Thanks for uploading File:ACStrange 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:ArkhamStrange 17.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. When you recently edited Nicolas Smit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doornbos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I appreciate that the lead of the article needs to be "short and sweet", as you put it, but as it is the lead is somewhat misleading and doesn't give proper context. I really do think it was better as I had it. If you think it might be better to trim down the version of the lead I wrote, perhaps we should do that. Here are some issues I have with the present lead:
"it occupied the region presently known as Zimbabwe"; seems to imply it might not be known as Zimbabwe in the future, I would prefer "now Zimbabwe"; "renamed Zimbabwe in 1980" is even better as it gives more context.
"based in Salisbury"; I know you mean the seat of government, but this still sounds strange to me. I would not say the entire United Kingdom was based in London.
"was considered an immediate successor state to"; no it wasn't. Only Rhodesia itself considered itself anything remotely close to this. The rest of the world said it was a colony in rebellion.
"the former British dependency of Southern Rhodesia." Again this is misleading. "the former" could be taken as POV, as it lends perhaps undue credence to UDI (which I personally think was legitimate, by the by, but we have to be neutral here). "British dependency" is wrong, as before 1965 Southern Rhodesia was called a colony (a self-governing one), not a dependency. "British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia" was the name used during the interim period of British rule between Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Zimbabwe (December 1979 to April 1980).
"During an effort to thwart future transition to indigenous African rule"; Not sure this is true. I would say they were trying to block an immediate transition, as this was what was being threatened. Neither the 1961 nor 1965 constitutions impeded on black political progress, nor even the 1969 one, incidentally, though the last of these did limit black aspirations to potentially being equal partners in government with the white community once blacks collectively contributed enough tax.
"Rhodesia's white settlers"; could be taken as POV again, as many (though not all) of the whites were locally-born, or born in South Africa. Smith himself was born in Selukwe (now Shurugwi), for example.
"UDI regime"; could be taken as POV again as "regime" is a loaded word implying the government is illegitimate and/or oppressive.
"conceded to biracial democracy"; I'm not sure this is fair. Smith took part in negotiations throughout the 1970s, all of which had some form of multiracial rule as their objective. Up until the 1978 Internal Settlement they failed, granted, but the failure of the previous talks had far more to do with the perhaps excessive demands of ZANU and ZAPU than the stance taken by Smith.
"A provisional government subsequently headed by Smith and his ally Abel Muzorewa"; this is again rather misleading. Muzorewa headed the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government alone; Smith was just a minister without portfolio. And to call Muzorewa "Smith['s] ... ally" is rather spurious, considering they were political opponents right up to the Internal Settlement.
"The state was officially christened after Sir Cecil Rhodes" seems to imply Smith's government actually did this at some point after 1965.
I look forward to working together on the lead. As I say above, I really do recommend you have another look at the lead I wrote, and perhaps trim it down if you think it's too long. Thanks, and I hope you're well —Cliftonian(talk)07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 32 Battalion (South Africa), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angolan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hello, Katangais. You have new messages at Pgallert's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koevoet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhodesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hey Katangais, I hope you're well. I've just nominated the Lisbon Appointment article I wrote at FAC; I hope I don't seem presumptuous, but as somebody I've often worked with on Rhodesia-related articles, I thought you might be interested. Keep well, and have a good weekend! —Cliftonian(talk)09:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blood Diamond (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriotic Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Vortex (novel). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. I know you provided the original plot summary. Stop reverting it back to your own version, oh and while you're at it, read the book again! It's apparent from your reversions that your recall is poor.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wave that argument in my face, my dear fellow. I have never purported to claim ownership of any article, and take it as an insult to my editing ability that you believe it to be such. My summary doesn't include the precise aircraft used, the codenames for each mission, the names of towns that only appear in one chapter, and strategically important but story-wise insignificant details - which is what makes it a synopsis. Readers want to find out it was a Mirage III CZ or an F1 that bombed that Cuban brigade, they can buy Vortex themselves and find out. They want to find out that the Blue Train takes South African officials from Pretoria to Cape Town and back for their parliamentary sessions, they can research RSA's government. Regarding your edits, Zaire isn't mentioned once in the book. Yes, an ANC liaison is arrested along with some of his troops, but the Cubans couldn't and didn't round up the entire organisation - as Vega's eventual assassin proves. The results of South Africa's final counteroffensive in Namibia aren't disclosed in the book. Vortex only mentions that the Cubans suffered heavy losses in their own Namibian offensive, by throwing troops against stronger SADF positions. Furthermore, the Cuban tactical groups weren't confirmed to be pulverized by US air strikes as you claim, although the book shows the effects of said air strikes against certain positions, including Vega's, to emphasize the overall potential and psychological effect.
All you've done is throw in some unnecessary tactical details, none of which we need. You have yet to give me a single example of how my work is "poor" or what details are not in order. Furthermore, you altered the summary without discussing it on the talk page first, citing your reasons for doing so even when it became clear I have legitimate cause to oppose them. Consequently, your edits will continue to be undone. Katangais (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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.
Hello, Please don't add countries as 'users' of this weapon without an explict reference confirming that the weapon was actually used by their military/security forces. The patent approval in South Africa doesn't establish that this gun was actually used in the country, and nor does that photo of a 'Rhodesian' weapon (military museums often have exotic weapons on display which were never used by the country's armed forces). Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Katangais, I remember you were interesting in Rhodesian stuff, so I'm dropping you a note to let you know that the Rhodesian UDI article is now at FAC here. I'd be great to have input from you on this if you are interested. Hope you are well, thanks —Cliftonian(talk)10:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugo Strange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Ryder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Power of One (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Roberts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blind Justice (1988 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ndebele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexei Kervezee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Frank Schoeman, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 08:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
