Talk:Crime Expo South Africa

message: I've written in information provided in a series of articles by The Citizen newspaper, presenting in-depth investigations that they conducted into the matter. It seems likely that the whole thing was an elaborate scam by Juan Uys, in an effort either to make a lot of money, or to generate publicity for a stint in politics. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things develop. -Kieran 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling the citizen is a bit biased towards the whole thing - although I'm happy with the way you have presented the info in the article. Would be nice if we could get a viewpoint from the other side tho... SparrowsWing 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent events: closure of the site and accusations that it was all a scam 

message: Please take a look at WP:SOCK. If you don't want anyone realising that you're yet-another-sockpuppet of Jackes, then you might consider working on other articles first (don't just pop out of nowhere and start with this one) and at least try not to sound the same as the other sockpuppets (even if you initially pretend to have a different agenda). That means you, Malanjacobs. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a soapbox for you to vent your spleen against the SA government. You can do that on the blog, but this is an encyclopedia. Also, could you please sign in and sign your posts? Thanks. --Guinnog 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is an encyclopedia and it should not be bias. The facts should speak for itself. You have made statements, and I provided references to the statements that you made. This is also not a place to promote the South African Government, by deleting information that they don't like.--NdlovuX 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION: Prospective sockpuppets 

message: Reference is provided to the Moneyweb article. 
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/blogs/mike_stopforth/781476.htm
During previous discutions it was mentioned that the Moneyweb Article is a Blog. A Reference link to this blog is made as proof of the International blogs that have articles on the Crime Expo SA website.--NdlovuX 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moneyweb article 

message: It is my opinion that the editors Zunaid, Impi & Guinnog had nothing to contribute to this article. The only contributions made was to delete information & links that provided references and information. They also deleted information on other articles related to South African crime & politics. All types of excuses are used to justify these actions, but it made articles one-sided. It appear as if they don't want the facts to speak for itself, but they sistematically delete information that (in my opinion) makes the articles one-sided. It also appear as if these editors are the same person (sockpuppets) working as a gang to delete information that is not in their political or other interest. These editors have not provided any information or references to this article, but only deleted information.--NdlovuX 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they need to contribute information or references to this article, to warrant their right to delete information from it if they feel they have good reason? Just a question. --WickedHorse 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NdlovuX, on Wikipedia, all users are termed "editors", not "contributors". The reason for this is that the editing process - deleting unnecessary, POV or incorrect information; cleaning up articles; and generally making those small edits that count - is just as important as the initial contribution of information that both creates and adds to articles. While I am an occasional contributor on stuff I know about (see my user page), I am primarily an editor, seeking to improve those Wikipedia articles that already exist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with, or improper about, people like me editing the article even though I have contributed nothing to it. Indeed, I would argue that the opposite is true: external editors are likely to be less emotionally attached to the content and will likely be more objective. Oh, and the claim about Zunaid, Guinnog and myself being sockpuppets of the same editor is just laughable, seeing as though you're free to check both my edit history and the articles I have created. Though I guess that's more difficult than just making a nebulous claim of "conspiracy!" — Impi 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go further and say I am very proud of the work I have done in helping others to remove and enforce the removal of political propaganda from our encyclopedia. Have you, NdlovuX, ever contributed anything not related to bashing the SA government, under any  of your identities? Maybe you should, because it seems you care too much about this issue to edit dispassionately. See also WP:OWN. --Guinnog 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zunaid, Impi & Guinnog contributed nothing to this article 

message: http://www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=5&slink_id=3752&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3
This info more properly belongs in the Crime in South Africa article, not here. IMHO this article should discuss the website itself and related issues pertaining to the website. While providing some context into crime is useful to the reader, as it currently stands it contains too much detail and the article loses focus because of this. I will not revert just yet, but am interested in hearing others' opinions first. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I was tempted just to remove it, but I thought that might be unpopular with, ahem, some contributors to hte article, so I tried to bring balanced info from the source instead. I wouldn't have a problem with you removing it and moving it into the CiSA article instead, assuming it isn't there already. It'd be a shame if the work I did was completely wasted. --Guinnog 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to CiSA page as suggested. This article is about the website, not the subject of the website. --WickedHorse 11:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAISS placed the 2005/06 Official Crime Statistics into context 

message: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2539
http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3415
There are several references in the Crime Expo website referring to the fact that SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERS TOLERATE PLAQUE OF VIOLENCE.
If you look at the info on these two websites, it is not putting the situation in perspective.
The situation is placed into perspective by the SAISS. The SAISS placed the 2005/06 Official Crime Statistics into context in the following article:
http://www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=5&slink_id=3752&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3
Mention to these two websited does not belong in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.36.19 (talk • contribs) 
:Damn that plaque! They should probably brush better. — Impi 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. --Guinnog 07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African leaders tolerate plaque of violence 

message: The motives and credibility of Riaan (alias Pieter) Boshoff is questioned after he lied under oath to the police when filing a case of “death threats” against CESA supporters. The real name of Pieter Boshoff is Riaan Boshoff. He is the co-owner of Boscor Internet Solutions and he has interests in the South African Tourism industry. Boshoff registered misleading domains in an attempt to confuse CESA supporters & Internet browsers.
http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/node/3461
It should therefore be noted in this article, that the "perspective" brought by the website of Boshoff is highly questionable.
:I took out the version that was there as it seemed to be a bit POV. Can you source this somewhere other than the website itself? --Guinnog 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also consider WP:BLP. --Guinnog 03:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Go find a dictionary and look up a little thing called argumentum ad hominem, so that you may understand why CESA's pointless name-calling and mud-slinging do not invalidate Pieter Boshoff's statements or actions. Then I suggest you read through the comments section on CESA's "exposé" posts, in which Mr Boshoff is threatened with death or severe bodily harm on more than a few occasions (so much for CESA's claim that the death threats were a hoax). After which, I suggest you go back and read the article you just posted, in order to discover that none of the slanderous accusations are either sourced or backed up, forcing us to take CESA's word for it. (Riiiight). Finally, CESA has proved to be an unreliable source and as such fails Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline. Until you can back up your accusations with reliable sources, don't bother posting them here. We won't listen, no matter how many exclamation marks you use. — Impi 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riaan (alias Pieter) Boshoff exposed 

message: There should be a section pertaining statistics of traffic to the website.
On the website www.alexa.com, independent statistics was found on the traffic to the CESA website. This organisation is independent from CESA, and would therefore not benifit from any stats:
The Ranking of the CESA website is: 79348
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.crimexposouthafrica.org
The lower the ranking, the more popular the website.
: I think we should nominate this article for deletion again. It is a vanity article, whose purpose is to promote a website. Wizzy…☎ 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic to website 

message: Wikipedia is not a free web host. This article is about the website itself, not a reposting of the announcements made by the site. I have thus removed the additions to th lead-in section made by an anon, which was simply reposted content from the website. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting content contained on CESA 

message: It has become very clear that some editors are misusing their positions to delete “unwanted” information in the same way as the dictator Robert Mugabe have removed unwanted information by bombing newspapers that report on undeniable facts, but that is not his point of view.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20031028/ai_n12721183
http://www.iol.co.za/?click_id=68&art_id=ct20020712205958399Z5162727&set_id=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/30/wzim30.xml
http://cryforzimbabwe.blogspot.com/2005/01/mugabe-signs-repressive-new-media-law.html
These editors do not have information to proof the given facts wrong; therefore they remove it, using all types of pathetic reasons. The sockpuppet(s) gang together to achieve this collective goal.
The latest comments provided is proof of the fact that the editors are bias (Pro Boshoff), and therefore it can be anticipated that they will remove any information that places facts into perspective. This is a typical method used in the African media. In Africa the media is not free, because the dictators does not like critics based on facts, like mentioned in this article:
South Africa's Free Media Have No Friend in Mbeki
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=ICP&ctype=article&item_id=464
These Robert Mugabe style editing has become part of this article, as well as on other articles written on Africa Politics- Well Africa is the continent of the Dictator Robert Mugabe !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.102.235 (talk • contribs) 
:Again, no attempt whatsoever to debate the issues or answer any of the pertinent questions. Just more of the same pathetic ad hominem attacks and vague accusations which prove nothing other than that you're one seriously paranoid person. Anybody who can look at four editors with thousands of diverse and substantive edits each and claim that they're sockpuppets has evidently got some serious psychological problems. Are you aware that you can pay people to sort that out for you?
:Until you make a convincing case for why your information should be added to this article we will continue to revert the additions you make. I have explained above why they do not belong in the article, referring to existing Wikipedia guidelines and rules in my explanation, yet you reply with nothing except baseless insults. This is not just editing in bad faith, but it's the silly rantings of a person who is evidently unused to the idea of compromise or civility.
:Indeed, I believe I have seen your type before. The disgruntled expat, living in a place like New Zealand and keen as hell to denigrate the 'old country' while telling everybody who'll listen just what a shithole the place you've left has become. To this end sites like CESA serve not as a method to reduce crime, but as a rallying point around which all the pessimists can amass, creating an echo chamber in which they can have their darkest predictions and perceptions about the home country verified by others like them. Never mind those of us who still live in South Africa, sharing a common desire to do whatever possible to bring the crime rate down so we may live ordinary lives in this beautiful country of ours. Whose side are you on anyway? — Impi 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Like I said, it should be an interesting few days. This morning CESA carried an announcement claiming that the original CESA team had been disbanded, to be replaced by a new and unrelated group calling themselves 'Team Fed-Up', allegedly retaining Neil Watson and Shaun Thompson on as advisors. They're also promising to 'reveal the truth' and institute legal action against the Citizen, which should make for fascinating news. After all, the Citizen's main source is a woman who was until recently the CESA site's moderator. Honestly, this is more entertaining than any soap opera plot and decidedly more bizarre. — Impi 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet editors uses dictator Robert Mugabe style censorship 

message: Ah well, it was fun while it lasted... You would think with all the loony tunes posting snippets from the Twilight zone there that some of them would at least donate some money to the site!  Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually not have put that in just yet, and especially not used the word "currently". Preferably wait say two weeks before updating the article, and then use past tense. We shouldn't be updating articles "on the go" when it is something that may be transient or intermittent. I say revert so long, and update the week after next. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the fact that the website service is suspended, is VERY relevant to this article, since there has been numerous rumours about the authenticity of Niel Watson and his true motives with the website, and that it is all a money making scheme, and once he has gathered enough "funds", he will simply run away with the money and leave the website account to expire / suspend / whatever (since he obviously won't pay any more money for its hosting). I did not mention these rumours in the article, maybe someone else with some reliable references to these rumours (!) can do that, but the bottom line is that the suspension of this website is not just "another website suspended", but an incident with significant relevance. Also, it has been alleged that the hosting is (or is not) very cheap, and questions were raised as to where the funds for the hosting service is derived from, so this subject alone already adds to the relevance of adding mention of the website suspension to this article. --WickedHorse 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This account has been suspended" 

message: Is at http://crimexposouthafrica.net Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That site gives a 404 - is this the correct URL? http://crimexposouthafrica.net. SparrowsWing (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new site 

message: The CESA 2 website is available at
http://crimexposouthafrica.net/crimexp/
Take note that there is only 1 "e" in the name, and that this error resulted in the error message of the above note.--Grasshut 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link is not working. If there was ANY working CESA site anywhere, Google would surely have be able to find it. Since a search brings up nothing, I've removed the reference to the "new" site from the article. As and when CESA is relaunched, this article will be updated accordingly. Zunaid©® 11:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct spelling and URL of new CESA website 

message: CESA 2, www.crimexposouthafrica.net
After the closure of the first CESA website, some former commentators decided to create a New CESA or CESA 2 (www.crimexposothafrica.net) and perpetuate the exposure of violent crime in South Africa.
A meeting between former commentators was held on 6 December 2006 in Pretoria and Wayne Möller was chosen to head the New CESA project. Mr. Juan Uys was invited to this meeting, but did not attend.
The members decided that the New CESA would be non racial, encourage diverse views on crime and that it would serve as a platform for all people to reasonably debate the crime situation in South Africa from all angles. It would further have a policy of transparency and core members would post under their real names.
On 11 December 2006, the day that Juan Uys was suppose to launch his political party at the IEC in Sunnyside, Pretoria, the New CESA 2 members gathered in front of the building, but Mr. Juan Uys did not show up and the CESA political party was never formed.
In an interview with Radio 702 and Beeld newspaper, Mr. Wayne Möller, the head of New CESA publicly distanced the New CESA 2 and its members from Mr. Juan Uys and the former website.
On 30 December 2006 the new website www.crimexposouthafrica.net went online and continues to expose the violent crime situation in South Africa, albeit in a controversial way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.174.135 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:V and WP:NOR before posting this to the article again. Information in Wikipedia must come from previously published sources, not first-hand accounts. I've twice reverted your edits. Zunaid©® 07:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalised information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Crime Expo South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124201234/http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/ to http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006213057/http://www.moneyweb.co.za/blogs/mike_stopforth/781476.htm to http://www.moneyweb.co.za/blogs/mike_stopforth/781476.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Took my airtime and data hacked all my contact numbers and whats up 105.245.16.55 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminals using my phone number and my email address and took my airtime and data and open all nonsense in my phone criminal