User talk:DumaTorpedo: Difference between revisions

February 2016

Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to History of timekeeping devices— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Emmarentia Dam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Emmarentia Dam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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! Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 April

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 Implementation of bus rapid transit by country 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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

South Africa

What do you think DumaTorpedo (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Inside of new metrorail fleet Johannesburg.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Inside of new metrorail fleet Johannesburg.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Emmarentia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I cited sources for the restaurants but as for the buildings I would like to add a picture of them to show how they look and back up the passage, is this possible? DumaTorpedo (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to Volkstaat

In the same sense much of the article on Volkstaat made reference to a personal unreputable, optionated blog, is reporting on facts from reliable reputable sources contentious?

March 2018

Please stop adding references to Unreliable sources. Repeated violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding biased sources into articles, as you did at Apartheid, may lead to loss of editing privileges. MEMO and Al Jazeera are not neutral sources. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would beg to differ, Al Jazeera has been many a time proved to be objective enough to use in Wikipedia. If one argues that Al Jazeera is biased, than so too is CNN and BBC. besides who decided what is biased or not? I also got argument sake, cited the Washington Post, the most objective news site in America along the the NYT.

Regarding the Washington Post, that piece made clear that it was a report form an Arab dominated committee and Richard Falk. The UN Secretary General distanced rhe UN as a whole from the report! As such, context is required. Furthermore, Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, so is not going to be unbiased is the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Al Jazeera might be able to cover some topics objectively, not this one. I can also cite to you several examples of bias on CNN and BBC. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. I shall add context in that case.

I've just been digging through the archives, looking through the previous discussions. Do be aware that you shouldn't edit the archives, if you want to discuss a topic there it needs resurrection. However, there was a lot of consensus that this page is about South Africa, anything else is out of scope. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Racism in South Africa

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news/item/537-south-africa-chinese-association-lays-charges-over-xenophobic-facebook-comments. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, I will rewrite it

Black Apartheid

You removed the following from apartheid:

Since early 2013, the left wing political party the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has been rising in popularity with a policy of racially based land expropriation of the Afrikaner population.[20] The EFF states that the policy of land expropriation along racially discriminatory grounds is not about revenge but about dignity, the party believes that South African land belongs to the countries indigenous population and that a campaign of land redistribution will rectify a historical injustice.[21] In early 2018 the ruling African National Congress (ANC) joined the EFF in passing legislation designed to commit to an official policy of land redistribution.[22] The racial hatred being generated by the political rhetoric of the land redistribution issue has created a humanitarian crisis in the country as largely impoverished indigenous African gangs have committed increasingly terrifying attacks on white owned farms. The brutality of the attacks which have included torture, rape and murder have led to calls from other "civilized countries" to open special humanitarian streams to deal with the crisis.[23]

This was and is a well referenced, unbiased and factual insight into the issues plaguing the worlds latest pariah state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.238.4 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not well cited and clear racial bias as well apart from being irrelevant to the topic at hand.

April 2018

Hello, I'm Bobherry. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bobherry Talk Edits 04:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

To which edit are you referring to? I cited the AfriForum’s white Nationalist edit to the Daily Maverick and Newsweek both reliable sources?

Well done DumaTorpedo

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Working hard to ensure Wikipedia objectivity . Herbst du preez (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Herbst du preez (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to contact editor via page talk page, failed to provide justification for keeping of dangerous information and sources. Please continue talk on page.

Warning regarding disruptive editing to 'Racism in South Africa'

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Racism in South Africa, you may be blocked from editing. On numerous occasions you have:

• Removed large sections of content from the page with no comment
• Broken the formatting of the page
• Inserted content which is either uncited, does not correspond with, or contradicts the relevant citations
• Stated personal opinions as fact (violating NPOV)
• Removed critical words (such as 'alleged') from cases
• Inserted broken English into the page. For example: "Publichumiliation against blackapeople", "restaurants dive .atAt group" and "nearStellenbosch, in responseD to this r a black student"
• Arbitrarily moved content on the page without explanation. For example, you have twice moved the 'Racism against Jewish communities' section into the 'Racism against black communities' section
• Acted against the majority consensus of fellow editors. For example, you have repeatedly merged the 'Racism against Indian communities' section into the 'Racism against black communities' section when the consensus of all other editors was that Indian people are not considered black in South Africa
• Neglected to insert critical pieces of information with the intention to mislead the reader. For example, you incorrectly included a case where a black man was shot on a farm in the 'Racism against black communities' section and neglected to mention that the owner of the farm was also black. When the case was corrected by another editor you reverted their edit without explanation
• Removed critical pieces of information without explanation such as removing the presiding Judge's comment that the Tarlton tractor case was not an act of racism but merely a conventional criminal act
• Instigated and engaged in edit warring by performing the aforementioned acts

Classical liberal za (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Classical liberal ZA, you:

• removed large amounts of sourced and factual information
• Violated The 3 revert rule
• Did not seek consensus to remove large amounts of information
• Engaged in edit warring
• accused others of being vandals with no proof
• regularly revert to telling personal stories to justify edits in violation of NPOV

I don’t think DumaTorpedo is the vandal here

Warning

Call good-faith edits "vandalism" again and I will block you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)