User talk:Greenman/Archive2020-05-24

Hi Ian, I went through the list of entries you've contributed and I have an interest in similar topics. One of your entries on Lillian Ngoyi and the like. Trying to focus on SA women in history however information and pictures often difficult to find...any suggestions on ways to get good quality info up? Thobeka-77 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

South African Potato Boycott. Just the kind of content Wikipedia needs more of. Information and particularly pictures are difficult to find. In my case, it's mostly been media (obituaries are often a good source), books I already have, or other online sources (http://www.sahistory.org.za/ is a good one, especially http://www.sahistory.org.za/people for people). You're at Stellenbosch University I see, so have access to a good library at least. Pictures are much harder - quite often what there is is locked under copyright, so mostly I don't find anything. Pictures become unrestricted only after 50 years after publication, (see Copyright law of South Africa) which is why it's so important that new content is created under a usable licence. Your first article was excellent and well-referenced, and so it managed to survive. Most people's first articles quickly get nominated for deletion, so you've passed the hardest test! But English Wikipedia can be quite bureaucratic, so if you run into any problems just ping me and hopefully I'll be able to help. Greenman (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Greenman, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I agree with you that submissions hereto must be nuatral its for that very reason that I edited the current page to give both sides of the coin is that not a common principle ? to hear both sides?[reply]

This is what will make the current one sided article , nuataral when both sides is presented and not just one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current version only gives the critism but not the answer to that are the reader not entitled to hers both sides and then dedice instead of only been given a one sided version?

I did not delete the negative date I simply put the Cape Parties ansswer to it is this not the correct manner to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.90.215 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved to the discussion to

Talk:Cape Party, as it's about the article and others interested could also join in. I will reply there. Greenman (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for editing out the old info. I've updated it with up to date info. Sorry if you get a message saying its been undone, that's not quite true. I simply wanted to use the correct coding for the infobox. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenny Solomon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grandmaster. 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) 08:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that in Aug 2014 you reverted the 'Boer Wars' article (edit 621049883, reverting to 553305341) to a much older version. This removed an entire section on the Boer Wars in fiction, and removed several links and other minor edits that seemed valuable. Before I undo the reversion (or re-edit, since that page has since been moved/DABed), I wanted to check with you what you think/thought is best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurattwell (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurattwell, feel free to undo it. Looking at the edit history, I was in the midst of undoing a spate of vandalism, and probably just quickly looked at the top of the diff and assumed content had been removed. I see though that it was a substantial reworking and content was added further down. Greenman (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman, thanks. The earlier article has been restructured, so I've added the 'In fiction' section back to South African Wars (1879–1915).Arthurattwell (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Goniwe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cradock. 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) 09:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Knox Bokwe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xhosa. 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) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lina Spies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch. 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) 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tim Couzens, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.randomstruik.co.za/about-the-author.php?authorID=4878.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

Hi Ian, it sounds like we missed each other. The waiters landed up giving me a table for 5 at the very back of the cafe' at 10:30am when I arrived. I did have some notices up advertising our table but should have put a note up on the Cape Town 9 Wikipedia page as well. Sorry we missed each other. Either way I owe you some tea.--Discott (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just setup Cape Town 10 in early October so we can make up for missing each other today.--Discott (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at 11 and saw User:Greenman immediately - I confess I didn't look any further. We enjoyed our chat. Wizzy…☎ 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redi Tlhabi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ETV. 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) 11:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greenman, I've setup some style guide subpages on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tuks Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hatfield. 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) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ShowMax

added links pointing to English, Spanish, Zulu and Xhosa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of content management systems may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Netflix may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In [[South Africa]], Netflix competes with [[ShowMax], OntapTV, VU, and Vidi.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

Hey Greenman, the quotes in "Effects on weather" section are the last 2 paragraphs of the section; the quotes are not evident since there has been a bit of back and forth between me and Prokaryotes on this page, i had put a quote template in which was removed. Please see the talk page: Talk:Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation#Copying_text_from_other_sources. cheers David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 00:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of

Tsonga Wikipedia

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsonga Wikipedia 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Graham (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Comparison of relational database management systems page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Proposed deletion of Venda Wikipedia

The article

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Graham (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you voted keep on [1]. I added a comment on the discussion which I think would be of interest to you. If you could, please change your vote. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of National Assembly members of the 26th Parliament of South Africa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Alliance and Congress of the People. 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) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zonnebloem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District 6. 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) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Personally I prefer the separate pages, it would make the main articles very long to combine. But add a note on one of the talk pages and we can discuss there with others. Greenman (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an IP address user but here is a suggestion. Think about the person who is going to read this and what is expedient to the user. Maybe you think the Brits are cool kids? The cool kids get it wrong. Instead rather ask: is doing this violating Principle of least astonishment? Maybe factoring something into its own page is is not necessary if its small enough, and you instead keep everything together and save me having click another link? 197.87.172.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says I blatantly trolled African National Congress which you quickly took care of. Well done.

Motivated by guilt I decided to try add something useful. My revision (which you undid) contained several spelling and broken references to other pages but was meant to actually improve the article. lel.

Please see the revision provided by linked below and the the summaries and suggestions I have compiled on the history of the ANC. The sources I use are from Wiki articles that you can follow in the links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_National_Congress&oldid=731344476 (maybe a tool flagged as trolling/vandalism by one of your tools?)

edit: alternatively, if you don't to read the wall of text below please delegate the stuff below to persons of historical facility. after this is done I was thinking of writing tooling for WikiProject South Africa and want to hear your specific needs. here is a REST API we can use: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page

197.87.172.12 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding the suggestions below to the ANC talk page, and there others interested/knowledgeable can also comment. Alternatively, if you make incremental improvements without breaking links etc, they may end up staying ;) As for tools, nothing comes to mind, as the existing functionality works well for me, but if there's something you want to suggest, feel free. There's also a local Wikimedia ZA mailing list (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaza), so perhaps someone there has ideas. Greenman (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, the suggestions below were copied over. Thanks, but a mailing list is far great big a commitment! ;) For now, I will be lurking around, and help out from time to time. Cheers 197.87.172.12 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of the ANC as it is currently written implies that it was radical from the very beginning with this (strongly worded) sentence: "The founding of the SANNC was in direct response to injustice against black South Africans at the hands of the government then in power."

In fact, the South Africa Act 1909 meant that blacks, coloreds in the Cape Colony we in principle were allowed to vote subject to the Cape Qualified Franchise. The requirements were based on education and wealth, and excluded all women (including whites). In reality, the number of blacks and coloreds who owned land and sufficiently educated to be represent politically was not very.

It is also important to understand that there were to parties prior to 1948 that had once been part of a coalition. The more liberal United Party and the anti-British conservative Afrikaner nationalists that had fought the British in the Second Boer War. When South Africa allied with Britain during the Second World War it was an outrage to Afrikaners that they should fight for a people that had brutalized them (the British was among the first to use concentration camps) and their families.

After the Second World War, appealed the concerns of whites as Blacks began express a their political will. In the early 1930's Blacks were denied all representation but the UP hoped that in time Blacks would gradually assimilate into urban centers and be "civil" enough to be given equal representation. The 1948 election was decided in favour of Afrikaners were another matter entirely. Their ideology was incompatible with this idea and realizing a national identity had been a long cherished idea that they had fought two wars against the British for.

After 1948 election is when Apartheid really began through a wholesale racial segregation of society to preserve Afrikaner identity. After Mandela was elected head of the ANC national assembly it became an active force in politics. Importantly it was committed to adhering to a principle of non-violence importantly was multi-racial and inclusive to other races as opposed to being African-centric.

Much can be said about the ANC's history after 1960 called the Year of Africa which was anticipated: "The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact". Sharpeville incited the to ANC become militant, and through Mandela's Marxist-Leninist thinking was inspired by other revolutionary governments like Fidel Castro's July 26th Movement, and its direct involvement in wars fought in Angola and Mozambique as well its involvement with the Soviet Union. As mentioned, Mandela's law background was very important in the early 1950's prior to his trial and subsequent imprisonment for treason. The international attention and support that this lent to the ANC by United Nations, universities and sympathetic governments should also be developed.The complicated relationship between Western government support for Apartheid as opposed the ANC's communist background (see also: Freedom Charter) has been studied by academics which I initially added in my edits.

The negotiations through CODESA and that led to the interim government and election in 1994 must also be added.

197.87.172.12 (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ANC article's criticism is tagged warning "slanted towards recent events". This is just one of many indicators of a problem with South Africa articles in general. It is critical that we fix inaccuracies such as these and expand history sections to remedy the ignorance of history in this country. The damage is not merely epistemological but can potentially misguide people's beliefs leading to things like this Rhodes Must Fall. This happened because of an ignorance of history.

197.87.172.12 (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venda Wikipedia 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. J947^(c) 04:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing my edit to the following page: Wiki page? There are other / newer coins at a lower volume, lesser ranked that you aren't removing? leopheard (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF as well. Greenman (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Greenman you're right - so why does this page have many other old, dead, less notable cryptocoins on there still? leopheard (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--76.210.190.130 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls update icc odi championship rankings by this table: https://www.icc-cricket.com/rankings/mens/team-rankings/odi Yes this is he, Aadi! 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadi247 (talk • contribs)

Hello Greenman. A reminder about Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap. Your contribution is appreciated. Ear-phone (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.

Let's put this article on the air.

https://exame.abril.com.br/blog/instituto-millenium/no-mercado-de-acoes-o-maior-erro-e-querer-dinheiro-pra-amanha/

https://financenews.com.br/2017/09/em-2018-teremos-uma-entrada-grande-de-chineses-e-americanos-no-brasil/

http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/

http://www.folhadelondrina.com.br/economia/otimismo-chega-ao-mercado-de-fusoes-e-aquisicoes-993518.html

http://www.matogrossoeconomico.com.br/noticias/milionario-brasileiro-vai-investir-r-10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio/16519

http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html

http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841

http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278

http://www.infomoney.com.br/blogs/investimentos/alem-do-dinheiro/post/7099448/empreender-sonho-possivel

http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/

https://www.jornalempresariall.com.br/noticias/gerais/milionario-paranaense-vai-investir-r10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio

https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "
  confirmed
  " permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
• The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
• Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 04:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greenman, I don't wish to get involved in an edit war over the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. I produced a TV series, Death of Apartheid, which was written by Allister Sparks. I think the CODESA negotiations followed from De Klerk's decision to release Mandela and unban the ANC and SACP. The CODESA negotiations did not follow from the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. The cited info, Shaking Hands With Billy [2] does not look like a history book which is comparable with Tomorrow Is Another Country, the book Allister Sparks wrote while I was collaborating with him. Mick gold (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mick gold - I have copied onto the Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale page for discussion by other interested editors. Greenman (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wrote a blog article on it back in 2006 I thought you might want to check out the recently created Wikipedia article on the 20Twenty (bank).--Discott (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice article! Greenman (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Cape provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Cape provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free State provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KwaZulu-Natal provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Limpopo provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mpumalanga provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Cape provincial election, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Greenman! How are you? I have significantly edited Alan Winde's and Dan Plato's Wikipedia articles over the span of a few months. Can you maybe double-check for grammatical and concord errors? Would help me a ton! Lefcentreright (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lefcentreright will do! Greenman (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lefcentreright Articles look good! I've had a quick look, made a few minor grammar changes, but they look well-written - sure I've missed a few things that could be picked up in a more detailed reading. As a suggestion for further improvement, both articles could be further synthesised, as they currently read a bit much like a list of (sometimes trivial) events, rather than a detailed article of important achievements, viewpoints, and criticism. Also, they could both do with more links to other articles. Greenman (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman Thanks! I appreciate it a lot. It is always nice to have a second pair of eyes now and then. In regard to the election that is quite fast approaching, do you think that now is the time to create those elections results templates? The reason why I ask, is that when the results are going to come in, it is going to be hectic to make all those templates and update all the politicians Wikipedia articles. Have a great weekend! Lefcentreright (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lefcentreright Note that for the 2004 election, all templates were deleted, and replaced by text in the main article. Election results are not really a good use of templates, as generally they only appear in one place. I don't like the 2014 election article as it stands, as it contains all sorts of fluff, but the actual provincial election results aren't listed on the page. But no harm in starting with the content already, perhaps in userspace. Greenman (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman What we should really do is make individual articles for each of the provincial elections. For instance, instead of just creating an election result table for the Limpopo provincial election, we should create an article named "2019 Limpopo provincial election" as a manner of giving background about the specific issues facing that province, such as the high unemployment/VBS Bank etc etc. I have already created the article "2019 Western Cape provincial election." Lefcentreright (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of listing on the main page, not creating a single article for provincial results, or completely separate pages for each provincial result. But let's discuss on the main election page. Greenman (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi green Man I want to know if it's best to edit on a phone Electro gmr (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEVICES. Greenman (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Greenman - How are you? The 2019 South African general election article is looking quite nice now that all the results templates are given. On election night, when the results start coming in, what do we do? I imagine that there would be multiple edit conflicts. Do we need to add a protection template to the article, so that we can curb vandalism created by all those unregistered users?

Lefcentreright, editing small chunks (by heading, rather than the whole article) can avoid edit conflicts, otherwise simply communicating with the other editors at the time should help and agreeing who is to work on what. But you may be surprised by the lack of edit conflicts - there's only really a few of us actively working on election topics, so it may be easier than you think. It's also usually hard to convince an administrator to protect an article unless there's active vandalism. After all, Wikipedia was built to a large degree on mostly anonymous, constructive edits, so no need to block until there's cause. If there proves to be vandalism, the article can be protected quickly.

Now, let's get to the real reason, why I am here! Can you maybe double-check for grammatical and concord errors in the articles of Sisi Ntombela, Andrew Louw, Joe McGluwa, Xolani Sotashe, Ivan Meyer, Bernard Joseph (politician), Zwakele Mncwango, Pieter Groenewald, Cameron Dugmore, Debbie Schäfer and Désirée van der Walt? I'm a bit doubtful about the quality. Have a great Workers Day! Lefcentreright (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not going to get to these for a while! I have limited time on Wikipedia, and other things I want to focus on, but if not me, I'm sure others will help in time as well.

By the way, can you help with the question on Template talk:Western Cape provincial election, 2019? Greenman (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the templates in Category:Latest stable software release templates? It is my understanding that templates containing data about latest software releases is typically stored in templates using that naming pattern and that category. Let me know if you need help moving your recently created templates and adding categories to them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95, the reason I don't use those is that they contain the date and version together, which breaks sorting on most of the tables where they would otherwise come in useful. See for example List of content management systems, which has a date column and a version column. There are relatively few comparison tables that combine the values, and those should ideally be changed. Greenman (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about what is in the content of the templates; it just seems to be that your templates are in the same family as those and therefore should use the same naming scheme and be in the same category. Otherwise, we risk duplication of work. At a bare minimum, the templates you are creating should be placed in a related category. They should not remain uncategorized. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, adding categories is no problem, and happy to hear suggestions for naming. What do you you suggest, considering "Latest stable software release/xxx" is taken? Or are you saying these should actually replace those templates? That would have been my ideal, but those style templates are used by thousands of other sub-templates, so seemed messy to start to tinker with them, and have some behave differently to others. Greenman (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to see what you mean. It looks like you are reinventing the wheel, but better this time, the way it maybe should have been invented in the first place. I don't have any brilliant ideas for you, except that maybe you could figure out how to enhance {{LSR}} so that you don't have to do all this inventing. See Template talk:LSR for discussions about making that template, which is the root of all of those Latest stable software release templates, do what you seem to want to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman,

Thanks for creating 2018–19 SAFA Second Division! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my tag that ‘debutant’ needed an explanation. You justified it as debutant was a common word and therefore didn’t need a definition. But in the context of this sports usage it does. I seriously doubt anyone who isn’t a cricket follower would have any idea what it means. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t. Wikipedia is intended for the general public and therefore an explanation is completely justified. However, I’m not going to fight you on this, I’m too old. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BashBrannigan the main reason for the revert was that the edit broke the formatting of the heading. Teams and players make their debuts in every sport that I'm aware of, so I can't see that it's unique to cricket, although 'debut' is a more common form than 'debutant'. But feel free to restore the request for clarification; just take care to preview and see that nothing is broken first. Greenman (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarification. BashBrannigan (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since much of its content is user-edited, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating

I found this ref if it is useful to you. Pretty sure he is notable, so no issues there, just needs more written up.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

—

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks, article had only just been created so was still working on it :) I've included the ref you provided. Greenman (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

click me!) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that you started some chess biographies. Please, add them to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles, thanks. Sophia91 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Sophia91, will add new article to that list. Greenman (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Graham Michael Lesch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub. Not improved for 11 years. COPYVIO (see talk), and fails

WP:BIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

The article Willie Marais has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced (EL are dead links). No proof that this party leader has been an elected member of a national or major regional assembly. Fails

WP:POLITICIAN

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Al Lovejoy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP. Non notable author of a single book. Fails

WP:CREATIVE

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Karen Press has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP. Insufficient sources available to assert notability. Fails

WP:BIO

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tony Eprile has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP lacking secondary independent, in-depth reliable sources. The only source provided is an interview with the subject. Fails

WP:BIO

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Greenman. How are you? Sorry that your RfA is turning into such a blood bath. I really thought it would succeed since you are a respected and trustworthy editor. It just completely backfired on both of us. I believe the best thing to do now is to ask for it to be withdrawn. I am also seeing on your talk page that a few of your articles have been nominated for deletion. I firmly intend on improving the articles, so that they can be kept. Sorry once again. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 13:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Greenman, I don't agree with Lefcentreright that your RFA is a bloodbath. It's not; it's more of a critique. But I do want to thank you for offering to 'step up to the plate'. In my view you clearly have admin potential, and I sincerely hope this won't put you or even your fellow editors off pursuing an administrator role in the future. You will see that I have just opposed your RfA, but that doesn't mean I seek blood, nor that I feel you're somehow unworthy of becoming an admin. It's simply a case of 'not quite yet', and I guess that's how the community currently feels. But it's not personal.

Yes, Lefcentreright is probably correct in advising a withdrawal right now, but I really don't want you to feel this is the end. In fact, it's the beginning. From hereon in, start thinking about how you might gain that understanding of the nuances of making admin decisions, and dive in to a few of the contentious areas. Perhaps keep a watch on

WP:ORFA

18 months ago that was fairly supportive, yet I still feel I don't fully understand all the intricacies of Wikipedia and its administrative actions. But I could ask, 'who does?'

Whatever you decide to do - please don't take any of what has happened as a rejection of your abilities. It's not. You are clearly valued here, and pretty soon you could be in a position to go for it again, should you want to. When you feel that time is right, I'd suggest perhaps contacting one of the admins who are keen to make RfA nominations and ask them what they think. Those who oppose you today are often the best ones to approach for support tomorrow! All the very best, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Prodded, another article speedily deleted based on a supposed copyvio (which was actually a 2018 copy of Wikipedia). The actual article (which I can't see any more, since it's been deleted), was, if I recall, contributed by Chimurenga Magazine as an ongoing project to preserve African archives. We did quite a few weeks of offline work, they changed the licence to GFDL on their site so that Wikipedia could use the content, but since then the site has gone offline, and many of the articles deleted in a similar manner. Greenman (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Greenman. I came here to discuss with you withdrawing your RfA, but see that others have spoken before me. As with Nick Moyles, I'm not seeing this RfA as a blood bath. Concerns are being raised in a mostly respectful manner, and the general feeling appears to be "not yet" rather than "not ever". It is not uncommon for admins to not be successful at their first RfA - I wasn't, and many others I know weren't. Among the things the community wants to see from prospective candidates is that they can judge consensus, know when to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, reduce conflict and heat rather than keep the fires burning, and put the community above their own interests. It's up to you what you do, but the longer you wait before withdrawing this RfA, the more likely you are to generate bad feelings which can linger, and that is not something people want to see in an admin. The community is gaining nothing from this RfA right now, and you are starting to display antagonism towards the community in your comments above, which may sour your future enjoyment of working on this project by storing up resentments. While going back eleven years to find a problematic edit may be a record in a RfA for the oldest edit to cite as an oppose, the evidence is that the text in the article is word for word what appeared on the Afribeat website. There is no GFDL license shown on the site front page nor on the page containing the writing during or after the period you created the article. And the site is currently copyrighted. As such, removing the copyvio was the appropriate thing to do. I understand your resentment that such an old matter was brought up, and it certainly appears that you attempted to do the right thing by getting permission to use the text, but unfortunately we don't have a record of the author giving Wikipedia the appropriate licence to use their text. My recommendation is that under your acceptance of the nomination on the RfA, you write something in your own words that you thank everyone for their comments both supportive and critical and you are withdrawing your nomination and will concentrate on the issues that people have brought up. That will earn you a lot of respect. Now, two of the people who opposed you, and were involved in finding and deleting the Graham Michael Lesch article, are two of the folks most interested in helping users become admins. When you feel you are ready to try again, I suggest you reach out to Ritchie333 and Kudpung as experienced and knowledgeable and helpful Wikipedians who will give you good, honest advice, and if they genuinely feel you are ready will likely nominate you themselves, with a very good chance that you will then get the mop. Good luck in the future. SilkTork (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork has put it better than I could. As you can see from the RfA, I have criticised the PROD on Karen Press as inappropriate and broadly agree with your view that sometimes articles are deleted incorrectly and need review. (See User:Ritchie333/saves for some examples) Unfortunately, the text when you make any edit says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and there's no easy way of working around that; as you can see from the recent discussions and RfA on Fram, while there was disagreement about their conduct, there was a general agreement that they were correct on the merits of copyright violations. I don't think "entertaining" is the right word to use, but as long as you can take this as constructive criticism (you could have fixed the copyvio or licensing any time in the last 11 years, but didn't) I don't see why we can't take this as a learning exercise. As you can see from RfAs such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2, I am amenable to running candidates who failed on their first go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before withdrawing, you should consider the case of RexxS. They were persuaded to withdraw but then had second thoughts and, despite a low percentage, was able to return and be accepted. Your percentage is significantly lower but the overall number of !votes is still low and so it wouldn't take many to shift the result. There are presumably many observers, like myself, who are undecided and who may yet come off the fence. Myself, I quite like a candidate who sticks it out, seeing this as fortitude rather than stubbornness, but there is a point at which it becomes quixotic. Anyway, please note that I have added a supplementary question, 13b. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a neutral voter ATM however I am leaning support. I find the complaints about COI unconvincing and I see no objectionable or promotional edits. I also see that you disclosed. Chin up! Wm335td (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage you to engage on the RfA page and not give up. The turnout is low, minds can be changed, and even if it's not successful in the end, a lot of our best admins got the bit on their second RfAs. – Levivich 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a question on your RFA page. I believe it is an important one for clarity, of course. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman - There's no real reason that you should listen to me on this but.... don't withdraw your RFA. There's a decent chance this will make it to a 'crat chat and I hope at that stage the extremely minor nature of at least some of the reasons for opposing your nomination will be apparent and they will find a consensus within Wiki policy for your adminship. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not withdraw. Those friendly editors advice to withdraw now for the community is bull. I do not know whether you have the inside friends RexxS had for a Crats decision but let the process play out. You are close and Good luck. Eschoryii (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Graham Michael Lesch, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
  for more information.
• It appears to be an unambiguous
  section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material 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 or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

articles around South Africa as seeds

Thank you for the semination of articles such as Women Forward and Stuttgart Peace Prize, some of which blossomed to quality by collaboration, like Patricia de Lille, Stephen Watson (poet) and Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven), for encouraging and helping new editors, "most people's first articles quickly get nominated for deletion, so you've passed the hardest", - Ian, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Thank you Gerda Arendt! Greenman (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I have been inspired by your username to create a couple of articles about green men. See User talk:Philafrenzy#Green Men Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a heads up that I have closed your RfA at (104/66/9). Thank you for taking the time to put yourself forward. --

Just wanted to let you know there is some concern being expressed at my talkpage over the closure. You have every right to be aware and involved with it. See

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for making yourself available. Hope to see another Rfa next year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The South African Barnstar of National Merit
	I would like to grant you this prestigious award for all of your hard work and effort to improve South African Wikipedia. Your work does not go unnoticed. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	this WikiAward was given to Greenman by LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) on 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the RfA has now unfortunately been closed as unsuccessful. I am personally disappointed that it did not succeed. I really expected it to pass, because as I put it the nomination: "Greenman is also a friendly editor and regularly participates in community discussions regarding South Africa and many more topics. He has obtained a trustworthy reputation among numerous editors and will go out of his way to help you in any situation. He has shown consistent reliability." Regrettably, this was not enough. A misinterpreted and "taken out of context" COI claim sank this RfA. Many editors tried their best to attempt to change the course, but it woefully did not work.

Now for the statistics. A total of 104 editors (61%) voted for you to become an admin. It was nice to see most of the South African editors backing a colleague. Yes, the editors you do not normally see went out of their way to vote for you. Other senior Wikipedians also supported your bid.

On behalf of the entire South African Wikipedian community, I would just like thank you for the time you took to avail yourself for this RfA. We appreciate your commitment to bettering the project. In my personal capacity, I believe this RfA was an indirect promotion of our cause. I hope that you would continue contributing to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia ZA board. Have a good evening. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination Lefcentreright - I was both amused and bemused by the process. The sad thing is that some editors used the opportunity to attempt to delete more African content, but they did provide perfect examples of the kind of stuff that goes on. And on the whole, many of the articles I started or am involved in were improved by more eyes, so overall it was a net positive. Greenman (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an opposer at this present time, may I just pop by and also add my thanks to you for standing in this RfA? Please don't be downhearted, and please do consider some of the positively critical and helpful feedback this process has given you. If, as I hope you do, you still want to become an admin, I am sure you'll be successful next time around. Treat this as an

WP:ORFA and work through addressing some of those concerns, and perhaps give it a further 12 months or so to ensure you get a good number of sound admin-like actions, and then by all means give it another go. For what it's worth, I think the COI issue was a bit of a red-herring and not something that concerned me at all. So, all the very best for the future, and keep on supporting your fellow local editors, and Wikipedia as a whole, as you have clearly been doing. Best wishes from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

+1 to Nick above. Hope to see you around AfD more soon and at another RFA in a year or so! – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Nick as well. Though I opposed at this time, I wanted to thank you for standing. You are a good candidate and I appreciate you drawing attention to African articles. I encourage you to run again in the future as I'm sure it will go better, and if there's anything you'd like me to review before you throw your name in again, I'd be happy to help. Hope to see you at AfD helping to find sources for regional articles. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks filelakeshoe Nick Moyes SportingFlyer - hope to see you all still around in 13 years if I'm nominated again :) Greenman (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit of a rollercoaster of an RFA, I hope you aren't too disappointed about it. If it is any consolation, my first RFA ended with about the same percentage. The second, just a few months later, was a much more congenial affair. Hope to see you back at RFA next year, but if I might make a suggestion, if you go to preferences, under editing there is an option to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" opt in to that and a future RFA will be just a little easier. ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion User:WereSpielChequers - I actually enjoyed the process, seeing how everything went pear-shaped. When I mentioned this elsewhere, some thought I was being sarcastic or bitter, but some of the comments were genuinely amusing and got me to LoL. Greenman (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it turned out this way; RfA is a public hazing like no other. I don't regret supporting you, and look forward to doing so again. Rest up, have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second both these. Hope you will wait a while & return. Many of the opposers will have given up editing by, I expect... Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the outcome, Greenman. I know RfA is a PITA, but if you're up for another one in a while, I think it might swing the other way. --valereee (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod Mini valereee - hope to be back in 2032 with another 13 years of fuel for the hazing :) Greenman (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed if my Q22 made things worse instead of better. I am relatively new around here, and it took me a while to realize what I should be doing and saying. It is quite disappointing that experienced editors could oppose due to CoI, when none of your edits in that subspace has been reverted or otherwise questioned.

A little irony -- I'm not looking for any of the chess editors to become admins, because then they would have less time and space for editing chess. But if you want to be an admin, I wish you better luck next time. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bruce leverett, back to creating more chess biographies to be picked apart next time :) Greenman (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for stepping up at RfA. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ad Orientem! Greenman (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I trust that you are well. I need your advice please. I am currently translating the above into Afrikaans, yes I am mad...

From the English article I quote the following from the heading Usage: Compared to turbofans, turboprops are most efficient at flight speeds below 725 km/h (450 mph; 390 knots) because the jet velocity of the propeller (and exhaust) is relatively low. Modern turboprop airliners operate at nearly the same speed as small regional jet airliners but burn two-thirds of the fuel per passenger.[32] However, compared to a turbojet (which can fly at high altitude for enhanced speed and fuel efficiency) a propeller aircraft has a lower ceiling.

The most common application of turboprop engines in civilian aviation is in small commuter aircraft, where their greater power and reliability offsets their higher initial cost and fuel consumption.

From the 1st para they state that a turboprop burns about 2/3rds fuel compared to a proper jet engine meaning that the turboprop is more fuel efficient. In the 2nd para they state that the turboprops advantages of power and reliability is ofsetted against costs and fuel consumption. This last fuel consumption contradicts what they state in the first para, the way I understood it. I am just stupid... Your view please? Regards. Oesjaar (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oesjaar, from my reading, they are comparing different things. It seems Turboprops are more efficient than small regional jet airliners at low altitudes, but because they can't fly as high they lose on efficiency overall. Unfortunately the original source isn't available, and it's awkwardly worded on the English article, so maybe ask for clarification there. Greenman (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Any change you could raise it, just think you will be more effective than me on the English Wiki. Regards. Oesjaar (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Greenman, Could you please tell me, why can I not mark a link, that doesn't link anywhere, as wrong? What kind of discussion do you expect? I didn't even delete it. 77.241.133.37 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my experience. I didn't even dare to remove obviously wrong things like a dead link or a link that doesn't contain the claimed information. I only marked them as such and subdivided the text into subsections.

Immediately an editor came and deleted my edits without even saying "hello". During my futile attempts to restore my (completely insignificant by the way) edits I was immediately accused of violating some AB:CD rules and in no time an apparent superior came and just flushed all my good faith edits.

Is that your Wikipedia?

Funny enough, the editor than corrected the dead link. So I was right after all. 77.241.138.237 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greenman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Quadtripplea (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for all the updates, Greenman Wizzy…☎ 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. at [3], per

The correct source should be https://sacoronavirus.co.za but this keeps getting changed and replaced by other impermanent sources. The right way is to source the official stats and leave this as the ref, not use articles that keep changing. Greenman (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greenman,

I noticed that you made an edit to

Specific rules can be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights

More information is available at the CopyPatrol page

Ancophosep (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa article. Greenman (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry about that. I should have doubled checked before posting here. The paragraph has been removed from

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa as well. Ancophosep (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your contribution for the article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Tunisia, i just noticed that the ProveIt script is overwriting the already existing reference which is recited multiple times in multiple sections. The Ref (<ref name="Covid-19">) source is the official governmental website for the covid-19 full coverage and managed by the Ministry which is the primary source and has more efficient and detailed live informations. Otherwise is it possible to keep the scprit and for the ref template only change the |accessdate parameter ? or maybe keep adding a new reference without overrwriting the existing one ?

I know that the script is mainly to cite references but i never tried it.

Kind regards -- Metalmed ^Talk.. 07:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Metalmed. Apologies, this was my mistake - I looked for references to the old ref, but "Covid-19", unrelated to the reference, was everywhere in the page, so I missed it. Greenman (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for dear Greenman, your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you -- Metalmed ^Talk.. 05:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for all the updates and keeping the Africans countries updated. You've been slaving away hard. I have a little request, can you put the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa on your watch list, because an anon from Peru keeps on removing Réunion and Mayotte and he has a dynamic and hides his removals with seemingly good updates in order to have a + count in the history. KittenKlub (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KittenKlub, will try keep an eye on this, but its probably better to ask for page protection. And apologies for accidentally deleting half the page! Another good reason to keep an eye on the history... Greenman (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just one person and there's an anon adding charts, so page protection is bit harsh right now. Actually I never noticed that half the page was missing this morning. Nobody did... KittenKlub (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see that you were working a lot on this page Do you believe I can add: External links (en) Africa CDC Dashboard (en) CoViD19-ΛFЯICΛ Dashboard, maps and opendata (per countries, regions and places) See Wikipedia FR/DE versions I believe it would be fair but as I am not an expert I don't want to do a mess ... Kind regards Nathalie --Loeffler86 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loeffler86 by all means, go ahead. Greenman (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]