User talk:Ben Bezuidenhout

Bezuidenhout

Hi there,

I created Dawid Bezuidenhout and noticed that your surnames are the same. What is the meaning of it? Is it usually associated with Coloured people?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I recently spent 4 months in South Africa and Namibia and lots of experience with Afrikaans, but never came across the surname.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wees net sekker om 'references' te maak op die "South Africa Under Apartheid" article talk page - dit help. Invmog (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about banned usernames

Hi, I was trying to edit some articles on the Afrikaans Wikipedia, but I could not register my username because anything containing the word JEW is banned. Do you have any idea why? Thanks a lot. --JewBask (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again; thanks for your prompt response. I thought about the same. Please let me know if you find something out, I am really interested in giving my two cents to the Afrikaans Wikipedia and hence help spread knowledge in the language. Thanks for your help! --JewBask (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm in :-) --JewBask (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your name

Hey! Bly jy nou in Suid-Afrika? Ek het nou in Suid-Afrika gewees, en ek het jou name baie kere gesien :) --Eivind (t) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ja, ek het die selfde gebruiker op af.wiki: af:Gebruiker:EivindJ. Well, South Africa is warm, at least :) I'm not very up to date on the political status and stuff, but I reckon and hope everything will solve out down there. I met many Bezuidenhout's in Pretoria ... do you have any family down there? --Eivind (t) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

South Africa on English language map

Hi, would you care to comment on this topic at Wikimedia commons? 67.150.247.57 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism on Goiás

I restored the pre-vandalism data. I didn't revert it because I didn't want to lose intermediate edits. If it's something like that, you always have the option to manually correct it. In this case, I looked at the edit history and compared the last edit of the vandal to the prior, non-vandalized version to make sure I identified all data that had been vandalized. Then I literally copied the original data and pasted it over the vandalized data in the current version of the article. ClueBot has a pretty strict criteria to avoid false positives so there are a lot of situations where it will not revert vandalism. It's not always a case of "missing" it. For example, ClueBot won't revert edits by a specific user to a specific article more than once in a given day (I assume to avoid an automated revert war). Keep in mind, those are ClueBot's rules. You are not bound by the same rules (though revert wars are still not allowed, see Wikipedia:3RR). But in the case of vandalism, there is nothing special about fixing repeated vandalism. You may fix it the second time the same way you fixed it the first time. If vandalism persists from a specific user or IP address, warn the user on their user talk page, following the format for warnings outlined in Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. If they persist after several warnings, and it is obvious that they are vandalizing and that their edits are not in good faith, ask for administrator assistance in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will be able to temporarily or permanently block a user or IP address from editing after repeated vandalism. DanielDeibler (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Do you have an email? ChrisDHDR 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, [email removed - be careful of spammers!] :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia

New Interface available. -- sk (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

White

What I meant by "mostly of European descent" is that they could come via America, Australia or other parts of the world (of indirect European descent, sort to say). I didn't mean they were only partly right. But it's good to avoid dubiousness. --Roofbird (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)