User talk:YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:49, 23 April 2007

The YellowMonkey is fixing up his articles......he seems to have somewhat strong opinions about article content and is feeling feisty

Archives

Ngo Dinh Diem

Hello, Binguyen.

I liked a lot of your changes on the Buddhist issue. It makes sense to put the events of May-August, 1963 under the section regarding the coup. However, on the question of Diem's general treatment of Buddhists (under "Rule"), you are presenting one (albeit majority) POV as fact, and excluding the other. The revisionists make a good case, and their views deserved to be aired. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me on my talk page.

I would also point out that although you have added some much-needed citations, they are not presented in a form that can be checked. Specifically, one cannot tell what books by "Tucker," "Gettleman" and "Buttinger" you are attempting to cite. I'm not sure who Tucker and Gettleman are, and Joseph Buttinger wrote at least two books on Vietnam.

--VnTruth 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the general discussion about where NDD was anti-Buddhist, I did not conclude that he was an anti-Buddhist, but simply stated that the majority of scholars felt that he was anti-Buddhist. Hence the word regarded.

“

As a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, he is regarded by a majority of historians as having pursued pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists. Specifically, the government was regarded as being biased towards Catholics in public servant and military promotions, as well as allocation of land, business favours and tax concessions.

”

I then pointed out some instances cited by the scholarly majority in their arguments that he was biased. The other thing to note is the WP:NPOV "Neutral Point of View policy" that requires that the proportion of space given to the evidence of various theories needs to be in proportion with the scholarly consensus of reputable historians. As a result, I trimmed and condensed the Moyar things, because as he notes in his own writing, he is very much in the minority "very few" and is attempting to change academic consensus. In the preface of his book he states

“

The revisionist school,...has published much less, primarily because it has few adherents in the academic world.

”

As such I removed his 27% figure because the Buddhist % is almost universally put at 70-90% in the overwhelming number of sources, rather than have a separate line for a very much miniscule minority estimate, and simply stated that almost all believe that there is a majority, and estimate it in the 70-90 range. Otherwise we would need maybe 20 sentences quoting many many people saying that Buddhists are the majority, to keep things in proportion. I also removed the religious composition of his cabinet, since I found one other mainstream book which has 3/18 cabinet ministers as Buddhist. Although people can interpret things in different ways, it is difficult when one minority group has a large disparity in the statistics that they use. It may not be particularly relevant anyway, since NDD's brothers were not cabinet ministers yet controlled the secret police, services, special forces, etc, and most power lay with the these bodies as well as the army generals. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As regards to the citations, I will fix them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to delete one POV simply because you find a contrary one. I did this earlier in another section of the article and got taken to task for it. Leave both in and let the reader decide.

If you think the vast majority of scholars say the Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of the population, cite them in a long footnote. The citations you included in your last edits don't say that. One is an internet article that states in passing and without citation that Buddhists constituted a majority view, and the other is Dr. Moyar, who says that inexperienced, biased, Saigon-based journalists claimed in 1963 that Buddhists constituted up to 90% of the population, but that their information--which came from Buddhist activists and two men later found to be Communist agents--was wrong. I tried to find a historian who claimed that Buddhists constituted the majority just so I could supply a cite for the "majority view"; however, neither of the two "mainstream" histories of the Vietnam War that I have at home--Karnow's Vietnam and Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie--make that assertion. --VnTruth 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the revisionist school is self described as having "few adherents" that's why it was culled a lot. Your initial version had about 75% revisionist commentary. I have cut things down to size. The facts are supposed to be stated rawly, and then analysis and evaluation of pundits added in proporation to their academic prevalence. I will clean up the majority thing - do you really think that most people think that they were not? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree to mediation? --VnTruth 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. If you only cite the author's last name, how can anybody find the book? --VnTruth 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is not yet warranted. It's a standard that because the book is mentioned in the "further reading", we only need the surname and the year, and it automatically refers to the one in the bibliography. At the moment, there are no books by the same person in the same year, so there is no ambiguity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point on the footnotes. The approach you are using is a good one that saves everyone needless work. However, if you cite three sources after a sentence, you should make them into one footnote, rather than three, as you do with your footnotes 8-10.

Now to the hard part. I take it from your edit summary, that your most recent reason for deleting my edits is your belief that they violate Wikipedia's rule against publicizing fringe opinions. Whether we go to mediation/arbitration would appear to turn on your willingness to accept that the views I'm setting forth are not fringe views. If you can't accept that, then we should let the powers that be at Wikipedia decide.

In my view, none of my edits represent "fringe" views in the sense Wikipedia uses that word. My principal source, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Wikipedia. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. In addition I also cited other historians who also support the assertions I made in the text that you removed. Once the page is unlocked, I intend to add one more source that supports my text regarding the Buddhists, Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, written up in Wikipedia. In fact, my assertions are better supported than yours.

For that matter, the claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population does not appear to constiute the majority view. Your citations consist of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Wikipedia identifying number. As far as I can tell, the more recent historians do not claim that Buddhists constituted the majority. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

I also note that you deleted text and a footnote that I had written under the "Repercussions" heading which seems to me to clearly represent the majority view. There is no question that the military situation deteriorated after Diem fell. Even Karnow, whom I cited in the footnote you deleted, acknowledges it.

Anyway, I rest my case. And ask you once again: Will you stop deleting my changes? If not, I think I'm going to have to appeal to a third party to sort this out. Then we can let the chips fall where they may.

By the way, sorry I mispelled your user name in one of my earlier messages. The four consonants in a row threw me. --VnTruth 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am happy to combine the booknotes into one.

2) The views are very much fringe. Moyar notes so himself, that he is a revisionist. He is attempting to overturn academic historical establishment on what is fact. Many of factual events that he records as having taken place directly contradict the records of the established history, and Moyar is frequently stating in the book that the account of events by the orthodox historians is false and spends much of the book attempting to discredit the historical events they describe. So it is definitely fringe and does not even really pass WP:RS since his version of events contradicts what is accepted. WP:NOT states under the headline Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought point 1 that

“

Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge

”

Moyar's work is as yet not accepted knowledge, since his attempt to debunk "orthodox-fact" has with "revisionism-fact" has not yet changed the consensus of what Diem did. I am not referring to what people evaluate of Diem, but black and white statements about what events happened and what did not.

3) For example, in 1955, Diem recorded 133% of the vote in Saigon. This is incontrovertible, and nothing further needs to be said except that the mathematically impossible results means that the election was rigged. The fact that Moyar wants to ignore the fact that Diem got 133% of the vote says enough about his extremely tendentious nature.

4) The fact that a person has a PhD does not mean that their views are mainstream or non-fringe. Plenty of people who are professors at Harvard and Princeton such as Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer frequently find themselves far on the outer.

5) There is no ISBN on that Gettleman book because it is too old. There are two documents in there which cite the Buddhist majority, including a Halberstam report which won a Pulitzer Prize. The fact that Moyar makes strong polemical attacks, including personal attacks on Halberstam's credibility does not change the fact that Halberstam is regarded as a leading Vietnam scholar and Moyar does not. Moyar notes this himself in his own preface. There is a wide consensus of sources that a majority of RoV was Buddhist.

6) I removed the repercussions, since it is not neccessary under WP:CRYSTAL, and also implies that if Diem were still around , then the military situation would not have deteriorated. This tips the POV balance.

7) I am not offended by the misspelling of my name. Many people do it, including the owner of Wikipedia.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dropping by randomly here. Now, contrary to some at the present, I have not a single POV in relation to all of Asia - at all. I have a pretty simple solution, if you two want to embrace it.~~

Is it possible to note, in the article, that there is a dispute over the numbers between references? It may seem stupid, but it really isn't, and it's an easy way to present what could arguably considered to be "fringe theories" in a NPOV way. See Intelligent design, a featured article which uses this technique all through it. I found the quote "Leave both in and let the reader decide" to be a pretty good indication that VnTruth may accept this - I'd link to think you would - what better way than to note that there is a dispute and present it in a NPOV and all-encompassing way that there is a dispute than to say so in the article? Anyways, that's just my $0.02; oh, and I spell ~~Blngyuen~~ ~~Blgnuyen~~ ~~Blnguyne~~ Blnguyen wrong lots, too :) Just some thoughts to ponder. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the revisionists are in the minority, WP:UNDUE would seem to imply that noting that most estimates are of a majority is sufficient. Clearly those in the minority, by inference, do not. The comparison to Intelligent design does not hold because the article is about ID, and it is telling us about what people think of a different theory and an alternative theory which explains empirically measured observations (in this case whether evolution desribes the history of animal life, or whether ID does). This differs in the case of Ngo Dinh Diem, where a totally different claim of empirical events is happening. If you see Kargil War (an FA) there is no inclusion of the Pakistani statistics which claim that they routed the Indians, since consensus is that the Pakistanis suffered heavy losses. NPOV allows for discussing various theories and analyses which explain observed phenomena, but it is not for minority revisionist historians to change the observed phenomena. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note that the 27% figure comes from a CIA report. Since the CIA were instrumental (Edward Lansdale)) in helping to install Diem to power, they have a vested interest, and their figures are not reliable. Otherwise we would believe North Korean news reports that there is no crime, poverty, unemployment in North Korea. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it a reliable source given this fact. Daniel Bryant 08:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested arbitration on your latest changes. --VnTruth 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about what to do with this article/editor?

Hi Blnguyen. I am at my wits end so thought I'd call on your awesome powers to help me figure out what to do with CharliTa. S/he is disruptively editing Melissa Smith, Chelsea Korka (particularly) and the main Pussycat Dolls page. I feel I am spending way too much time sorting out these articles considering my lack on interest in the subject :P

Anyway the main problem now is that the editor is adding derogatory material on the Chelsea Korka article and reverting every reversion I make. I have tried to explain the policies and point out the policy pages on the talk page, but the reply was simply "what? in english please!". If you look at his methods of formatting on the talk page you'll see why I have a massive headache from this guy.

Any ideas? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh well I've decided to go the 3RR warning/violation route. My interpretation is that I am covered by WP:BLP but he is not. We'll see what happens. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protect. Our "friend" is at it again though. CharliTa has created Asia Nitollano (singer) but apparently did some crazy article moves. The page really needs to be titled "Asia Nitollano" as there is no need to disambiguate but "Asia Nitollano" has already been created so I can't do the move. Would you be able to sort this out? Thanks! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Is there any chance you'd be able to talk to CharliTa? He has now started reverting my fixes to Asia Nitallano by adding things like

"Asia's best friend in the Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll is Brittany Diiorio (Known on her Myspace)."

He is also adding the sprotect template to the article, although the article itself is not protected. I'm not sure whether the BLP exception to 3RR would cover me reverting him so would like your advice. I should probably just leave it to let him settle down but this sort of stuff shouldn't be in a BLP.PageantUpdater User Talk Review me!

Sorry to bother you about this again but there is now another editor (User:Joseph.James00) making exactly the same reversions to Asia Nitollano. I suspect that this account is a sockpuppet of User:CharliTa because both users claim on their userpages to be the creator of the article, and I am being sent "warnings" by CharliTa for violating 3RR (despite trying to explain the WP:BIO exemption). Anything you can do about this? PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 00:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a check-up, but I think that this guy is very likely to be him again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai

Tell, for what reasons you gotta edit Chennai Wiki page? If you mention that "subjective surveys don't go int he lead", then you better edit the Mumbai page, you maharashtrian sweetiepie. I really donna why you guys can't face the truth? Is it hard to swallow the truth? Crooked narrow minded guys can never rise high. -Inferno

Go again using J'accuse. lol ! Funny !!!

Maharashtrian sweetiepie? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave u a chance to accuse me that I was sexually harassing ya ;-) lol. Anyways jokes apart s.bag,..Now tell why were you mis-interpretting the Mercer's Survey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernorulez (talk • contribs)

Heh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace

Hello Bl,
User talk:Blnguyen/Times of India this has been created by Infernorulez (talk · contribs). Have marked it for speedy-deletion. Thought of bringing it into your attention, just in case if you haven't noticed. Feel free to remove the speedy template, if you don't want the page to get deleted. ;-) - KNM ^Talk 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, completed the formalities on user page notices for the DYKs, which you had asked someone to do, as mentioned in the editsummary just before you left yesterday. Hope all went right. - KNM ^Talk 07:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Not sure about Gilly. We're more likely to get ITN for the result and we've got 2 cricket articles close to the top of the queue for TFA. Two things from me to you: 1) Please bring your subcontinental eye (!) to bear on the "Indipper" chat at WT:CRIC and 2) I spotted this: 09:27, 19 April 2007 Deckiller (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Blnguyen/Times of India" (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}Why did u revert changes in Chennai wiki page?') in a log as I passed by. Looks like an admin innocently speedied a page maliciously tagged. --Dweller 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a newbie edited the talk page and misplaced something. That's all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnvi Kapoor

Well, it's breaking news on every channel in India right now. I've been watching it. Internet will pick up by the end of the day. It's only morning in India right now. - shez_15

And don't think it's notable either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK x 2

On 20 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1964 South Vietnamese coup, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 20 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Gleeson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Oops

You gave me a DYK ding for Governors Court, which I would appreciate, except that I had nothing to do with that article. (I did receive one for Cody Webb, which did appear on the front page, but then revoked). But thank you anyway, I'll remove it from my talk page :) SirFozzie 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

On 21 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 21 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashley Mallett, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Bnguyen to "Blnguyen"

I am a Vietnamese-American living in the United States and I have immigrated to the United States and able to achieve the American dream here as my fellow Vietnamese were able who live in the United States because if we were in Vietnam we would not have the opporunitiy to have the life we have in the United States.

My name is Brandon Nguyen and I have been a member here on wikipedia for over two years and have been an good contributer to wikipedia.

1. How and why do are you using a similar name as me? My last name is Nguyen, and my first name is Brandon but you add a letter "L" between it.

2. Why are you making accussations that Vietnamese-Americans that are contributing to American society is spam?

These Vietnamese-Americans are trying to contribute to American society and enjoy the opporunities that are in this country of the United States eventhough there is racism here at times, but we overcome it. As you know from what happened at Virginia Tech some people are not strong enough to deal with it and overcome it that they become mentally ill.

I ask you to be patient and allow these Californian local politicians to be noted in their contributions to American society and are notable for their accomplishments for all immigrants of the United States and minorities. Bnguyen 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing from my real name, and as such, that is how my name is derived. I was referring to the articles as spam, because they are written a way which violates WP:NPOV and had phrases which were not encyclopedic like Tri is a dedicated husband and father. He met his wife, Anh Doan by what he calls "an act of destiny," and together they have journeyed through many challenging paths. In 2002, they were blessed with a beautiful daughter, Trianh, who remains their most precious gift of life, and other unsourced stuff about his personal character, which reads like an election pamphlet. I'd have to say that WP:BIO says that local city council people are not notable, and it is pretty clear on this, let alone a person in a council of 88k. I'm not sure you can justify Cho's actions by saying that it was because he was teased,.. many people get teased for a variety of reasons, not just racial and also he went to a Korean church. In addition, I'd have to say that I don't think that cutting these articles count as racism or racially motivated, since they clearly do not meet WP:BIO. I would wonder why people would rather write about these non notable things, when so many of the articles on Vietnamese history do not even exist. Lastly I would have to remind you to not add "Vietnamese Americans" to those articles, since the articles are already in the subcategory "Vietnamese American politicians" and are thus in the parent cat. Also, I removed your cats from Nguyen Khanh, as I cannot see how the Government of Free Vietnam counts for anything, nor can he be counted as "non-violence", since he is a general, and for one thing, ordered the execution of Nguyen Van Nhung. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One week under our belt

Dear YellowMonkey,

Thank you for being a member of WikiProject Swimming. For all of you that have helped in our first week, thank you so much. This has been a very hard week for us in the States, with the Virginia Tech event. This project has been a way for me to remove my mind from the terrible event. Thank you for helping out, and improving the project. Please keep the motivation going in the next few weeks, and try to recruit as many swimmers, divers, water dancers and polo players as you can. Be proud of your sport!

See you around the pool,

wpktsfs

DYK

On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neil Brooks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe FAR

Ian Thorpe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dears....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

More than just a little late, I know, but I wanted to get these all out there, eventually. Glad to see you're still active. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you still going as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Was nice meeting you today. Hopefully we can do more of these! Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still disappointed about the lack of a monkey suit at the table, but oh well... nice meeting you, Blnguyen. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I really should have found a way to get the monkey out of the house and park it next to Jimbo's breakfast. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

You do realize they have to get reverted out or nuked, right? If they're simply edited, they become derivative works and are still copyvios. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Thanks for taking it! :) I can't help but grin when I look at it, absolute gold. michael ^talk 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I really should have found a way to get the monkey out of the house and park it next to Jimbo's breakfast. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time perhaps? I'd be glad to do the honour of taking it. michael ^talk 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albertbrown80

Blnguyen, User:Albertbrown80 is quite transparently the latest incarnation of User:Funnypop12, created to evade his last block and warning/block history, and like Funnypop12 is a single-purpose account.Proabivouac 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

—Moondyne 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African criminals and Nelson Mandela

you removed the category yet the man had several criminal convictions and served a lengthy jail sentence. It's all in the article. Proudlyhumble07 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 304: / Line 304: @@
 ==Email==
 &mdash;[[User talk:Moondyne|''Moondyne'']] 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
+== Category:South African criminals and [[Nelson Mandela]] ==
+you removed the category yet the man had several criminal convictions and served a lengthy jail sentence. It's all in the article. [[User:Proudlyhumble07|Proudlyhumble07]] 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)