wikipedia for you, but (since I didn't draw those images) I'm not allowed to attach the copyright tag. --68.0.120.35 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bikemap & OSM
Hi, just saw you list and wanted to mention that Bikemap.net also has OSM (and Opencyclemap) support. --Helge (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

South African Wikimedia Chapter
Hi there. The idea of setting up a local Wikimedia chapter has been discussed by South African Wikipedians (and those associated with other Wikimedia projects) for some time now, and we want to help turn this dream into a reality. There are currently over 25 chapters established around the world, and several more planned and being discussed, but so far, none in Africa. A South African chapter, should it become a reality, would be a continental first. If you're interested in being involved in the creation of a South African Wikimedia Chapter, could you please [mailto:wikipedia@africancommons.org email me] directly :). Thanks and have a great World Cup Opening day, Kaydee 68 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

South African Wikimedia Chapter update and mailing list
Hi there. Local Wikipedians have set up a mailing list where we will be discussing the formation of a local Wikimedia Chapter in South Africa. Please join the mailing list at this url https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaza. There is also a page set up on Meta where you can add your name if you're interested to take this idea forward. Check out http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_South_Africa. Thanks Kaydee 68 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Scanning photos/pages from a donated Dutch/Afrikaans bundle?
The Wikimedia foundation has received an email from someone in Pretoria, offering to donate a 1912 book with news articles and photos. Would you be interested in accepting it as a volunteer of the foundation, and either scanning it in for Wikisource and Commons, or handing it to someone else who would? Afterwards maybe donating it to a local library? -- Jeandré, 2010-09-29t04:32z

Crime in South Africa
Hi. I saw that you reverted an anonymous IP edit that removed content from the Crime in South Africa article. I was tempted to do this as well, but it seems that the removal was correct. The references provided didn't support the claims being made, so I have removed the material again. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference shows that the murder rate has gone from under 10 per 100,000 to 34 per 100,000. How is it possible for the murder rate to increase that much without a "dramatic increase in crime" ? I've changed the wording slightly to appease you. But instead of just deleting stuff, it would be better if you actually go and look for references. -- Nic Roets (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the murder rate and the overall crime rate are not the same thing. Also, the second reference did not support the assertion that the crime rate in the rest of the world has fallen over the same period. It just says that the violent crime rate in the US has fallen. I have been looking for references in the meantime, but haven't found anything reliable yet. I did find this, however, which has some interesting material on South African crime statistics and their reliability. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source might be a good one to use. Published in 1997, it points out that crime had been steadily rising since 1980. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your excellent contributions ! I live in South Africa and I know many people who lost a loved one. So a good article place those events into perspective. My guess is that the drop from 60 to 34 murders per 100,000 is not due the government solving the problem, but rather changes to the demographics (e.g. AIDS, urbanization), communities initiatives and individuals avoiding dangerous locations. But guesses can't be included in the article. -- Nic Roets (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brandon Topham


The article Brandon Topham has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Brandon Topham.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brandon Topham.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Brandon Topham.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Brandon Topham.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is credited to Sarah Makoe, not Stan Louw as you claimed. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for uploading the image. This guy (Stan) emailed it to me saying there was no copyright on the photo, asking me to write the article and asking me to call him on his phone. -- Nic Roets (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Brandon Topham for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brandon Topham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Brandon Topham until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish
Thank goodness that useless article about the baboon (that is Topham) has been removed. He is a nobody with no political influence or future. (Personal attack removed) if you thought the DA would win in Tshwane. (Personal attack removed) 41.133.140.140 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Varty


A tag has been placed on John Varty requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Freedom Park (South Africa)


A tag has been placed on Freedom Park (South Africa) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alexf(talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

John Varty
Dear User, -- LesnarMMA (talk) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesnarMMA (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I responded at Talk:John Varty -- Nic Roets (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bengal Tiger
What you are doing at the Bengal Tiger page is not valid. Just because the first few sentences is not accurate, it doesn't give you the right to remove the entire article. Please do take note that there are still many strong information, and points in the subsection itself. There is no need to purge everything, and replace them with 2 sentences. This is not how wikipedia works. Please take a look at what you are doing. I know you don't like what you read, but you cannot just remove the whole chunk of it. Wikipedia is about editing, stop creating such wars. Give me some time, 2 weeks or something, i will edit the subsection accordingly, clean it up, shortern it. But not remove it completely, if it was a 2 sentence subsection, we might as well don't have it. So i will edit it, leave this to me. You are just deleting the whole thing because you don't like it. There is something wrong with your intention. Just give me 2 weeks. And stop deleting it. How can anyone edit it, or clean it up if you remove the whole chunk away?

We need a more conducive subsection, i agree with you, so i will edit it, along with other users of wikipedia. Please just do not remove the whole chunk of it. There are still many relevant points, just keep it there for awhile while i edit it with other fellow wikipedia members. What do you gain from removing the whole subsection? 2 weeks is all i ask for.

China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Save China's Tigers
Not only on the Bengal Tiger page, the Save China's Tigers page is also the same. Please note that i WAS a volunteer from the SCT, and one of the biggest concern the public have about the project is about how it affects the ecosystem and biodiversity of South Africa. That part of the article should not be removed. I am not siding the other user, but its just that you are really removing the wrong things. To be honest, that section is perhaps the Most important section in the entire SCT article, and you are removing it because you are upset?

Do not remove whole chunks of things. Why are you doing all this? You feel better and eat better making the article shorter and less informative? We can edit it together, supporting each other, have discussions. But you must understand that we need the section to be there to edit it or to update it, or to even correct it. If you remove the entire section, what can we do about it? Wikipedia is not about purging things you don't like. I find it very difficult to communicate with you. I bet you will undo everything again. Why?

China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the various discussion page of Save China's Tigers and Bengal Tiger before doing anymore edits, i have request for some time to edit the various subsections, stop the editing wars, we can end this nicely with some edits. =) Cheers. China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on NoticeBoard
Dear NRoets, why are you doing this? I came to you, being friendly, explain my reason for reverting your edits and finding good references and sources to support what i am saying and my reverts. While you simply went on to the conflict of interest page on the Noticeboard to report me? I came to your talk page, went to Bengal Tiger's talk page to try and talk things out. But when you cannot reply to my arguments, you simply revert my edits and went on to report me. What kind of user are you? China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I want an encyclopedia that is useful because it's trustworthy and a pleasure to read. People don't want to read about the dispute you (SCT) are having with John Varty, esp. not on the Bengal Tiger page. -- Nic Roets (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I want an encyclopedia which tells the truth, which let people knows what the debate is about. People can choose not to believe what is said there, but for you to remove everything is just weird. Look at what i have been doing for the past few days, trying to edit and erase away many poor statments which have not been fully referenced. Look at the Bengal Tiger page now, i am just editing like normal, what conflict of interest is there? I just wanted the truth to stay there, I am no longer part of SCT, i volunteered there 3 years ago as a student studying biology, i also volunteered at Tiger Canyons before. There is no conflict, at least not that i know of, but of course the negative points of each project must be brought up. Wikipedia should never be one sided, and JV's project is filled with flaws, we know it, then why hide it by removing everything? I just want everything to be fine and with good reference. Instead of removing the facts, why not edit it by adding counter-debates? That's what i did on the SCT page, and rewilding page. We can just have other discussions here, why do you have to be this under the notice board? I am urging you to remove your complaint on the noticeboard. We can discuss in other platforms. Is that okay? China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, we need a cease-fire here. There is no need to have such a huge debate over cyberspace. I have nothing to gain, but time to lose. You are a good editor, seeing from your past contributions, but recently you are beginning to start becoming a JV fan and removing every information which is even slightly against him. I can remove my complaint of you from the Noticeboard page on "Editing Wars", and i hope you do the same for mine on the "Conflict of Interest" war. We have to come to a consensus. Let the articles stay like this for a while. Both of us try and do something about it, editing, updating etc. Do not remove whole chunk of information. If poorly sourced, just ask for citation. If you find it bias, say it in the talk page and remove that particular line after that, don't remove the entire chunk. We can work together and edit the information accordingly. There is no need for this huge war and complaint on each other. Are you fine with this? We can only agree to disagree, i have no bad feelings against you. China&#39;s Tiger (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Being 'unfair to Mr Varty' as motivation for removing content
I would like to again contest your motivations for removing Wikipedia material. I emphasise that it is the motivations you are providing that concern me, not necessarily the removal of content itself. I furthermore stress that this is not an isolated incident — this continues my discussion on the Save China's Tigers talk page regarding edits there.

On the Bengal Tiger page, you removed material that included valid criticisms for the Tiger Canyons project. Although I agree that this material need not appear on the Bengal Tiger page (since the "Re-wilding" project subsection aught to remain concise), my concern was that the reason you provided was as follows:


 * "Criticism added already appears verbatim on John Varty. Adding it to a second page is unfair to Mr Varty. [emphasis added]"

I wish to express my concern that Wikipedia is intended as a neutral source of information. Hence, being "unfair" to someone is not a valid reason to remove content. The contents of an article need only be relevant to the article. Again, I emphasise that it is not necessarily the edits themselves that concern me, but the reasons you provide that suggest a lack of neutrality on your part.

--

I furthermore wish to repeat my concerns expressed on the Save China's Tigers talk page regarding your frequent removal of content there. Although removing content that lacks neutrality timeously is sometimes necessary, please consider that editors should avoid using the lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. It is often preferable on Wikipedia to wait before removing content to give other editors an opportunity to edit and refine that content. Only in extreme or special circumstances should text be removed immediately (e.g. vandalism and articles on living persons).

Thank you for your time.

Dremagon (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I explained earlier on this page that I want to keep WP 'healthy'. It must be a pleasure to read and a pleasure to edit. If you look at the history of the John Varty article, it clearly has not been a pleasure. From my experience on WP, I came to understand that one way of preventing or defusing an edit war is by keeping the material that contains criticism to a minimum.
 * There are a few specifics about this case that I will share with you offline (I recently read the section on dealing with harassment) -- Nic Roets (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that you prefer to maintain the verifiability of pages on Wikipedia. The John Varty page was particularly problematic since it demands verifiability, being an article on a living person — users frequently made edits to the page without maintaining its verifiability. More importantly, users were very reluctant to discuss their edits on the talk page.


 * I do not agree with you on your views of defusing edit wars. I believe that ceasing all edits on the material and discussing it in the talk page, or alternatively moving particularly contentious material to the talk page to be discussed, is a far better solution to averting further conflicts. From my experience, users become upset when their contributions are removed. My criticism of your approach is that it provokes users by repeatedly removing their content. Moving it to the talk page gives them an opportunity to refine it there; or starting a discussion in the talk page (and referring to it in the edit summary) gives users an opportunity to defend their contributions there.


 * As for there being "specifics" about this case, I can only remark on what I have seen myself. Based on my understanding of the conflicts, I see no reason why this dispute cannot be resolved in the talk pages without intervention from the Wikipedia staff. However, let me know if there are special circumstances that you feel I should be aware of and we can discuss them somehow. I am only trying to serve to avert unnecessary conflicts.


 * Dremagon (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dremagon (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you are not setting a good example in this regard. On the 24th of July User:Salvio_giuliano (an administrator) denied the speedy deletion of John Varty. Less than an hour later you replaced the article with a redirect to Running Wild. -- Nic Roets (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you bring this up, since I had a feeling at the time that this edit would receive negative attention. Firstly, you will note that the exception to my aforementioned suggestion is that of articles on living persons. Therefore, any contentious material in an article on a living person must be removed immediately. Naturally, this policy was followed and carried out by Tbhotch, an administrator. Thereafter, the Tigeralert reverted the article back, but with some added content. The article still contained the non-neutral material, however, which is — as stated — not permitted on articles on living persons.


 * Secondly, note that a speedy deletion is quite different to stubbing an article and adding a redirect. The speedy deletion policy applies to articles that lack notability (amongst other unrelated criteria). Since the article was clearly notable (having many news articles and other refs), it failed criteria A7 for speedy deletion. Hence, Salvio giuliano removed the Db-person tag from the page to indicate that it was not a candidate for speedy deletion.


 * Unfortunately, the neutrality and verifiability of the article was still lacking. If you review the talk page on day in question, 24 July, you will notice that I made the suggestion of temporarily relocating the page into userspace to be edited safely until the article could be considered as neutral. (See Suggestion.) This is a common Wikipedia strategy for handling problem pages. The reason for my reverting the edit was simple: the page was changed to the redirect by an administrator since it had received complaints about its lack of neutrality and verifiability. Tigeralert reverted this edit with the lack of neutrality and verifiability in tact. The stubbing of the article was disputed by Tigeralert on more than one occasion: 1 and 2. On both occasions, administrators identified the reason for stubbing the article as being a lack of neutrality and reliable sources.


 * In conclusion, the reason for my edit and the edits the administrators were all motivated by the fact that the article was a biography of a living person and lacked verifiability and neutrality. Wikipedia policy is very strict on the verifiability/neutrality of articles on living persons. On other articles, verifiability/neutrality expectations are not as strict. I hope that this clarifies my actions. Unverifiable and non-neutral material on articles on living persons DOES need immediate removal, and I would never contest otherwise. On other articles, it is up to discretion (unless it is very heavily biased on clearly vandalism, or course). I have only referred to edits on pages that are not on living persons (Save China's Tigers and Bengal tiger). I am always make very careful considerations in any edits I make on Wikipedia. However, I do appreciate your concerns and wish to emphasise that I do not doubt that you are making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I furthermore appreciate that you are willing to go to such lengths to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia articles and users.


 * Thanks for reading.
 * Dremagon (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, you convinced my 99%. Just note that most of the BPL rules and guidelines do not just apply to the biography, but any information about living persons on WP, i.e. in Bengal Tiger. -- Nic Roets (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is certainly true and I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers and happy editing. [[Image:Smiley.svg|24px|:-)]]
 * Dremagon (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ATKV
Hi Nic,

Thanks for your input on ATKV. I've incorporated some of your ideas:


 * The Witwatersrand Gold Rush of 1886 and Anglo Boer War (1899 – 1902) resulted in an influx of foreigners to the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek. Because the Boer Republics became British colonies right after the Anglo Boer War, the Afrikaners felt marginalised and stigmatized. You will see that I'm calling "a spade a spade" on the stigmatisation issue (I've also added a reference to that fact). The combination of the above factors caused the Afrikaners to fear erosion of their culture and language. In 1930 Edwin Robert Carney...


 * I already covered urbanization - if you have anything you think I should include please let me know.  "This culminated in the mass urbanisation of unskilled Afrikaners during the great depression years."


 * Regarding: Afrikaans is one of the newest languages, e.g. it only became an official language in 1925 and the first official Afrikaans bible only appeared in 1933.

- I think any person clicking on Afrikaans will be able to find the relevant info.

- The Bible in Afrikaans...  Why should this be included in an article about the ATKV? Did they contribute to the translation or any subsequent translations thereafter?

Then lastly, how did you find out I was writing the article? Were you contacted by the ATKV after I made contact with them?

Kind regards,

Bertus Esterhuysen 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GPS tracking
Hi, still interested in this? GPS tracking server seems a good place to list things, perhaps later add some category. GpsGate has its page now. Richiez (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Call for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa
Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabell@undefineddoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahf@undefinedafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Thanks
for adding some objectivity to South Africa articles. --41.151.67.111 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CurrencyFair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli Shekel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)