User talk:Katangais

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Namibia, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Namibia. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Archives

1, 2, 3

Hi,with regards to your inquiries on the Namibian Army's WZ-523,well Namibia's WZ-523 are armed with 73mm cannon or a single heavy machine gun please see images at this link http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8370

The 73 mm guns are very much in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViceAdmiral (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Goffal page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kite shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White Africans of European ancestry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masai. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently made this edit. I am sure you meant well, but I have a few concerns about it. I hope you don't mind me sharing them with you. Hopefully we can find some common ground!

First, you changed the following:

Internal resistance to the apartheid system in South Africa came from several sectors of society and saw the creation of organisations dedicated variously to peaceful protests, passive resistance and armed insurrection.

to:

Internal resistance to apartheid in South Africa originated from several sectors of society and took the form of social movements, passive resistance, and guerrilla warfare.

The former wording suggests, correctly, that internal resistance to apartheid arose independently in diverse parts of the population, and that different groups within the resistance used different methods in pursuit of that resistance.

Your new wording, however, especially "originated" and "took the form of", seems to me to wrongly imply that internal resistance coalesced into a heterogeneous movement that embraced the three forms you then list. Also, I question your use of "social movements" in place of "peaceful protests", and "guerilla warfare" in place of "armed insurrection". Overall, I am especially concerned your new wording here may all too easily mislead a reader into thinking that anyone involved in internal resistance against apartheid must have been part of a group that practised guerrilla warfare - which would be a very false impression indeed.

Please could you consider rewording that sentence along the following lines?

Internal resistance to the apartheid system arose independently in several sectors of South African society, resulting in numerous resistance groups, some of whom formed coalitions. The various resistance groups adopted different measures, according to the philosophies of their constituents, some preferring to organise peaceful protests, others engaging in passive resistance. Some adopted armed insurrection.

Also in the same edit, you replaced the previous illustration with a photograph of what appears to be a violent protest. This, again, has the potential to mislead a reader to the impression that acts of violence were an inseparable part of internal resistance to apartheid. I would ask you to revert that change, or to use this image instead, in order to reduce the potential of misleading our (Wikipedia's) readers.

Finally, you have given one "result" of the internal resistance as "military stalemate". That would only make sense if it the internal resistance was a military effort; but it wasn't. It was mostly civilian. I note that you cite two sources, but neither one has its text available online, which makes it hard to tell if you are citing them accurately. I am assuming good faith here, and I am sure you did not intentionally misrepresent your sources, but I would be very grateful if you could quote in reply to me the passages you are citing as evidence for the claim that the result of the internal resistance was military stalemate.

Thanks! zazpot (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howzit, Zazpot. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I would be happy to alter the wording of the first sentence in the paragraph as it was certainly not my intention to imply that anti-apartheid movements were any sort of monolith. Something like this, perhaps?

Internal resistance to apartheid in South Africa originated from several independent sectors of society and alternatively took the form of social movements, passive resistance, or guerrilla warfare.

I've made specific reference to independent sectors of society, and without lengthening the existing sentence too much or requiring a second sentence to elaborate further, "alternatively" suggests that social movements, passive resistance, and guerrilla warfare were adopted by separate segments of said society.

With regards as to my choice of images and my use of the wording "military stalemate" to describe internal resistance to apartheid: the infobox is a military conflict infobox. It was meant to display information pertinent to a military campaign; hence I described, in strictly military terms, what the outcome was of the ANC/PAC's guerrilla campaign against the South African state (a tactical stalemate). Likewise, the image was selected for its militancy, and appropriateness for an infobox about a military conflict. That being said I do think the photograph of Mandela burning his passbook possesses a greater degree of historical significance, so I'll replace it accordingly.

Here is the text you requested from the references I cited:

"Towards the latter half of the 1980s a military stalemate was developing in South Africa and the perception of a mutually hurting stalemate gradually took hold in the minds of the leading stakeholders. The military stalemate resulted from, on the one hand, the ability of the state to contain the armed insurrectionary plan of the ANC, and on the other, its inability to displace the armed presence of the ANC inside the country. The ANC could, and did, succeed in executing armed actions (sabotage, bombs, land mines, hand grenade attacks, etc) inside the country, but they could not succeed in establishing ‘liberated zones’. The security forces of the state could contain the forces of MK in a military sense through detentions, bannings, arrests, and deaths in armed confrontations, but it could not eliminate them as a political presence within South Africa. Neither could prevail on its own terms. The stalemate was a mutually hurting condition. The number of MK casualties in battle rose, as did the number of SADF and SAP members who died in combat. The number of people held in detention under two states of emergency escalated enormously. The socio-economic ramifications of this military confrontation, in the form of declining local and international investor confidence, a sliding currency value, domestic labour turbulence and decreasing economic activity contributed to the overall costs of the stalemate." - Du Toit, pg. 92, 'South Africa's Brittle Peace: The Problem of Post-Settlement Violence'.

"The idea of a mutually hurting stalemate (MHS) was developing by William Zartman, who defines it as follows: ‘The concept is based on the notion that when the parties find themselves locked in a conflict from which they cannot escalate to victory and this deadlock is painful to both of the (although not necessarily in equal degree or for the same reasons) they seek an alternative policy or way out.’ Zartman and co-author Guy Faure write: ‘When a stalemate hurts, it is rational for the parties to come to terms; if both are caught in the impasse, the conditions are set for negotiations to provide a way out that benefits each. This situation does not guarantee a positive result, but it does provide the minimal conditions for one.’ They go on to explain that the MHS has to be perceived as effective. It ‘is the perception of the objective condition, not the condition itself, that makes for a MHS. If the parties do not recognise ‘clear evidence’ (in someone else’s view) that they are in an impasse, a Mutually Hurting Stalemate has not (yet) occurred, and if they do perceive themselves to be in such a situation, no matter how flimsy the ‘evidence’, the MHS is present. Military stalemate lies at the root of nearly every successful negotiation...in South Africa, the MK – the armed wing of the ANC- was ineffective. In the words of Chief Buthelezi, the leader of Inkatha, it has not blown up a single bridge or occupied a single acre of soil. Nelson Mandela said that by the 1980s, ‘It was clear to me that a military victory was a distant if not impossible dream...It was time to talk.’ Some radicals in the ANC still argued they could take power by force and that liberation was around the corner, and saw any talk of negotiation as a synonym for betrayal; but by the time of the Harare Declaration in August 1989, the doves had the upper hand and succeeded in committing the ANC to negotiation. In Mbeki’s words, the ‘ANC’s trump card is not the armed struggle. It is the political struggle – internationally and nationally.’ On the other side, the National Party government came to realize it could not win militarily either. As Mike Louw put it, South Africa had six nuclear weapons but no military solution to its problems. There was only one way to go, and that was a negotiated settlement." - Powell, pgs. 145 - 146, 'Terrorists at the Table: Why Negotiating is the Only Way to Peace'.

It's worth noting that the impression I received when I was in RSA was very much that the ANC's armed struggle was an integral part of the resistance to apartheid, and as such the military dimension of the campaign should not be downplayed or ignored. Anyway, that's just my perspective - maybe I was mistaken. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Katangais, for this very helpful reply. Your reply made me curious to know the context in which you were in SA: for example, during which decade(s), and were you deployed there, for example? Certainly, many subjects worthy of an encyclopedia are like Rumi's elephant: large and complex enough that each person who studies them is likely to receive a somewhat unique perspective, depending upon the parts to which they were exposed. (N.B. Please do not feel obliged to address my curiousity if you have any misgivings whatsoever about doing so. I would never want a Wikipedian to disclose unimportant information about themselves that they would prefer to keep private, on my account.)

I agree that the armed struggle was a component of the resistance that should not be ignored, but whereas you are concerned that its significance should not be downplayed, I concerned that its significance should not be overplayed. Here is my understanding: MK's role in the internal resistance was but one facet of the ANC's role in the internal resistance; and that in turn was just one facet (albeit arguably the most significant facet) of the internal resistance movement as a whole. Similarly for other armed factions internally opposing apartheid. Viewed this way, military action was just a sub-facet of the internal resistance movement. As far as I can tell, the majority of people involved in internal resistance never took up arms in the service of that resistance, and many of them (it is impossible to know how many) deeply opposed the idea of doing so. This impression has come fom my reading on the topic, from conversations with people who were involved in internal resistance, and from visiting relevant museums, including the Apartheid Museum, Old Fort prison buildings, and MuseuMAfricA in Johannesburg, and Robben Island.

I am very grateful for the excerpts you have transcribed above, which clearly make the case for describing the conflict between the MK on the one side, and the SADF and SAP on the other, as reaching a military stalemate. Thank you for updating the infobox in that vein (though I think it might be more appropriate to replace "government" with "SADF and SAP", on account of the non-military, non-combatant character of the majority of the government's organs - do you agree?).

About the infobox: I appreciate your desire to do justice to it as a military conflict infobox. I am, though, concerned whether a military conflict infobox does justice to the subject of the article. Cf. my understanding above about military action being just a sub-facet of internal resistance to apartheid. To illustrate: the artistic activities of the Market Theatre were a notable and integral part of internal resistance to apartheid; so were the many books written and courses taught by South Africans in opposition to apartheid; so were many friendships, even, in days when those were risky to pursue across "racial" lines; but can such deeply non-military aspects of the resistance be suitably summarised in a military conflict infobox? I wonder if perhaps Wikipedia ought to have a "social movement" infobox we could use here instead, or if alternatively this article, at least, would be better without the infobox.

On a different note, thank you for changing the photo. I think the passbook-burning photo in some ways epitomises the whole internal struggle as well as any single photo can. It shows that, on the whole, this was not a struggle to attack people but rather a struggle against specific new oppressions; and that in the face of such oppressions, even a successful, be-suited lawyer could be driven to openly defy the state's oppressive new laws. The act of burning the passbook hints at the potential for larger violence in the scope of that defiance, but does not unduly centralise it.

Finally, about the opening sentence for the lede: I'll get back to you on that after I've taken care of a few IRL tasks off-wiki! Thanks again, zazpot (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed wording for the opening sentence is basically good, but still leaves some room for misinterpretation:

• "originated from several independent sectors of society" might be misunderstood to mean "originated only from independent sectors of society". Yet some of the people in South Africa who resisted apartheid were interdependent with, or dependent upon, other people who also resisted apartheid, e.g. individuals in "mixed" couples or families might each have been subject to different rules from each other under apartheid, yet have resisted it as a family; likewise "banned" people and their friends or relatives. Also, some of the resistance groups or their leaders began to openly resist apartheid only after first co-ordinating with others. So, it is worth seeking wording that minimises the risk of this potential misunderstanding.
• "independent sectors" is a bit confusing: it begs the question, "In what sense independent?" Geographically? Economically? Politically? Culturally? Something else?
• "alternatively took the form of" could be incorrectly assumed to mean that the resistors ended up becoming a cohesive bloc which took those forms in some kind of chronological sequence. Saying, instead, "variously took the forms of" might reduce this misunderstanding, but would not quite eliminate it.

The wording I proposed in my first message above, although slightly longer, was intended to avoid these potential miscommunications. The article is long enough that splitting the opening sentence into two or three sentences for clarity would not unduly lengthen it. I would be grateful if you would consider again using the wording I proposed, but if you feel that concision trumps clarity in this case, then I understand (even if I don't quite agree).

Above all: thank you again for your consideration of the points I made to you, and for your continued effort to improve the article! zazpot (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katangais, apparently I misread the SADF article, thank you for the information. As you already know, my point that white supremacism was embedded in SADF as an institution through its anti-insurgency mandate and its racial recruitment rules remains just as valid.

Your point that white supremacy had nothing to do with the battle, on the other hand, is misguided. We may all have our opinions, but that`s not what wikipedia is about, as we know. I would love (sincerely) to see a quotation for that claim, it would totally change not only my view but the view of historians in general. So I highly recommend you to spread the word to the world, if this is true. As it stands now, it seems to be a consensual view - again, help me if I`m wrong - not only of historians but also of all the main powers involved in the conflict that white supremacy was indeed an important aspect of the whole thing. Your idea that "the actual battle" is about casualties, military movements and whatnot contradicts one simple premise of war history (and history in general): why? Why were people fighting a battle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and state this very simply: You appear to be mixing up Internal resistance to apartheid with South Africa's intervention in the Angolan Civil War (including the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale). Since it's obvious neither of us are going to reach an agreement on our own, I'm going to open a discussion on Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale and ping it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History so we can make a decision based on consensus. Sound good? --Katangais (talk)

An editor has asked for a Move review of South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

An editor has asked for a Move review of German South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Katangais. Would you have access and be able to upload a new map for Regions of Namibia, reflecting the split of Kavango region into two? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. An updated map which included both East and West Kavango already existed on the German Wikipedia, so it was a simple matter to translate and upload an English version, which I've placed at the Regions of Namibia article accordingly. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the speedy and prompt response. I will replace it on WP:pt. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katangais. I was wondering if you would be able to help me put some public domain newsreels onto the Commons. While surfing through archive.org, I found the three films:

• Newsreel Congo Crisis 1
• Newsreel Congo Crisis 2
• Newsreel Congo Crisis 3

The first two are Universal Newsreels, the latter is a collection of silent footage collected by the United States Army. Accordingly, all are in the public domain. The reason I ask is that, while they cover a myriad of topics, all have something to do with the Congo Crisis and I think the material in here would be very useful. I would upload them myself but it appears some sort of format-conversion process is necessary. Care to assist? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howzit Indy beetle,

Apologies for the late response, but I was busy with a few other things this week and wanted to make absolutely certain I'd tried everything before getting back to you.

I converted the three videos you linked in your comment to a Wikimedia Commons-friendly format (WebM and OGG); however, they are all larger than 100MB. Videos and images over 100MB in size are larger than what the Commons server is configured to allow.

Uploading a 100MB+ file is beyond what I can help you with, but admins on Commons may override the 100MB limit by carrying out a server-side upload. I suggest contacting one of them since they are in a better position to assist in this regard. --Katangais (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xhosa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cape Dutch

added a link pointing to German

Great Trek

added a link pointing to Northern Ndebele

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dutch Empire

added a link pointing to Dutch Guiana

Nepalese Army

added a link pointing to M-16

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proto-state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unrecognized state. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello i saw your comment here. could you tell me where is it the "norm"? i assume that there are other templates youve seen. which ones are they? the problem with separating the code into a template is if another proficient editor comes along, the problem arises that they dont know where to find the codeGonejackal (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howzit, Gonejackal, good to hear from you. First off, please bear in mind that I am primarily a content contributor, I rarely comment on template discussions and streamlining templates is something that other, more qualified editors focus on. In these particular cases, however, I make an exception while accepting a general tradeoff - the bad is that the template is harder for new contributors to edit, the good is that once they do in fact find it they can edit the map much more easily. Having a gigantic block of code in the middle of an article makes things more difficult for content contributors who are only trying to edit the text. So, if said template is merged into the article as a block of code I would sooner remove it altogether.

In the end, I had to ask myself as a content contributor: would I rather have new users experience more difficulty a) finding the template or b) editing the article text. While this is not what templates are generally used for, it works and is an example of making do with what means we already have on hand. Using a template was the only way I was able to get my user page looking the way it does, for instance, otherwise the amount of code I'd have to shift through just to find where to edit some otherwise minor detail would be impossibly long.

Anyway that about sums up my reasoning. I understand you probably disagree with it, as your focal point appears to be templates as opposed to content. That's fine, as long as you understand the rationale.

Examples of other maps which have been adopted as templates in a similar manner include Template:Africa Labelled Map, Template:Albanian counties labelled map, Template:Apayao labelled map, etc. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the response and you are right that I respectfully disagree, per WP:TG. I understand your viewpoint that it may be easier to "add content" when separating 'clumsy' code from text, but I hope you understand that my viewpoint is that it isn't that difficult for editors to skip to the section to add whatever specific text they felt compelled to add. My viewpoint is for all editors, experienced and new. Template space is intended for multiple pages and not for one-off uses is my viewpoint so I hope the link I cited helps you understand where I'm coming from.Gonejackal (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Lieutenant Colonel of the Army of the Dominican Republic, in service for more than 20 years in the institution, our army never used or used any of the variants of Panhard AML, in the 90s, a compoñis offered to the army the change of half of the M-41 tanks and what was left of the Swedish L-60 tanks, the Pansarbil m / 39 (Lynx) and the Halftrack M3A1, for 60 Panhard AML 90 vehicles, but that never materialized. That quote that is placed on the Wikipedia page saying that the Dominican Army has used the AML 90 World Defense Almanac does not go with reality and is putting something that is not true. Any information you need about the vehicles that our army has used, I can gladly offer it so you can get out of that doubt. Thank you. Jpablo2 (talk) 10:31, 23 Sept 2017 (UTC)

Hello, between 1993 and 1995 an American company and another from Holland who are dedicated to restore military vehicles for sale, offered to acquire all the vehicles that I used in the previous comment, but the Netherlands offered in return the AML, change not prosper, then in 2002 another US company and another Israeli, made another offer, but nothing prosperous. The name of these companies I have to look for in my personal files. I have some images of the visit made by the Americans observing the M-41 tanks, which even an advertisement put on their pages putting the tanks on sale and that annoyed the authorities. Jpablo2 (talk) 3:21, 24 Sept 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katangais. While your mind is still fresh on Afrikaners, if you have a moment and want to revisit the article, could you have a look at?:

• "It is likely that the genetic representation of various European groups has reached equilibrium due to intermarriage." I am not sure what this is trying to say; I think someone tried to interpret references in the source to linkage disequilibrium, but did not quite get it right.
• "Europeans also arrived from elsewhere in Holland's sphere, especially German soldiers being discharged from colonial service". What sphere? Region? Neighbouring countries?

Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence does appear problematic for the reasons you cited, and I could find no evidence that any one ethnic group achieved "equilibrium" with the others in the Afrikaans population. I suspect the message that statement was originally trying to convey was "many Afrikaners have French, German, Dutch, and other European ancestors to one degree or another due to intermarriage". For example, Adrian Greaves claims that 1.8 million white South Africans have at least one Huguenot ancestor, which would be over a third of the Afrikaans speaking group. Given the highest estimate of the percentage of Huguenots among the original settlers was 17%, that means their representation would've increased as a result of some factors, probably including intermarriage (George McCall Theal says the Huguenot immigrants were younger than the German and Dutch immigrants and consequently had far more children on average, so that's another factor to consider). Either way, the equilibrium assertion doesn't belong and I've removed it.

The second sentence is a reference to Holland's colonial sphere. Most of the Germans who settled in the Cape were retiring after an extended service contract with the Dutch East India Company elsewhere, most likely India or the East Indies. In short, they arrived at the Cape from other Dutch colonies. --Katangais (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I confess that I was not aware of German soldiers doing service on contract with the Dutch, not in the sense of large organised groups significantly high in numbers to actually have an impact on a populatuin. Good to know. I leave you this, in case it even comes in handy for articles on the trek into Angola. Doesn't look like it, but it is actually searcheable. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding Nilotic people) While there is no clear-cut correlation between genetics and identity in most ethic groups, its very clear that Dinka & Nuer are an excepton, Y-DNA tests show that they are up to 85% lineal Africans who have a unique gene-pool separate from 99% of humans. Ignoring this is cultural oppression against a population that can't login wikipedia and start writing about themselves, like the rest of the very modest humans do. Tiwahi (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that statement. Please, let me know if there's something specific I can help you with. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EE-11 Urutu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Infantry fighting vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your enormous efforts at the article South African Border War. However one question - is it really appropriate to use a book about the SACP (Sechaba) as a source for what the RSA government and RSA military command was thinking? Would they really have known these finer details - either at the time or subsequently? Wdford (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It must have been me who accidently removed the casualties sentence - sorry for that. My browser seemed to have a lot of static on the line last night, and I ended up with several weird editing malfunctions. I thought I had fixed all of the mess it made - thanks for catching that one.

I don't want to remove the sentence about the parade ground - its a very important sentence. However since the controversy is all about the identity of the casualties, and since this has been propagandized way beyond the killing of SWA farmers etc, I think that it is better to link this "independent" and verifiable identification of occupants to the casualty paragraph, where it can supplement the propaganda from the Angolan narrative. If to do that we need to mention the parade ground first, then perhaps we can reword the paragraph a bit more extensively? Wdford (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, very happy, thank you. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foreign involvement in the South African Border War 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/Foreign involvement in the South African Border War until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Soman (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this change was accidental, but please try to avoid removing alt text from images. There is a community consensus that alt text should be included as an aid to those using screen readers. See MOS:ALT. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		It is not much in fashion anymore, and I generally don't do it, but I'd like to offer you a barnstar for your clueful editing on Namibian and South African politics and history. You're one of very few editors where I don't check my watchlist if I see your username, because what you do just always makes sense. Thanks for improving the 'pedia! Pgallert (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Liberation Army of Namibia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mine warfare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Katangais,

I would like to get in touch with you in regards to your Eland article. It is a very well written piece.

Regards LuckyNrSlevin (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Griqua

People's Liberation Army of Namibia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rehoboth

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zimbabwe Republic Police.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i created an article about Yoco, a Cape Town based company . I think it meets criteria of notabilty to be in Wikipedia, but it was unfortunately put as article for deletion. Can you please give your opinion as an experienced contributor in South-Africa related articles? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoco Technologies Thank you in advance. MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's socialism articles. Did you know there's a WikiProject for editors interested in writing about socialism? If you would like to join, simply click the Join WikiProject button on the WikiProject Socialism page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the WikiProject Socialism talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! MarioGom (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Members of the Pan Africanist Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katangais. I didn't mean to remove the above article from the requests list with this edit, apologies - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for clarifying! :) --Katangais (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katangais. Thanks for the invitation, I will certainly look in and do what I can. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated sir! --Katangais (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Quifangondo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Quifangondo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Quifangondo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect White Tanzanians. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 24#White Tanzanians until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — csc^-1 23:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Republic of Mozambique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Re-education camp. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Sundostund (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apartheid museums has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really have little interest in the article on Afrikaners and am very NPOV.

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

I did look at you really big deletes and the actual justification - one does sense a little hint of a 'not NPOV style' - I think you should at least consider why you are making changes with such weak support.

An objective editor could see these as 'agenda editing' hidden behind MOS - I looked at you justifications and actually - a likely bias is clearly showing.

Again, it is not an issue of particular note to me - just a 'fly by comment' but I would look at why you said you deleted these and then reflect on your actual motivations.

I also looked at your edits and edits on historical RSA culture - one does really wonder - see WP:MOS, Ideological bias on Wikipedia

Kind regards Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeingObjective, my recent edits to the Afrikaners article have to do with rather mundane formatting, removal of uncited information, or questioning placement of material thereof; very little of it has to do with interpretation or inclusion of (properly cited) facts per se. As such, I'm rather puzzled by your constant references to NPOV. Removing an uncited editorialized comment, or stating that a paragraph is more coherent as six consecutive sentences rather than split into two or three two-sentence fragments, is not a matter of contentiously weighted content or POV but basic Manual of Style + disputed grammar and prose.

Furthermore, I'd strongly caution against making assumptions about another contributor's supposed "agenda editing" or bias simply because they object to your edits... this reflects an almighty lack of good faith. --Katangais (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, and I was clear - I have no real opinion.

If you read why I suspect this is not mundane nor a neutral edit it is clear - your assertions lack rigor - there are no assumptions from me, this is your own language. I am simply asking respectfully if you do feel you are not expressing perhaps a POV and that is the beginning and end of the comments I have made.

I would further not assume any agenda from this editor - I do not personally find your rationale for deletion of other editors work - sound, nor thoughtful on any level - you make accusations relating to other editors work that are clear falsehoods. Look at what you deleted and why you stated you deleted it.

My edits - I do not care about - though ending the intro., as though this culture evaporated in 1994 - essentially is what you keep repeating and repeating and being dismissive of, and we both know this is not true. Neutral - no one would see it in this way and if you are confused, perhaps this is too nuanced.

I mean absolutely no offence. I do sense you cannot see what you are doing objectively.

Regards and with thoughtful respect - Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go over my recent edits, and reexamine my motivations for clarity's sake. I removed one uncited sentence because it was uncited. I combined two paragraphs that were fragmented. I removed a sentence about the South African diaspora because I genuinely couldn't see its relevance in the lead if only 2.5% of Afrikaners were making plans to immigrate according to an outdated study from the late 90s. Due to the small percentage as well as the obsolescence of the source, that's an interesting tidbit that could go in the population history section, but not significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead (it would naturally be different if a sizeable majority of the population was planning to emigrate back then). I disputed that we needed to state what happened to the NP after it left power in the lead, because it became a politically irrelevant force after falling from power - most conservative Afrikaners went over to the Freedom Front Plus; again, all this is interesting info but does it belong in the broad summarization for an ethnic group that happened to be its main constituency? I don't think so, but if you're concerned about my objectivity I'm happy to bring this up on Talk:Afrikaners and request a third party weigh in.

Each of these look like reasonable assertions on my part (and quite mild in terms of an editing disagreement) so if you perceive them to be examples of agenda editing or veiled accusations against yourself or another contributor, I will reiterate that was not my intention. --Katangais (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VIII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sand War. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]