User talk:BrianLeRoux1

Welcome!

Hello, BrianLeRoux1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Kruger Millions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! utcursch | talk 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi there, you added a photo to Swys de Bruin. However, this photo was clearly taken from this page. This is copyright violation; you can only add photos to Wikipedia that has the correct license, or is your own work. Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and the same for the photo on Johan Ackermann.

Re your changes to Akker van der Merwe, please refer to WP:MOS and WP:VAGUE specifically. You can't use terms like "widely considered to be". Your quote from Toks van der Linde is fine, but not referenced (and not important enough to be in the article's intro). Add a reference proving that he actually said it. At the moment, you've just added content that can't be traced to anyone or backed up. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Caitlyn Jenner. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Crboyer (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Noted.

I submit that my edits reflected biological and sceintific facts which corrected the previous version which reflected ideological wording.

An online encyclopedia should not promote a certain ideology, but rather have a fact based tone in all articles.

BrianLeRoux1 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Thegooduser. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to African National Congress— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrianLeRoux1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for disruptive edits and undertake not to do ot again, please unblock me

Decline reason:

You knew your contributions were disruptive, they were deliberately disruptive, they were egregiously disruptive. I'd need a lot more to unblock at this stage - including a proper explanation of what you were doing wrong and why, and an explanation of how you will change your general approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Capitalist Party of South Africa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capitalist Party of South Africa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalist Party of South Africa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]