User talk:Jvb

Those who reject morality in their own lives often project their conscience out onto the periphery of their experience. They take righteous stands on political issues and embrace idealistic ideologies, as a compensation for the moral failures and guilt in their personal lives. They reject personal morality but believe in social morality. Holding the right political beliefs enables them to feel self-righteousness, without the trouble of actually being righteous : I think you should seriously look at yourself in a mirror, and see whether this interesting development does not, by chance, apply to you. There's no morality in hating and promoting hate speech. --FvdP 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do I really am a “Flemish” hate-speech activist such as suggested? I am no hate-speech activist at all and that for the simple reason that the huge financial transfers from Flanders to French-speaking Belgium (Wallonia and enclave Brussels), are to a large extend the result of fraud and extravagance in spending patterns, which can be documented in exact numbers and independent description, see my main page at --Jvb.

But what most of the French-speakers in Belgium give in return is real hate-speech and betrayal towards the Flemish. From time to time we even read the echo of all their libel in the English-speaking press, see for instance the articles from the Guardian mentioned in http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/157/ at Theo Van Gogh’s discussion text at Wikipedia. And towards Americans and British it’s just the same, see the text below (a little something about Belgium).:

--Jvb Dec 28, 2004

"Stalinist Wallonia", "Eurabia", "cows" (about Walloons) are definitely hate-speech terms in my dictionary. --FvdP 19:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

55% of the Walloons is earning an income. This is composed as follows:

-16% private domain (industry and commerce)

-39% public domain (public administrations, unemployment benefits…)

This is the information N-VA leader Bart De Wever has found in the official public accounting figures. Yesterday he was on the Flemish television in a discussion program. His opponent, the son of (Walloon) Euro commissar Michel was present, but did not deny the numbers.

And the worst of all things: nothing changes in Wallonia. With further delocalisation, even Flanders is no longer able to spend money in such a massive way or Flanders will go to hell itself.

But my principal conclusion is: Wallonia has a very, very big problem.

But instead of putting all one’s cards on the table and looking for real solutions by reorganising the labor market, the Walloons use methods in the sphere of “Stalinism” (no transparency, restrictions on free speech, political trials) and “Eurabia” (in fact the same as is said/asserted about France but locally in Belgium). Meanwhile not seeming to understand that the Flemish are no suckers and that this makes the situation volatile… But perhaps those Walloons who haven’t worked for generations even don’t know any longer what working is???

I don’t remember me calling Walloons “cows”. Their leaders I would rather describe as “snakes”.

--Jvb – January 10, 2005

"snakes"... yet another hate speech word. --FvdP 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at the unbelievable macro-economic numbers above. Flemish political leaders who want to bring this under public attention are charged/intimidated (the N-VA party) and must fear a trial because of laws (anti-“racism”/anti-“discrimination” laws) and an institution (the politically controlled Thought-Police), hatched out in Wallonia. Don’t you understand that Flemish workers must work for this and constantly improve their productivity? Never asked why the consumption of tranquilisers in Flanders is one of the highest in the world?

Flanders virtually lives under occupation and I would not be allowed to use terms with a negative emotional connotation??? Must I surrender? I’ll say it with Bart De Wever’s words : “NUTS”.

--Jvb – January 12, 2005

A little something about Belgium

What does the English-speaking world really know about politics and Belgium? If you register our existence at all, is it simply as a rather grey but worthy and pleasantly sensible little country. Or do we, perhaps, seem so burdened by the tragedies of 20th century history and, these days, so communautaire that we automatically eschew anything more divisive than the Federal Government’s consumption of paperclips? Or do you suspect that beneath all that we might be a nation of ten million Noel Godins – every one an exponent of the whacky, cream-filled theatre of the absurd? Do you see a Belgium of uncontainable anarchism that laughs up its sleeve while consoling poor Bill Gates for his 1998 humiliation ( http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/godin.htm) by Godin’s followers? (Well, not poor Bill Gates, exactly. I take that back. And, in Godin’s mitigation, what else does one do in Brussels but eat cake?) The truth, of course, is that there are two sides to Belgium, facing in entirely different directions. But I shall come to that later. For now, you should know that we are neither politically boring nor anarchist street comedians. But our political masters, now that’s another matter. Our political masters know precisely how to deliver a calculated public humiliation with perfect timing and with all the sang froid in the world. Think back, if you will, to Gulf War 1. Do you remember the urgent request from the British to our Federal Government for vital ammunition supplies? You should. It was a defining moment. Our political masters understood its potential perfectly. There were the Anglo-Saxons, hands outstretched in friendship, completely unsuspecting, convinced that we would be only too happy to make a gesture of European solidarity and … pish! Le moment Godin. No ammo but cream everywhere. And then to finish, the perfect anarchic touch – immediately afterwards we threw away all our bombs as their expiry date had arrived. Well, what’s so wrong about that, you may ask? One must never loose sight of who one’s true enemies are. What had Saddam’s Presidential Guard ever done to us? And the same for Osama, for that matter. So fast-forward to early November 2001. The Americans are one month into Operation Enduring Freedom. The Taliban has been bunker-busted. Moslems are resentful. The Stars & Stripes and effigies of Dubya are burning in capitals across the third world, and in Europe. Still only eight weeks since 9/11 this is a time for a united front among EU member states in support of America’s righteous War on Terrorism. Or, at least, you would think so. But already the fingers of Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, are feeling for that cream cake. But it’s at Britain again that he takes aim. He scoffs at Tony Blair’s perceived theatricality, an easy target after all. The British Prime Minister is guilty of “over-acting” and being altogether “too bellicose.” Blair’s support for Washington had left him with a “bitter taste” in his mouth. Ominously, of the Americans he warns, “there are limits to solidarity.” Not really. There was no solidarity. Now fast forward once more, this time to those charged weeks before Gulf War 2. There is now more protest on the streets of Brussels (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/01/106925.html ). This time the game is different. France, Germany and Russia are in diplomatic conflict with the English-speaking world. But little Belgium can still play the incorrigible rogue. Michel, again, and Defence Minister Andre Flahaut debate a motion on American power before an audience of two thousand students at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles. “I am beginning to fear the U.S,” says Michel. Belgians, he notes, are starting to look upon the U.S as they once looked upon the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union? Really? SS20’s aimed at the heart of Europe ... all the peoples to the east living in penury under the Soviet thumb! For his part Flahaut, a socialist, attacks Blair, saying he would do everything in his power to have him expelled from the Socialist International. The comic irrelevance of such a gesture aside, does that sound like the kind of public statement Mr Hoon would make about Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt? Hardly. Only in Belgium do senior Ministers – supposedly mature and responsible politicians – set out at such a time to inflame anti-American and anti-British passions in the young. Completely unabashed, Flahaut followed this up by threatening to deny Belgian airspace and use of the port of Antwerp to the U.S military. No other EU member state was playing this contemptible game, not even France. But Flahaut actually lobbied in Europe for others to follow suite. His idea of solidarity, I suppose. It must have made the Americans seeth, as it was intended to. Yet far worse was to come. Since 1993 there has existed a, let us say, unusual War Crimes Law on the Belgian statute book. It provides for Belgian courts to hear charges against anybody in any theatre of war anywhere. Under this provision nineteen Iraqis had brought a suit against General Tommy Franks listing “specific incidents” in which US soldiers and commanders violated the law. Finally, the Americans stirred. The State Department told Belgium flatly not to allow its laws to be prostituted for “divisive politicised lawsuits”, meaning for the purpose of opposing American unilateralism. Senior administration officials warned that issuing indictments would result in real “diplomatic consequences” for Belgium. Donald Rumsfeld was clearer still, threatening to move Nato HQ from Brussels. Jan Fermon, the lawyer handling the case, retorted, “I think either the US State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it’s very important for them to have an independent inquiry - and why can’t it be a Belgian magistrate - or they have something to hide and that’s why they are threatening Belgium.” Of course, it might also have been that the Americans had had enough of the Belgian rogue. In any case, Verhofstadt bowed to expediency, softening the legislation so that charges under it could be transferred to another legal competency, meaning America. With that relations improved – just to the point where, last January, Flahaut could stir the pot again. He used an interview with the weekly magazine, Humo. If he was an American, he declared, he would vote Democrat. Of the U.S military he said, “The Americans are throwing so much money at their army that it simply can’t function efficiently anymore. When they have to move 15 men from point A to point B they deploy three planes to make sure it works. We deploy one plane, or better still, first check with an ally whether we can’t take a ride on its plane.” He did not, however, improve his little joke by explaining that the average Belgian soldier is 44 years old and would need a good push from behind to get himself and his kit onboard. But there was nothing funny about the substance of what Flahaut had to say. It was to assert that Washington opposes a unified European defence because internal EU rivalry better benefits the U.S. defence industry. Never mind NATO. Never mind geopolitical tensions and national security. Just business, folks. That did it. The Americans reacted again, Colin Powell reaching for the telephone and his Belgian counterpart’s throat. Michel felt the pressure. Independently, we are told, Verhofstadt wrote to Flahaut criticising his remarks “as inappropriate towards an ally.” “Aren’t I allowed to have a political opinion,” Flauhaut protested in the press. But, of course, who could doubt that that is what Flahaut is for. In April he strode fearlessly back into the firing line yet again. He lent his approval to a 16-page official report on genocide around the world, in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan massacre. It appeared in two forms, first as an exhibit (http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm24.showMessage?topicID=115.topic) at Brussels’ Monument of the Unknown Soldier and then in a government-sponsored military magazine. Inevitably, it was anti-American. Never mind Hitler or Stalin (who wasn’t even mentioned). The worst – the very worst - genocide committed in the past 500 years has, it said, been the extermination of 15 million Native Americans in what is the U.S today. The report dated the killing from 1492, when Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World. But it pointedly gave no end-date, implying that there are Native Americans expiring in Bush’s gulags to this day. At this point you might think that Flahaut is nine-tenths of the problem. But he is simply an opportunist. The policy of the Belgian government is not Flahaut’s policy. But it is a policy with the recurrent theme of opposing the English-speaking world however and wherever an opportunity arises. The most inviting opportunity, currently, is the plan for an EU army (http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/weu30.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/30/ixnewstop.ht) in opposition to the Atlantic Alliance. Now we are deep in the geopolitical scheme of things, where Chirac and Schroeder are maneuvering to advance their national interests through the long-term goal of bi-polarity in global affairs. Belgium out of her league, did you say ? Ridiculous idea. Naturally, she is to the fore again, hosting April’s Praline Summit with France, Germany and mighty Luxembourg in Brussels. For sure, the outcome is quite modest : a military planning cell to be set-up and headquartered in, yes, Brussels. No one can be certain that a real army will emerge from this. There are deep logistical, financial and cultural difficulties. But it is another step on the road of confrontation. It irritates America and troubles Britain and Netherlands, Italy and all the new accession states, which is plentiful reward in itself. And so we return to the beginning and the dual nature of the political creation which is Belgium. That duality is the wellspring of all these excesses. Because the worldviews of Wallonia and Flanders are irreconcilable one has abbrogated to itself permanent political control, and does not hold back from using it. So this is the story of politically dominant, economically backward Wallonia and prosperous, much put-upon Flanders, and how they differ by race, language, economic output, political perception and ambition. Over the next few weeks I will explore these differences in their political effect inside Belgium, and especially inside Flanders. For now, I will finish on a slightly more hopeful note. Recently, Andre Michel has had to flee to the European Commission because of a blood-letting in the Walloon political world He was replaced by a good Flemish, Karel De Gucht. The morbid political games and wreckless confrontation are in sharp decline. De Gucht is more interested in economic welfare and in reaching a better understanding with the English-speaking world. So Belgian bad faith, the product of a Walloon elite that has grown arrogant in its familiarity with power, will certainly be scaled down. But fundamentally, De Grucht’s appointment won’t resolve anything. As soon as a moment of decision arises for the Belgian government the weight of Wallonia will tell. As long as Belgium exists it will be a nuisance.

Authorisation to use Mr. Johan Van Vlaams’ texts such as represented at: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8/ has been granted, web-site secretariat at wirebiz@btinternet.com.

NY Times link

As I said in [[The New York Times] talk page, I've removed the blog link you put there (twice, in fact) because an article about the newspaper is not a forum for discussion of issues that the paper covers. If that were the case, that article (and many others on wikipedia) would quickly drown in a sea of blog links and debate. The removal is not a comment on whether the discussion itself is correct, just that the newspaper article isn't the place for it. So, please, don't replace the link; perhaps it belongs somewhere else in wikipedia, but not there. - DavidWBrooks 20:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately it is not about me or about an organisation I belong to, but nevertheless, would you like it when your name is linked to the biggest bunch of mass-murderers in history, especially when there is in fact NO link. This is no ordinary discussion. I suppose you understand this. --JvbFebruary 28, 2005

Vfd

I have listed your recent article on the "Votes for deletion page" as it is a source text rather than an encyclopaedic article. The correct place to put this would be Wikisource. Having said this I am worried that it is a copyright violation in the first place. Please re-assure me in this respect. Thanks Refdoc 10:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To remove a vfd tag is according Wikipedia policy vandalism. Vfd is a normal part of editing sorting etc articles. If you do not agree with the deletion simply vote. The majority of listed articles are never deleted, but all improve due to the process of being read by many more than usual. I will re-instate the tag now. If you remove it despite this explanation I must assume this is intentional and will treat it accordingly. Refdoc 10:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. Copyright was granted by the quality newspaper De Standaard, see discussion side at Flemish Interest.

About removing the tag. The problem was rather technical. I was not able to make a direct link at Flemish Interest article, because the original article was in Dutch and not translated. So I placed it at full length. But another user, for whatever reasons, had objections. So my idea was simply to make a new item, to which I could link. For the case Wikipedia doesn’t grant this new article, I suppose the solution will be that I simply replace the full text at the original site at Flemish Interest.

--Jvb March 10, 2005

That would be quite wrong. Lengthy quotes should be referenced (if on paper),linked (to the original wbesite) or put into Wikisource which is the repository for articles etc considered worth preserving. My own preferences would be the first two options as the content is far from earth-shattering, but if you believe strongly that the content is one English speaking readers need to have, do have a look at Wikisource. You could link from there. Refdoc 11:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the time being, Wikisource is disabled. I will revert later.

--Jvb March 10, 2005

I don’t think anybody will ever republish it and I don’t think that ever a second article from the professor from the Flemish shire will be incorporated, at least not in English, except perhaps for the case someone wants to write a book about the plight of neo cons abroad.

The article was submitted on March 10 for discussion. The discussion period meanwhile passed over. If the article is no longer listed for deletion, so there is no need to keep the tag any longer too, I humbly suppose.

--Jvb – March 16, 2005

7 full days. Also it is the job of an admin to remove the tags, close the delete page etc. Refdoc 12:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can the tag now please be removed and the delete page closed. Thank you.

--Jvb – March 23, 2005

New request to remove the tag from "The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism". Thank you.--Jvb – March 25, 2005

Third time: I did the job myself.--Jvb – March 28, 2005

Please leave the page alone while voting is under way. Refdoc 10:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is now getting deleted. Refdoc 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. --Jvb – Apr 6, 2005

Vlaams Belang

Hi, thanks, I agree that the article has definately improved, Ideally I would have liked to bring all parties round (including FvdP) so we can reach a consensus. Since there's no dispute about the article's neutrality I agree that the message should be removed. (Posted to your talk page too, incase mine isn't watched). -- Joolz 19:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

South African agriculture

Hi, I don't know why you wrote what you did in that section and I've reverted it back to the old version because unless you can provide sources for it, it seemed like a rather cheap and nasty, and even racist thing to put into the article. I don't know if that was your intention, and I sincerely hope it wasn't. XYaAsehShalomX 17:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That in South Africa most commercial farms (still) are owned by whites and that blacks mostly have a subsistence farm, because they simply are not qualified to run a commercial farm, is no point of discussion.

• Uh, plenty of blacks do run commercial farms, although most of them are still owned by whites. "They are not qualified" is POV. How do you know this?

The fact that the white commercial farmer in South Africa has as an average more than 100 ( I somewhere read 138 at a certain point in time) black employees doesn’t change the picture about white farmers who decide about investments and who send their children to the agri high school etc.. And these are the big South African estates that produce the big food.

Actually there are two major (white) agricultural organisations: Agri SA and TAU SA. Do you know any big black agricultural organisation? If not then there is no important black farming sector, because it can’t subsist without. There perhaps has been land reform, but this has turned out to be subsistence farming (until the soil is depleted). BTW, they even can’t run a commercial farm on it, because they don’t get full property deeds that are needed for a mortgage. They are only “tolerated” on the ground. --Jvb – December 06, 2005

For the time being I don’t find a reference that black single mother farmers are a favourite target of farm murderers, but as they are the most vulnerable, it is not impossible. At any event, because only the commercial farmers are really important for food production, I propose to limit the text to them.

• Well, then you admit that what you said is pure speculation, and has no basis in reality, but purely your own assumptions.

It is no pure speculation. I really read it somewhere, something like BBC or so. I googled to find the source but I only found something that partly referred to it in a blog, so I could not mention it. The only mistake I made was to write “mostly”, in fact it was “in many cases”. From that perhaps you suspected me having a racial undertone. Sorry for that. But if I really had “racial” intentions than I would perhaps have written more filthy details, something like: “and afterwards, in many cases, the whole family is burned in their shack”. Something, if I remember well, was indicated too in that text. At any event, because the subject is now discussed apart under “agriculture” , for food production it is not important. --Jvb – December 06, 2005

This has nothing to do with racism.

--Jvb – December 05, 2005

• I hope you're right, but I don't really know what to think, personally. XYaAsehShalomX 10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please find something that will back it up? You can't expect me to take your word for it that you "really read it somewhere". Could you try and find the source, because if it can't be verified it shouldn't really be in an encyclopedia such as this one. Thank you. XYaAsehShalomX 11:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m a very busy person, for the time being I won’t do any further research on it, but I promise you that I will keep an eye on it. And if it really matters, it will certainly come back and then I will contact you. Then you are free to mention it or not. --Jvb – December 06, 2005

• OK then. :) XYaAsehShalomX 13:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• A serious backup: [1] “An unexplainable high percentage of victims were defenceless women”. Remark that no more explication is given about the kind of defenceless women, black or white. Because the category of (black) women is no TAU member? Mind you, TAU is nothing more or less than an organisation that also is a pressure group. --Jvb – December 07, 2005

Image Tagging Image:Bush.jpg (meanwhile Image:Image-Bush.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bush.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the editor:  :http://www.animoweb.be/default.aspx?ref=AA&lang=NL&duck=10&persid=73

As you can see, it is a political poster that was widely (and freely) spread in Belgium (in urinals).

The authenticity can be verified here: :http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp

--Jvb – February 1, 2006

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been acccepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fethullah Gulen.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Dear Wikipedian, I suppose this could be a mistake, because I never filed such a request. Friendly greetings.

--Jvb – February 12, 2006

Looks like the notice should have been about Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vlaams Belang. I'll have to discipline my secretary for carelessness! (User:Celestianpower was nice enough to send out those notes on my behalf, and must have gotten his links confused.) Have a look at the Vlaams Belang mediation page. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you indicate for me that you are willing to mediate on this issue? I have a mediator lined up, all I need is for you to say you're willing. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am willing to mediate on this issue. What do you expect me to do? --Jvb – February 19, 2006

Great! So just to clarify: the dispute is still active and all parties (specifically, 157.191.2.17 and yourself and anyone else involved) are still interested? (I also note that 157.191.2.17 has only edited sporadically.) If so, I'd be happy to take the case, as it has been assigned to me. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Gent-vrijdagmarktpanorama.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gent-vrijdagmarktpanorama.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Source added --Jvb March 13, 2006

Copyright violation

Hi. I thought I should tell you that the section on your userpage entitled "The financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia" is a copyright violation. Could you please remove it? Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a summary of the concerned article. Thank you. --Jvb March 20, 2006

License tagging for Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tag added. --Jvb September 1, 2006

Orphaned fair use image (Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 19:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a poster about the South African rape crisis. If the poster is orphaned, I agree to become the stepparent. --Jvb November 13, 2006

Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to delete this poster any longer. It is used here Crime in South Africa --Jvb November 13, 2006

Image:Iron Crosses Day at Pietersburg (Polokwane) "in memory of the farmers killed unmercifully in South Africa".jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iron Crosses Day at Pietersburg (Polokwane) "in memory of the farmers killed unmercifully in South Africa".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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Afrikaner volkstaat - mainland.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Afrikaner volkstaat - mainland.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:South African police date-rape poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blog

Your only five edits in the last two and a half year have been five attempts to use the same severely biased blog article as a source in Belgium. You have been reverted by different people each and every time, and rightly so. This source is not a reliable independent source and doesn't represent a neutral point of view. There are enough newspapers and mainstream magazines, both from within Belgium and from abroad, discussing the Belgian political crises, from every point of view you can want, that we don't have to use blogs as sources, and that we don't have to present one-sided blogs as if they are a reliable, neutral summary of the situation. Fram (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)