Hendrik Biebouw
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Invitation
editThank you for your recent contributions to one or more of Wikipedia's South African related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the South Africa WikiProject? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's South Africa-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project's talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
A cookie for you!
editThanks for your work! Would love to chat about Afrikaans with you. I need a fellow Afrikaans wikibuddy :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
- In contemporary Africa the Afrikaner (sub group Boer) identity which was previously defined by the preconception orthodoxy of *New National Party (still in intertwine either Democratic Alliance or the African National Congress) is ever evolving. Interesting times ahead, nevertheless I will like to invite you, if you’re interested, on a page considering the political, cultural identity of our ilk. That said we need various editors to write up a complete, coherent page. The sandbox page link can be found at the South African page portal.
User warning
editPlease read WP:SOCK. One editor, one account. HelenOnline 15:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
User warning
editYour recent editing history at South Africa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Note that the three-revert rule applies per person, not per account, so your use of the User:Vrijburger account doesn't exempt you. -Bridget Greenwood (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
editPlease do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to South Africa. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
editI've just blocked you for one week for inappropriately using multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roland Postma. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hendrik. As you have previously expressed an interest in the matter, please can you participate in the move discussion. HelenOnline 08:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)