User talk:NdlovuX

Welcome!

Hello, NdlovuX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Guinnog 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And great edits! --Guinnog 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabona

Your user name interests me. Are you by any chance a Zulu-speaker? --Guinnog 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sabona brother!! I want to bring some sanity to this article.

Me too. Any idea what that big block of Zulu text on the article talk was about? I totally don't get it. --Guinnog 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding vprotected tag

In this edit [1] you inserted a protected tag. I am interested in your reasons for doing so. I have removed the tag meanwhile as it was clearly inappropriate and unnecessary. --Guinnog 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of replying to the above? Reassuring me that it was a mistake and that you won't do it again would be sufficient. --Guinnog 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved in any racial profiling. All that is importants is that we have write a good article. --NdlovuX 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely isn't anything to do with race. I was merely questioning your use of the vprotected tag to an article which (unless I've missed something fairly major) ddin't seem to require it. --Guinnog 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MY TALK DELETED, INFO ON ARTICLE DELETED TO MAKE IT ONE SIDED.

{{{vprotected}}} {{{helpme}}}

This is typical of corrupt officials. Information is distorted to suit the corrupt officials.

I have just noted that information on my talk pages was deleted. I will have to request protection if it is not restored to the original state. I need to request input from unbiast wikipedians to assist. Furthermore information is being deleted from the article that makes it balanced to give it a one-sided appearance.

Edits

Hopefully we can work on something in the future besides the Crime Expo page. It was nice to see someone care about the page. Previously no one had and that only added to the problems it faced. I do hope you understand that my edits have nothing to do with making the article one sided and are purely to create a good article that meshes with other articles on Wikipedia and, in particular, articles about web sites (for example, some of my edits were based off of the page about Digg). Best of luck with the Crime Expo article. --Rballou 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can also make contributions, but try to find new information in stead of just deleting current information.--NdlovuX 03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account

Can I ask, have you ever edited here under a different username? My reason for asking is that we haven't heard from User:Jackes in a while. --Guinnog 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you haven't answered this; I wondered if I should explain why I was asking. I don't want to make a big thing of it as I am trying to assume good faith. In a way it doesn't matter in the least if you have opened a new account. I would be more concerned if you were making some edits while not logged on, so as to appear like two people. You wouldn't do that, would you? I really do apologise if my suspicions are unfounded. --Guinnog 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a blog

Hi NdlovuX - you obviously aren't interested in writing an encyclopedia article (re: the crime expo south africa page), but would rather write a blog. Please go start a blog on blogspot or some other site, and you can write anything you feel like, and your work will never be reverted. Wikipedia has policies about the content that is posted here that you repeatedly ignore. Please read through all the links that someone posted for you as the first post on this page to re-familiarize yourself with them. Have fun with your blog. Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, it appears to me as if you, and some other editors (That probably are the same person) are trying to make this article bias by deleting sections you don't like. Every time critisism is provided, or information is placed into perspective, you delete it. You should rather go and write a blog. There is certain individuals at Wikipedia that is constantly deleting information in an attempt to make an article 1-sided, and I am not blind about it. If you go to the section WP:NPOV you will clearly note that bias can be introduced when selective information is deleted. You need to stop complaining, and you need to look at your own actions, as well as the actions of the other editors.--NdlovuX 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, The same method is used on other articles about issues in Southern Africa, such as in the articles on Robert Mugabe, Nelson Mandela, etc. --NdlovuX 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, If you look at the comments about Pieter Boshoff, it is very clear that you don't like the critisism that shows his alledged Anti Crime Expo SA motives. There is a list of actions that Pieter Boshoff has taken to earn this anti-Crime Expo SA label. If you do not want to indicate these facts into the article, you are probably trying to hide something. A neutral point-of-view is tolarant towards the facts that other editors put forward. You can make the comments you like, but then you must allow other person's freedom to list facts as available to them. I have listed both sides of the story, but you are deleting all the facts that you don't like.--NdlovuX 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I whish I could have assumed good faith, but unforetuanetely I can't. When proper references are deleted, good faith is destroyed.--NdlovuX 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proper encyclopedic article should be neutral WP:NPOV, and therefore tolerant towards other facts presented. --NdlovuX 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NdlovuX - please re-read Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources. A blog is not a reliable source: "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." (see wp:rs) Further, just because something was said on a blog, that does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article. That is why myself and others repeatedly removed your edit. This is also why I encouraged you to start a blog; on a blog you can cite any source you want, and write anything you want, without any regard for reliability. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, It appears as if the website "Real South Africa" falls perfectly within your descriptions.--NdlovuX 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Guinnog 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this article, you will note that my work was repeatedly detelted, and it made the article bias.--NdlovuX 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the upload page you will see "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.". A look at some of the policy pages might help too, as I and others have said. --Guinnog 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as WP:V. [2] Blogs are not good sources. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Straightforward enough I would have thought. --Guinnog 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirects to South African farm attacks

Hi. The majority of these redirects were deleted by consensus (the discussion is here), and should not be recreated. If you find a redlink in an article using one of the previous redirects, rather just fix it to point to the correct article instead of recreating the redirect. Zunaid 09:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are working together as sockpuppets and do not want to have any references to the reality. You have contributed nothing to this article, you only detele information that is not advertisement for your ANC buddies. This should be an encyclopedia, but you don't want the facts to speak for itself.--NdlovuX 12:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]