User talk:Untrammeled

October 2018

Hello, I'm NinjaRobotPirate. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Somali diaspora, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Ethnic groups in South Africa

Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. Please stop trying to push your bogus racist theories here.

Many thanks --Spirit of the night (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review the core content policies

Hello. When your edits are undone by multiple editors, it indicates there's a problem. Please carefully review Wikipedia's policies on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. After you've done that, if you still believe your changes to Ethnic groups in South Africa would improve the article, please seek consensus for them at the article's talk page before making further substantive changes to the article. Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Racism in South Africa

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Racism in South Africa, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Racism in South Africa. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Racism in South Africa. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples in South Africa

Your constant moving of the article from one name to another is disruptive and ridiculous and looks like you are playing some sort of game. So rather than block you for being disruptive I have moved it back to the original title, Bantu peoples in South Africa. Go to Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa and following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves start a discussion for one stable title. If I see you making move like this again you will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bantu peoples in South Africa. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa". Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of lead at Bantu peoples of South Africa

Messing with the intro the way you did while a rename discussion you started is in progress is NOT appropriate. Furthermore, the word "elaborately" was used in such a way as to render the sentence nonsensical. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Racism in South Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mozambican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in South Africa

Your changes to rename "Black South African" in the infobox are clearly controversial. Rather than arguing about it in your edit summaries, please use the talk page to discuss your proposed changes. See WP:BRD. Wikiacc (¶) 17:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Images in Bantu peoples in South Africa

Why have you added a row of images with no captions or explanation to the top of Bantu peoples in South Africa? Such a set of pictures appears to be purely decorative and does not add to understanding of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples

The phrase "natively bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" is not one that would actually be used in running text. It is more of a definition of the term "Bantu peoples" than a term of use. Just as one would not write of "an implement with two or more prongs used for lifting food to the mouth or holding it when cutting", but would just say "fork".--Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha Then I'm guessing a lot of amateur English communicators do read this Encyclopedia for incite and betterment, they are likely to not understand Bantu peoples to that depth then why not include variety of the term somewhere in the article, the article might do what's intended for it to do, to help more. "Natively bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" isn't per say nonsense but as you say a break down of the very same term, a definition and by the looks of things a smart one that doesn't lose it's intention to tediousness. So lets leave it like that.

If they are to learn English, they have to be exposed to English usage. And English usage is "Bantu peoples". Your construction is a general definition, but is not something that should be used in running text. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The meaning is already explained in the intro and in the article Bantu peoples. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Then if this is general definition this article's opening phrase should be --Natively Bantu speaking indigenous South Africans. Black pe...., for this article to be better to itself specifically. Then that Mandela picture can be left to be. I think that's more better.Untrammeled (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That phrase still shouldn't be utilized in running text like that. It's a definition. Something you look up in a dictionary, it is not something that is actually written in prose. I simply cannot understand your objection to the simple term "Bantu peoples". It means EXACTLY what you are trying to say and doesn't sound like random words pulled out of a bag. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha That's why it is in Italics. Untrammeled (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Look back at the example I gave you in the beginning of this section. Surely you understand that "implement with two or more prongs used for lifting food to the mouth or holding it when cutting" is not something that would ever be used in an article on "Forks from Southern Europe". Your attempts to add the tortured phrasing "natively bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" to the article "Bantu peoples of South Africa" is just as wrong. It is bad writing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha, I don't see bad writing but an elaborating style type of writing, this is an informing/teaching article, lets say we take Fork to mean an implement with two or more prongs used for lifting food to the mouth or holding it when cutting. It will be logical that if you're going to talk about it defining it is the first best step then carry on to whatever direction, it's not derailing or degrading the article but making it more professional to standard by getting the unassuming elaboration out of the way first, it's not about liking it or not, it makes the article better and every English talker from amateur to expert won't have real issues about it. It's like it covers all possible angles of definition and confusion, looking at things pertaining this, cancels the required need of looking up on other sources if one doesn't understand Bantu peoples in South Africa on the first go, dispels many possible assumptions that Bantu peoples in South Africa causes when you first encounter it. That's why it was in italics and should be present. A person who doesn't know the "Bantu peoples" article won't need it after reading "Natively Bantu speaking indigenous South Africans" after not getting what is meant by Bantu peoples in South Africa, they don't even need to know peoples thorough meaning to understand the article. It succeeds in allowing anyone at least when knowing basic English just about enough to learn this article correctly to comprehension while taking away Bantu peoples in South Africa as to mean what exactly it means. Untrammeled (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Considering that THIS article is not about defining Bantu peoples (we have an article for that already), your entire point breaks down. And you are the only person I've ever seen who was confused by such a straightforward construction as "Bantu peoples". It is a perfect parallel to such terms as "Slavic peoples" or "Germanic peoples." --Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This contravenes the guideline on italics at MOS:ITALICS. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kinu So this is the correct manner Natively bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans as repeating the title will be redundant Untrammeled (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha lets agree on this, Natively bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans improves this article and should be present. Untrammeled (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No. "Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" is a tortured phrasing of a definition for "Bantu speakers in South Africa" that DOES NOT belong in this article. It does not belong in any article. --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha How is it really what you say, torturing, it makes things be of ease as I said how --on that long paragraph...you're not wrong we both aren't because people have their comforts, but I'm presenting "Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" as elaborating you're presenting not to consider that other people than you read this article, and their levels in English or the standard of the article, I'm sure something becomes better there more it's understood than it being of certain comforts. "Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans" absolutely creates convenience for this article's engagement, in that for everyone (who at least talk English). You can surely in your convenience pass on by the phrase as it's tutoring you, it's not everywhere, to read on to your comfort. But what you're preventing is limiting this article. Untrammeled (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone reading an article titled "Bantu peoples in South Africa" should not need to have "Bantu peoples" or "South Africa" explained to them. And if they do, they should follow links to those topics. Just as History of printing in East Asia doesn't need to get bogged down in explaining what printing is. Or Birds of Australia doesn't spend half its intro explaining what a bird is. An article like this that covers a topic in a particular geographic region does not need to define the basic terms of its title. What you are proposing is to make the article look like an idiot wrote it. Just STOP.--Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that you think what you've just said is true to correlation. This six worded phrase as I've said earlier it's smart because is short and explains what may require other things to be tedious to archive the very same results it does. Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans is a one of a kind phrase not taking advantage of its convenient form to better the article to me it is being tunnel minded too much and it will see this article remain as disregarding as it is, as I've said it's either we making it better or chasing how we feel about it for our personal comfort than considerate. I presented ease that comes with quality, you're telling me it's a must to deviate when reading the article and reach not understanding 'Bantu peoples' as to why it's used or used like this in the article, what could have been fixed sufficiently with just Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans phrase, which will at the same time correlate the title with itself. What you earlier agreed, picking on its general defining usage v.s the title, then suddenly thought not for the title's affects but your comfort that it is unneeded. I can tell you it's not better off without the phrase Khajidha. Untrammeled (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the problem is that your grasp of English is so poor. Just look at how you have misunderstood me. "Tortured language" has nothing to do with my comfort. It means that you have twisted and mangled your phrasing and forced terms together in ways that do not occur in normal speech or writing and which make it harder to understand. --Khajidha (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha I never argued South Africa maybe Bantu peoples because of how these people take themselves. The point here was the usage of 'Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans' as a complementary through elaboration. Let me make an example, you see in your dictionary there are words sometimes tricky to pronounce just because they are like that then on the side there are some break downs of that word, how to pronounce it, not because you're stupid but something that's ignored when you don't need the breakdown if you know the word, then after usually comes the definition, i.e. Untrammeled - Un-tra-mel-d --. 'Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans' is the same accessory to the title of the article we're discussing even has more characteristics like the break downs I've just described (not exactly as but like the break down in meaning as in elaboration in its own way), it's not meant to be used as the word like the phrase we're talking about (Natively Bantu-speakin....), but another difference is that 'Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans' can stand to be usable as something. I've just told you what you said as to how we agreed to 'Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans' as a general definition before, until you started changing your story. NATIVELY BANTU SPEAKING... is a thoughtful complementary or rather elaboration accessory for the title, for the whole article actually. As I've said it's no better off without the phrase I'm not saying it can't do without the phrase. I'm scrutinizing how this article, limited to it, is engaged as to how far can it be pushed to be engaged better and 'Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans' where it should be is an opportunity to make it better, it's not as improved as if adding new information but it will be better than it is, meaning improving in its aims, maximization, if it's informing then almost anyone in whichever level of English can as much take from it as it is than much issues that might rise and what's interesting it doesn't reduce anything to the article's stance. Untrammeled (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a definition, but it is not something you would write in an article. It is something you would say as an aside to explain to someone who is confused. It isn't encyclopedic language. You keep ignoring that part of what I said. And it most assuredly doesn't belong as a randomly slapped on comment not connected to anything else. NO ONE has said that this is appropriate language. NO ONE has supported its use, either as title or as article text. Aside from myself Kinu has also told you (on their talk page) that there is no consensus for this phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha but it's logical assembling of words in English therefore it's common sense maybe creative common sense, it doesn't need consensus it validates itself it doesn't need people than people making sense of it and it makes sense to what it's saying, it's a phrase giving a much more directing emphasis if you don't get the title, if Bantu peoples/nations in South Africa isn't obvious at first the phrase confirms/gives weight in meaning to the title for a reaction of "oh, now I see" than going through other articles before finally saying "oh, now I get it" the phrase is not officiating itself, as you said it's an explanation not a label, meaning you can find another word assembling as an alternative of Native bantu-speaking indige..., to be put there if it doesn't lose to confusing people who are already confused and does he same job of elaborating the title. About encyclopedic language what do you mean exactly? Untrammeled (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So Khajidha we agreeing about the phrase opening the first paragraph? Untrammeled (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I don't know how else to say it. That phrase should not be in this article. Period. Just because it is logically constructed doesn't change the fact that it is poor writing. Again, "Bantu peoples in South Africa" is absolutely normal English usage that is clear to anyone who actually speaks English. --Khajidha (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

But much of what you have written in that article is not really English either. "The aptness of Africans indigenous to South Africa is dominantly marked by the spread of two language groups," is nonsensical. "The indigenous population around the Cape was made up of the Khoisan groups being the most" makes sense, but is not grammatical. Compare the versions from before and after my rewriting of a single paragraph a few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bantu_peoples_in_South_Africa&diff=930162218&oldid=930160663 The older version was repetitious (you don't need both the centuries and the exact dates, either would suffice), completely misused the word "elaborately", used constructions that were ungrammatical ("earliest found evidence"), and ended with a sentence that made absolutely no sense ("Taking from found 2nd millennium CE sites of South Africa the probable oldest of that time is named Riverside and dated 981-1127 CE."). --Khajidha (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bantu peoples in South Africa; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The edits in question are disruptive, appear to disagree with consensus, and violate the manual of style. Please stop. Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Empty headings at Bantu peoples in South Africa

Rather than create stub headings in the article, you would be better off to draft the content and include the whole section. That would also help with issues like the one with the heading about combat rules and engagements, which you've changed twice. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred It can be changed again if it doesn't fit the information, this article is marked as development or class c, I don't see any issues in adding information like this as I'm also getting others involved with ease while I'm busy collecting information at my end. Untrammeled (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A section heading with no material under it is not "adding information". If you don't have anything to write in the section, there should not be a section.--Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha That's why I'm busy on them there's nothing on wikipedia, that I know of, that notifies people when you're busy on something, why you all against this article, it's suspicious or are you against me? I'm still going to add a lot of uncomfortable things, grammatical errors all that until we all make this a featured article, I haven't done anything yet, I'm busy Untrammeled (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We understand that you are working on it, but you still don't need to put a heading in UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO PUT UNDER IT. This is pretty basic stuff. --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike you Khajidha I know I'm not editing this article alone and I foster it like that too because I want it to be like that, I think that's pretty much basic stuff too. Untrammeled (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain what an empty heading adds to an article. It just looks ugly. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the empty section headers, but you've decided to replace them. Despite your edit summary saying "it's not affecting the article negatively," empty section headers add zero value to an article, and in fact diminish the readability. Quite frankly, your unilateral decision to include those is patently absurd, but I have no desire to edit war, and I see no point in further trying to explain something that should be fairly obvious which two other editors have already discussed with you. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please use the "minor edit" checkbox only for minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bantu peoples in South Africa, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

White Africans article

Hi there, I just wanted to clear up per Wikipedia guidelines.

The White Africans of European ancestry article exists in line with the White Brazilian, White American, and Black British articles.

You have proposed renaming the article to "European Immigration of Africa" as per your suggestion that is line with the African immigration to Europe article. However, I would like to inform you that the existing White Africans of European ancestry article exists as a current demographic page, as per White Brazilian. There is a separate article highlighting the historical European immigration to Brazil which you may be getting confused with.

In conclusion, the page will stay at "White Africans of European ancestry" as per wiki guidelines. If you would like to create a separate article of the historical migration of European people who today form the White population of South Africa, Namibia etc. then go ahead. But please consult and discuss it before moving such sensitive political articles which have already been discussed over the years. Your talk page illustrates your blatant agenda and editing issues in the past, please be careful --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

BenBezuidenhout Just because you feel it is right doesn't mean make it up. You make up terms then assert them based on that they make sense, I did that once it wasn't allowed but yours must stay. How many agreed to your term, you make up things, worse of all illogical things then wonder what's the fuss about Untrammeled (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please check the editing history and talk page where the title was agreed upon by multiple users. I am myself a White African so the term is obviously not made up. If you want to go ahead and request to move the White American, White Brazilian, White Mexican, White Canadian etc. pages because you believe they don't exist as ethnic groups then be my guest, but I have very clearly (and so have multiple other users) outlined the justification for the title. You are blatantly, as supported by numerous other users on your talk page, pushing a false political agenda because you appear to have your own personal feelings towards white South Africans. Please stop the editing war and engage in conversations first. You are unravelling years of hard work on these articles and not sticking to wikipedia guidelines, which you have broken multiple times according to your history. Just sit down and do some reading before making bold accusations and abusive messages, it will only get you blocked as a user. --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth reflecting who the "vandal" is here. You are the one making sweeping disruptive (and abusive) edits to the article without prior discussion. My reversions to the agreed original among users is protecting the article. Google is free if you want to look up the definition. This behaviour (as I mentioned above) will only get you banned, be careful. --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This in' about me but you, there's no consensus for White African, worse of European descent anywhere in the talk page yet you changed it, making things up. People issue to want European African at least but are ignored from 2008 then you come with your made up stuff and you call me a vandal, what a joke....you're lying and stand in that. Untrammeled (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile reading the talk history of the article so you can get a better idea of why White African is a valid term, in the same way Black British or White Brazilian are valid terms. You keep banging on about there being no consensus but you obviously haven't read the talk history where numerous users (including other White South Africans) have agreed that the term is self-identifying and valid. Coloureds in South Africa identify as Coloured, and so they will remain at that article. Whether you personally disagree with the title is your own problem, but White people in Africa of European ancestry identify as White, not European. The South African government likewise also identifies them as White, and South African, not European. --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reflecting

I would really, from a place of care and growth, encourage you to reflect on this talk page and the comments from other users. You should consider adjusting your editing strategy and find ways to contribute to pages without resorting to aggressive vandal edits. Grow from this experience and in the future start discussions about such sensitive topics as race before making sweeping moves that can undo years of work, editing, and discussions --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)