User talk:Gemsbok1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Vryheidsvlag.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vryheidsvlag.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 07:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image on Volkstaat

Just out of curiosity, did you make the flag yourself? My guess is you did. If so, please modify the copyright information to reflect this, because as it stands I suspect the flag will be deleted in a week or so, since it's not clear who is the creator and who holds the copyright. Thanks --Deville 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if it turns out that you didn't make the flag yourself, let me know and I'll make one in Photoshop and then there will be no CR problems for all time. Best, --Deville 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deville, I would appreciate it if you could redraw the flag on the Volkstaat article and save it on the article for copyright purposes (The copy whas e-mailed to me and I think it has no copyright, but I have no proof). Regards Gemsbok1 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to do so. Do you know exactly what the colors are in the flag? RGB values would be optimal. Of course I could just eyeball it from the one which is on there now, but it's probably best to get it exact if we can. --Deville (Talk) 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a new flag and linked it to Volkstaat. Let me know if I got the colors right. --Deville (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welkom!

Dit is nou seker al bietjie té laat, maar ek wil jou tog welkom heet by Wikipedia! Ek sien jy's reeds besig om sterk bydraes aan die Afrikaner-verwante artikels te maak -- doen so voort! Groete, dewet|✉ 21:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Correction ==

Try to know the difference between a personal attack and an a legitimate response to a person's idea and position on a topic. Are you the same person who requested another be banned for expressing opinions that differed from yours? A Wikimoderator had to clarify that was not a worthy reason to ban someone. (notice here is where it gets personal) Is that kind of logic and reasoning and crying out for enforcement due to your upbringing in Apartheid S. Africa? (notice that I did not accuse you, but asked a question, but still it is personal. I hope you know the difference now). I really find your quickness to draw a conclusion before clarifying uncertain facts pretty fascinating. Will you continue to accuse me and others of attacking you personally or will you address the issues at hand? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you should give yourself a round of applause for taking the context away from what was obvious. Even though I obviously do not know you or your family, you would wish to make the conversation personal, therefore the points that matter are lost. I salute you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaners, ens.

Danke vir jou boodskap. :-) Ek sal 'n bietjie na daardie artikels kyk. Ek is op die oomblik op so 'n bietjie van 'n wiki-vakansie, maar sal hopelik volgende week daarby uitkom (na 'n bietjie rus hierdie langnaweek). Dankie vir jou werk aan die Afrikaners-artikel en jammer as ek miskien motiewe daarin gelees het wat nie korrek is nie. Dit maak my gat net 'n bietjie lam dat daar mense is (wat nie eens Afrikaners is nie), wat probeer om twee bevolkingsgroepe uit een te maak, terwyl die verskille (indien enige) maar bitter klein is.

Met vriendelike groete, Elf-friend 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volkstaat article

Hi there. I've been doing some fairly major work on the article this weekend, and have provided all the references I've been working from in the references section. Admittedly, however, I have a fairly liberal POV, and that may have skewed the facts, comments, etc that I may have chosen to include. (There's a lot of reading in there.) Anyway, I invite you to go through the sources yourself, and add in anything I've missed. -Kieran 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I replied on my talkpage as well to have the whole ocnversation in one place. Here is what I wrote: Unfortunatly it is a mostly manual process. There is a general intrest on wikipedia of keeping "historical" record of discussions in a place where they are easy to find. This is especially true in contentious arguments as they frequently come up at requests for arbatration (WP:RfA) or requests for comment (WP:RFC) and people may want to refer to them. I can totally see your point about wanting to clear the air though and I have seen archiving used to do so, though in my expirence if a argument is firce enough removing parts of the page (espically if done selectivly) makes things worse. If it has not caused anyone to object though I suspect you did the correct thing. I will go ahead and make an archive for you, the basic way is:

  1. You create a subpage (in this case Talk:Orania/archive1)
  2. Copy and paste the older inactive conversations into it and save it.
  3. Add a link to the top of the talk page.
Dalf | Talk 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider the proponents of African-American separatism and Mexican-American separatism also as racists, as you do the proponents of Afrikaner separatism? Maybe the issue has been confused due to bias.--Gemsbok1 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Gemsbok, I know that the white conservative mentality about race always boils down to "you take one step, then i take one step" and "you get a penny and then i get a penny". But the reality is this: No African-American or Mexican-American anybody has done what those Afrikaners have done. Let's take a list

Afrikaners banned blacks from using the "our father" prayer.
They banned anything positive about black people being read (including the book black beauty)
They forced Blacks onto "reservations"
Afrikaners kept the best choices from the Apartheid society. They got the good fruit, and seperated the bad fruit from the stocks and left that to the blacks.

I think you get the picture. Afrikaners contemptuously committed atrocities against Black people. The issue about Apartheid is a subordinate issue to the spiteful evil that was "justified"... no a better word would be "straw-manned". We talk about "apartheid" when Apartheid was the nice version of the systematic holocaust in progress of the Afrikaner government, along with the British, and the Boers.

So your question, do I consider African-American seperatists to be racists? Some are. Some, like Orania, seriously believe that that is in their best interest. But here is the difference. African-American seperatists are not worried about Black culture being sifted away. Black American seperatists are worried about the current social exploitation of black people (i.e. hip-hop consumerism, right-wing exploitation, drug cartels being allowed to distribute in the black community, rampant access to guns, neglected schools, etc). No African-American seperatists come from the ashes of African-American atrocities. I don't know of any systematic African-American political engine in the 1960s that rounded up white people and forced them to live in ghettos with no electricity and what not. Do I really need to remind you of the vivid detail of what Apartheid was REALLY about? Or do we continue pretending that Apartheid is merely about "you get one penny" and "I get another"? And then when we hypothetically apply this seperate but "equal" fantasy in reverse, then you get "my penny" and I get yours?

White society has a track record of making policies that keep people of color marganialized. Whether through "economics/business" (oh it's not personal) or "politics" (we can't change the past), or "social" (why can't they just stop being criminals?) excuses, White people in power will invariably lead to a society where they get all the goodies, and if they feel enough pity, will donate a few scraps or hours to helping the most destitute. So yes, I think Black seperatists are racist. Am I afraid they will squeeze or violently try to dismember the U.S.A into weaker regions? no. Do I see the Orania Volkstaaters starting a new movement to dismember the S. Africa? YES.

So this nonsense question you pose, it's no different than the current climate that has gone out of control with right-wing conservatives. George Bush and Dick Cheney. A man apologizes to Dick Cheney for being shot in the face BY Dick Cheney! Colin Powell sells himself out on the U.N. and gets a conscience and quits. But we all pretend that it was done with a more noble reason. So that kind of thinking... will these Black Seperatists be racists? How does that relate to the clear and present danger that the Volkstaat movement poses? To a developing country no doubt! Oh yes, S. Africa has always been a developING country. I dont' care how many maps you saw with S. Africa labeled "1st world developed". So these ideas I throw out, if you sit back and think about them, you will get the answer to your question. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gemsbok here is the real question

You ask about seperatists. The real question you should ask is this. If a white family can adopt (and should have a chance to) a black child in our society (and yours), why then is a black family never allowed to adopt a white child? I am totally for these kind of things. As the excuses come up, just remember how eager one will be to do away with any of this (and thus prefer to condemn the child into the rest of his childhood in a child-group home). Once our society is ok with a black family adopting a white child, then things will be more realistic and equal. Don't ask me silly questions about Black and Mexican seperatists, you are not aware yet of how unequal our society is. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, but not for being reminded that Afrikaners are the scourge of creation. Oh let me clarify this, I do not consider them a scourge of creation, and in fact I find Afrikaners no more interesting, nor relevant, nor great nor meaningful than any other human. No, you are welcome for being reminded that Afrikaners have taught and far too many continue to operate as if BLACK people are the scourge of creation. I know what the OUR Father prayer is Gemsbok, you aren't reading/listening. The Afrikaner Apartheiders had mandated that Black children were not to sing the "out father" prayer in schools, but to say it differently "Father, to whom thou art" instead of "Our Father who art in heaven". YOu also need to get your facts straight about what I said. I said, and I quote "So your question, do I consider African-American seperatists to be racists? Some are." (This is from YOUR talk page). It doesn't matter if they had or had not electricity or running tapwater. Their quality of life was not dependant on European colonization until the colonization itself disrupted their quality of life. Don't be a fool, no one had electricity until the late 19th century, and the Boers themselves mostly did not have running tap water as they Star-Trekked across the S. African galazy in search of strange new lands, seeking out new life and new civilizations to enslave. Technology is no mandate or gauge of living quality, and certainly is no excuse to abuse people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carliterreblanche

You said: "Hi Yamla, you removed the image used in the Afrikaners article. Would you please say why you did not see it as fair use?"

Are you actually referring to Image:Arrested Development - Rita.jpg? If you take a look at the image page itself, you'll see that there's no fair-use rationale provided for the Afrikaners article, thus we can't use it there. Remember, we are not permitted to use a copyrighted image without a detailed fair-use rationale. Additionally, it is a screenshot from a t.v. show; using it on Afrikaners would not be using it to illustrate the work or product in question, in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose. So I do not believe any fair-use rationale could possibly be given for this image. I hope this clears things up. --Yamla 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaner category

Hi, please refrain from putting all afrikaans speaking people (for instance Okkert Brits into the category Afrikaner as this is inaccurate (for clarification please see the article on Afrikaner). I myself am Afrikaans speaking, but I do not want to be associated with the tag of "afrikaner" whatsoever. Currently the association to "afrikaner" is merely a choice or expression of political/cultural views not a hard-and-fast or even scientific categorization. --Deon Steyn 07:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My views are not politically tainted, but the term "afrikaner" is. It no longer has any scientific or academic basis. Deon Steyn 07:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The term Afrikaner was used as early as 1708 to refer to a specific ethnic group, which is long before any political connotation was given to it by people like you. -Gemsbok1 08:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jy is so lief om Hermann Giliomee se boek te noem, wel hier is 'n deel van 'n onderhoud met hom, waar hy self sê dat die term "afrikaner" politiek van aard is (my eie klem/bold): [1]

GB: En die term Afrikaner wat u gebruik? Uit u boek blyk dit dat dit nie ’n term is wat van die begin af gebruik is om die betrokke groep te benoem nie, maar u kies doelbewus om die term steeds te gebruik ...
HG: Ek dink dit sou belaglik wees om Afrikaner as term te verwerp. Die term Afrikaanses het nie veel van ’n toekoms nie. Ek beklemtoon in die boek dat die definisie van die term Afrikaner in ’n baie hoë mate ’n politieke definisie is — dit wissel na gelang van omstandighede — maar daar was altyd (behalwe in die 1950’s en 1960’s) ’n baie sterk neiging om die term Afrikaner oop te definieer sodat dit nuwe mense kan insluit. Ek is nou die dag sommer hier in die Wildtuin gevra wat is my definisie van ’n Afrikaner en ek het gesê — dit was aan Engelssprekendes — enige iemand wat lief is vir die land en wat lief is vir Afrikaans; ek sal dit so wyd maak. Toe sê hulle, maar dan is hulle ook Afrikaners! Ek dink dit is ’n politieke definisie en dit kan een wees wat ruim is en nie eng nie.

So daar het ons dit nou van 'n historikus en die skrywer van die enigste werk wat jy heeltyd voorhou. --Deon Steyn 08:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Afrikaners as an ethnical group is way too distinctive for you to label all white South Africans with Afrikaans surnames as "Afrikaners". I grew up in Bellville and our neighbours' son had Afrikaans surname just because of 1 father from 1 generation, all other generations were Flemish and also had Flemish surnames. He even looks Flemish, but spoke Afrikaans. So can you really call him "Afrikaner"? His name is Werner Greeff. Why provide scientific citations (as you ask) when this example proves to you that "Afrikaans + White = Afrikaner" simply does not work.WickedHorse 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Flag Request

Image:Afrikaner Vryheidsvlag.svg. I will fine tune it later, but enjoy (as for flags in MS Paint, it can be done, but those are being phased out). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carliterreblanche.JPG

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Carliterreblanche.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Carliterreblanche.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Carliterreblanche.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)