User talk:NJR ZA: Difference between revisions

Hello - I am a novice; but desperately trying to understand how all this works. I hope I am writing to you as I should. I noticed your comment on the Apartheid Museum article. You're right - it is a wholesome mess because Wikipedia and the general public have been fed a palpable fabrication about the history of The Apartheid Museum. Whoever places that material on there on behalf of Gold Reef Casino Group; the owners of the structure that calls itself The Apartheid Museum; perpetuates that palpable fabrication. The Apartheid Museum is a trademark of full force and effect on the Register of Trademarks and it does NOT belong to the Gold Reef Group of Casinos. This is a fact. I have corrected the Wikipedia entry on many occassions in order to bring some semblance of truth to this matter. Visit: www.stainbank.co.za - there lies some truth. Hope I have done this right. And I hope this helps your understanding. Sthatamiya (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The image (SAAF-Aero L-39 Albatros-001.jpg) that you added to the SA Air Force wiki page has been removed, and seeing as the editor who removed it didn't leave a comment explaining his actions, I thought I'd let you know why it was done. In short, the image didn't belong on the page because the SA Air Force has never operated L-39s or any other Eastern Bloc aircraft. The L-39 in your photo is really a privately-owned aircraft that was imported by its owner from Eastern Europe. It's ok, mistakes happen, but I'd appreciate it if you could also edit the title and description on the photo's Commons page in order to avoid future confusion. Thanks, — Impi (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have already updated commons. Thanks for the correction --NJR ZA (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD has been closed, so I can't comment there, but I've made a list of all the South African province-related categories I think ought to be renamed, at User:Htonl/South Africa provincial category renaming. I've also made some comments about the tricky case of the North West on the talk page there. Please feel free to edit the list if you can think of anything I've missed! - htonl (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed all of the references in Pilanesberg to game reserve rather than National park, if it has indeed lost its status, can you please cite this fact and include in the article that it is a former national park. I am having trouble finding a source that says it has lost this status, and many refer to it as both a game reserve and a national park. Thank you. Philc 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]