Talk:AltX

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on AltX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=302707
Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=564&fArticleId=188898
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20031230193411/http://www.busrep.co.za:80/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=269350 to http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=269350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AltX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This article is a joke. It should be deleted without review.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more precise in your criticism please? The article had been vandalised (which I have now fixed); what in the current article do you find offensive? Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the age of acceptable fake news. If you know absolutely nothing about something how are you to evaluate if someone has vandalized an article verses made up something in its entirety with some amount of logic in presenting it as real. Any amount of editing shows that there are parts of articles that are judgmental and there are sometimes text that is absolutely false. If someone is consulting a work to find out about something and accepts what they find as the truth then fake news has just been accepted. WP is a source. I know absolutely nothing about this article but the way it was presented it appeared to be fake. That is why I found that if it is fake then it should be deleted. If you know something about the subject then great for you but every editor has to understand that everyone is not an expert in every subject. And if someone comes to the conclusion that something is wrong then they should bring it to the attention of those that can do something about it. That is why I reacted the way I did. If you returned this article to acceptability and truth then wonderful but then to question someone calling for something to be done is not within the spirit of WP. You need to understand that.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you see an article that looks like this [1] it should be obvious that it has been vandalized. Please don't ask for articles to be deleted if you can't be bothered to look at the history. Meters (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do about my judgment . You are very disrespectful and arrogant. Don't you understand what you read?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for clarification because your original message made very little sense. Wikipedia has specific criteria for the deletion of articles; you cannot simply say, "I don't like this article, please delete it." Since you were unspecific, I was unsure whether you were requesting deletion because you had seen the vandalised version of the page and did not know how to check the history, or because you had checked the history and still felt that there was a problem with the article. In the future, it would be much more helpful if you used the correct CSD tags or explained on the talkpage why you felt the page needed to be deleted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]