Hello, Royalcourtier! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Faizan 11:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of ethnic slurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maori (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Commander-in-chief are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Chief Ministers of KwaNdebele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:How Bizarre (song) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- haminoon (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I have found over time that it is the Left & Right wing parties that are the cesspit of classical Financier driven Fascism. Those parties that support the Globalist Free market system that really create Fascist governments through populist Regime plots such as the so called color revolutions of the past 20 years & continuing at the moment! If a government tries to do what is right for the people & the land they are said to be Communist or Fascist by those so called educated cultureless majorities! I see no wings on the CEC if anything they are more human than any of the governments we have had in Australia since Geoff Whitlam, & as we witnessed with PM Whitlam, the Royal Monetarist Nazis had him sacked so is Australia a free nation???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.229.54 (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Black Velvet Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Music. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your comments on the talk page were exceptionally offensive. MrX was kind enough to point you to the Wikipedia policy regarding the topic. I will also point you to this statement by the arbitration committee about offensive comments against trans people. If you continue such behavior you may be blocked. This is your only warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask what you regard to be exceptionally offensive? My use of the word "deluded", which I have withdrawn, or my reference to Teena's mental illness - which was referred to in the article itself?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you misgender the subject. EvergreenFir already mentioned misgendering in the subheading. -- haminoon (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haminoon is correct. Misgendering + "deluded" were the worst parts. Wikipedia's policy is clear: no one cares what you personally thing the pronouns should be, only what the subject of the article says they are. If you continue to misgender on the talk page or insist pronouns should be something else as you did here, I will submit an arbitration enforcement request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Keith Locke for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not general discussion, though perhaps I should have been more specific: I believe Locke's political position ought to be mentioned in the article, rather than essentially evaded.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template is rather generic. The "forum" behavior was for the use of "lunatic left". Please aim to be more neutral and less polemic, especially when commenting on political pages and pages related to living people. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what is not neutral about suggesting that a communist should be described as such? I doubt that you would argue that, in the pursuit of such neutrality, the article on Chairman Mao should be edited to remove all references to Communism!Royalcourtier (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. I found a couple of edits from you, in a talk page, claiming that Conservative and Catholic is the antithesis of fascism. The fact is, the reference for fascism is the Benito Mussolini's system in Italy, a catholic and conservative regime ^[1]. I can only guess that your comment is the result of misinformation. I'm give you the benefice of the doubt in assuming that it was just miss information. Nevertheless, it is a known propaganda talking point used by the religious right wing in the united states, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. In the future please refrain from spreading propaganda, miss information or presenting your opinion as fact in wikipedia.

Can you please advise what is a "known propaganda talking point used by the religious right wing in the united states". I assume that you are not referring to fascism, as I doubt the US religious right makes any regular references to fascism. Or are you suggesting that the US religious right is fascist (surely an extreme view). And why is a reference to something that you say is a "known propaganda talking point" therefore itself propaganda, and to be excluded from Wikipedia? Such reasoning would rule out much of what is written in Wikipedia about, for instance, left wing economics, on the basis that certain doctrines and theories are Marxist, and therefore references to them is propaganda. Surely you are not suggesting Wikipedia should be censored to that extent.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Mahatma Gandhi, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Roman salute, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advise me what you regard as being disruptive or inappropriate about my edit?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's laid out at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for article improvement discussions, not for general discussion of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But can you please tell me what you regard as disruptive or inappropriate about what I wrote? I don't see anything that I wrote that was inconsistent with the tone or general nature of what others had already written on the talk page.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advise what you regard as being inappropriate about what I wrote, and so inappropriate as to warrant the suggestion of blocking? There is a very extensive number of contributions on that page discussing what the Russian military intervention in Crimea ought to be called - invasion, intervention, etc. Why is my contribution deemed by you to be inappropriate and to be censored?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTOPINION. Talk pages are not forums or general discussion about a subject. If you wish to engage in such a manner, you are welcome to join or start up a blog. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For my education, can you please advise why my contribution to a very very extensive number of contributions on that page is deemed by you to be inappropriate and to be censored?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalcourtier: Please, take a look at a conversation you started, but did not continue: False Suggestion of Racial Motive Contributions that consider all the arguments, bring in credible sources and are devoid, as much as possible, of personal point of views, are much helpful to the WP community. Historiador (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalcourtier: Hoping you could find ways to contribute to WP that are constructive, I suggest reading this article: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It is required reading in a training for editors wanting to improve their skills. Historiador (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But why am I apparently being held responsible for what others wrote subsequent to my contribution? In any event, I did not start the conversation, it had been going for months before I contributed to it.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please respond to my request of 25 November 2015, if you are able to do so.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing.
Stop going from article talk page to article talk page in order to use it as a vehicle for WP:ADVOCACY. This behaviour has been ongoing and disruptive. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Please advise what edits you consider to be disruptive.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RoyalCourtier. I've reverted an edit you made on Ruby Ridge because the wording violates WP:NPOV. I agree, btw, that what you wrote is probably correct, but to say it the way you did is not encyclopedic -- we have to let people read between the lines lest the entire article be dismissed as supporting a particular point of view. I've also commented on one of your talk-page comments on that same article. _{Please ping me if you reply here} Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the ISIL talk page to promote ISIL's propaganda and insist, with no sources, that the terrorist group is a state is very inappropriate. Given your past inappropriate editing activity and use of talk pages to promote fringe views, I suggest you review relevant WP policy on WP:RS and the purpose of Wikipedia before you do much more editing. If you continue down this line I will seek a block against you. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the evidence suggests that ISIL is a state is not promoting the group. To suggest that is so is illogical and defamatory. There is plenty of evidence that the group has established a state; it is not the first terrorist or rebel group to do so. To argue that ISIL/ISIS meets the definition of a state is not the same as supporting that group. I happen to believe that Nazi Germany was a state too, but I do not support that state or what it did. Read this article - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-not-terrorist-group. I am not promoting fringe views about anything, and have never done so on Wikipedia. Your unjustified and absurd criticism of me is inappropriate. If you continue to attempt to censor Wikipedia to promote your own agenda, or to defame other editors, I will seek to block you. I see that you have a history of disruptive edits, and of making false allegations against editors.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you asked if there were instances of Maori breaking the Treaty of Waitangi in NZ. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up by the government of NZ about 30 years ago to look into Government breaches of the treaty as a result of ongoing ill feeling from Maori towards the crown -mainly as a result of Maori land confiscations in 1863. The tribunal is the only body that can investigate and it can only look at Govt breaches. The tribunal was normally held on Maori marae(meeting houses) and proceedings were in Maori generally. The appointed judges all spoke fluent Maori and many were Maori. Unlike a court of law hearsay was allowed and in many cases given preference to information from written records. Often the hearsay was from living people describing events 150 years ago that have passed into Maori or iwi(tribal) mythology as " fact". There is no body to investigate Maori breaches of the treaty because that was not a political reality in an country using the MMP voting system where minorities can have far more influence than their small numbers suggest.

Contrary to what some editors have suggested there certainly were Maori breaches of the treaty. I had a discussion recently with an author to ask why they dont write about certain specific events where Maori en mass broke the law. Their reply was -first the publisher wouldn't print it. Secondly he would be ridiculed and ostracized. Their job would be in danger. In other words there is no political will or mood or "need" to investigate Maori breaches.

Speculation: If breaches were based on the Treaty clauses -setting up an alternative separatist govt would be a good place to start.Then move on to attacking and murdering settlers or attempted assassination of the governor would follow. The tribunal found that Maori(well, the ones that rebelled) were fighting a defensive war.This is the standard line of response. There is no discussion at all, ever, about the need for the then govt to protect NZ from internal attack and disintegration. Rebels set up an illegal land league and intimidated other Maori who wanted to sell land.(A few willing Maori sellers were just murdered). The tribunal repeatedly breached its own rules eg (preventing pre 1840 evidence being heard).The practical reason for this rule was that in the period 1807-1840 Maori fought about 500 battles (Musket Wars) among themselves to try and kill off their neighbours (often distant ones)and seize their lands. Often Maori within their own tribe fought each other but the most violent and bitter struggles were between long term enemies seeking revenge on each other(Utu in Maori).This included mass killings, torture , slavery, forced "marriages" and other barbaric behaviours especially eating their enemies. Constant public exposure of this kind of behaviour was not politically acceptable, particularly as Maori society today is still extremely violent (conviction rates for serious crime is very high-Maori make up 15% of the population now but 50% of those in jail).

A key point to remember is that the 1860 Kingitanga rebels were very much a minority-by far the majority of Maori supported the govt or remained neutral. In 1864 there were about 55,000 Maori of which about perhaps 3,000-4,000 lived in the separatist state known as the "King Country".However not all in the KC actually supported the King -the number of supporter had dropped to about 1,000 by 1884.115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I spotted your talk section on the war of 1812 infobox, and I have always thought it odd that in the infobox, instead of a war result, there is a reference to the result of the negotiation. Anyways, they discussion has been continuing, with some "passion" (as is the norm on that page, unfortunately). Feel free to pop in and comment. I'm trying to get the infobox re-written so it is more useful to the reader, and more NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not changed sourced content to data not found in the source, as you did in this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not say that Chappie is not a South African film. Chappie is more of a South African than it is an American film. The source only indicates that the film has American makers, which I left intact.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fort Detrick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Invasion. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the caption of one of the most well known photographs of the Indian invasion of Goa from "Indian troops are greeted by supporters" to "Indian troops are surrounded by hostile civilians". Please share with me your source for this. The civilians in the photograph are seen smiling and waving to the camera along with the soldiers and would probably not qualify as 'hostile'. Or should I take this as an act of deliberate vandalism?Tigerassault (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph may be well known, or it may be unknown, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what it shows. Looking at the faces and postures of the relatively small number of people in the crowd, most are silent and standing still. This is not a welcoming crowd. It cannot be assumed that these Goans supported the Indian invasion - after all most did not support the illegal Indian annexation. Changing the description of the photo to better match what is shows is not vandalism. But perhaps English is not your first language.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that changing a label to better reflect what the photo actually shows cannot be called vandalism.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was very interested to see your comment on the Fritz Wunderlich TALK page saying that gays say Fritz was gay and/or murdered. I had never heard either of these rumors! Do you have a link or any documentation? Anything at all? Please reply on my TALK page. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharpeville massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Party. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 'editor' has been very disruptive and tried to use Wiki as a propaganda tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Signature restored after below comment. 220 of ^Borg 11:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Apologies. I was my intention to roll back the entire comment as the IP was a WP:SPA who'd left attacks on two editor's pages. I must have just reverted sigbot instead of reverting to the previous version. I left warnings regarding their behaviour on their talk page here, but the IP blanked the page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making this unfounded and outrageous allegation? I have never disrupted Wikipedia, or used it for propaganda. I have occasionally removed or edited biased and inflammatory wording placed by others into Wikipedia articles. That should be applauded not condemned.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) The IP has been reported to AIV. It's probably a sock of someone you ticked off. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Royalcourtier. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...at the Ruby Ridge article when you have a chance. Some of the issues you raised earlier may be more easily addressed, shortly, as a review of sourcing is being done. In a controversial article, if what you question is unsourced, or if the source is checked and the article text cannot be verified, then the material can be removed. Glance in now if you want, but wait to have the hard look at content, after the sourcing review is done. Then, it will be easier to go to the source that supposedly supports any given statement. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have two followup comments to you question at Talk:Titanic_II. Blue Riband► 03:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:V for Vendetta for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Hate_speech, you may be blocked from editing. This user is for the most part not here to help build an encyclopedia Edaham (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was "disruptive" about my edit? Incidentally, please do not threaten me.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please share any information you have on the development post war. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Royalcourtier. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Royalcourtier. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM9I7cfmjbM LamontCranston (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In battle/combat, the killing of an opposing military force has never been called a 'war crime' - today's silly liberal political correctness has attempted to make it a crime in public thought to shoot anyone who isn't holding a gun to your head threatening to kill you. Wars are fought to be 'won' - both Allied and Axis powers attempted to shoot sailors in the water from the opposing sides because they would be picked up and thrown back into combat. People that are squeamish about this need to consider that during the war, bombings of enemy military installations were common - killing a barracks full of troops asleep in their bunks vs. killing them during combat would seem even more 'dishonorable' within that line of thinking. These were not soldiers who had surrendered - they were still active combatants. In addition, the immense amount of murder and destruction made by the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germany made stopping them by any means necessary imperative.

I am concerned about the silence of both the PAC as well as AZAPO, which are the two organisations that I believe have the right mix of ideologies for the true and meaningful liberation of our people in Mzantsi Afrika.

I believe that this is an opportunistic time for these two organisations to be visible, forge unity and campaign as one for the 2024 elections. We need to hear you telling us what is your plan to address the issues that are biting the country. There are too many low hanging fruits that can help you win the people's hearts. Remember. These two giants have never lost relevance, they have never sold out. They were just pushed aside by the evil forces that seek to keep Africans dispossessed and poor using the power of money and media. 2024 is around the corner.

We are yearning to hear both parties jointly talk to us about The land. How do you plan to address this very important issue, should you be trusted with a majority vote?

Unemployment of south Africans in South Africa. Check what Botswana has done to protect jobs for BaTswana. We can copy and paste. People will buy into that.

Management of borders as well as who comes to the country for what reasons. That is another huge opportunity that can help both organisations win confidence of voters. Another spin off from this could be the training and employment of the unemployed, to help manage our borders.

I believe in African Unity with all my heart. I however also believe that Africans cannot flock to one country and unite there. No country has sufficient resources to cater for that. That will be one big way of destroying that host country, as we see that gradually happening in Mzantsi.

A fair approach would be the encouragement of inter trade amongst the Nations as a start.

A push for countries to build factories for purposes of working our raw materials locally and add value to them by making finished goods for consumption as well as export purposes. Rather than the continuation of exporting raw materials. This one activilty alone can swallow all the unemployed people of this country.

There are so many other low hanging opportunities. But I believe if both parties can campaign together and sell among others, the above interventions to the voter. You will do well in the elections.

South Africans especially Black people of our country, whether aware or not, do need BLACK CONSCIOUSNESS like they never did before.  The land issue has also become as imperative as it never was before. 

I was so encouraged and exited to see both parties jointly commemorating the Sharpville Massacre day at Regina Mundi.

Can you both for the sake of our future generations please join hands for 2024. Come up with an agenda and start engaging communities on social Media Platforms. It will not cost much.

Future benefits will be huge for the Black Nation as well as all others who have selfless ambitions for the prosperity of the country and its future generations. 41.150.226.57 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]