User talk:Rex Germanus

WELCOME TO REX' TALKPAGE

• Sandbox
• Archive I
• Archive II
• Archive III

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there. At present are 3 archives. Please add your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thanks

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DUTCH MILITARY HISTORY, AND THINK YOU CAN MAKE A CONTRIBUTION, THEN JOIN OR VISIT THE DUTCH MILITARY HISTORY TASK FORCE.

Comments:

...

Flemish

Thanks for you work on the Flemish article. You improved it.

The only reason why I made a somewhat larger article from it, was that some bot kept changing the interwiki link from nl:Vlaams to nl:Hollands (nl:Vlaams not being a disambig page like en:Flemish). All I did was translating part of the nl:Vlaams article.

The above is the reason why I wouldn't cut much more out of the article, again making a disambig page from it.

--LucVerhelst 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer the article to be a disambigation page then? Because you/I could probably make it even shorter.  Rex  14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, to the contrary ! --LucVerhelst 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SomeHuman provided for a sample of Mechels dialect on my talk page.--LucVerhelst 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a long shot but ...

Hi Rex! I noticed you're not claiming to be so germain (disambiguity forgot 'germain=germane=relevant') any more — I wonder. Your questions about brabantic dialects made Luc drop a note on my talk page. I reacted on his, and assume it might interest you. By the way, I grew up living with two grandparents born more than a century ago and their son and his wife, my grandfather died at 91 and had moved in when he became 65, all that time we lived a family life, so I have a very good concept of authentical Mechlinian from a time before standard Dutch had a significant influence on everyday speech - all my ancestors for at least four generations in any direction were born in Mechelen, only at school I may have suffered 'foreign' dialect influences from nearby brabantine villages. Mechelen had and has strong ties with other brabantine cities. (Many people commute daily to Antwerp or Brussels. The 'Central Workplace' of the national railroads brought immigrants mainly from Leuven rather more than a century ago; I am aware of their influence on one of Mechelen's dialects, Plat Mechels, but this hardly influenced Burgermechels, the 'civil Mechlinian' my known ancesters spoke.) My non-professional interest in usage, vocabulary and grammar of a language, does not allow me to transliterate to IPA easily enough to write whole sentences, but at least I am familiar with the concept. Mind you, any cooperation of this nature would be most 'original research' — and revealing to both of us, I would say. — SomeHuman 2006-07-24 19:25 (UTC)
Note: my sample dialect from Mechelen moved here from above mentioned user talk page:

• " Een taal is e dialect mé e leiger en een vloet." though more likely the French origin 'patois' instead of 'dialect', in most contexts (but here rather impossible), 'dialect' will be phrased as "maneer van klappe" (word by word: manier van klappen; 'klappen' = Dutch 'spreken')
• " Ed' astembleeft nog wa patatte veu mao?"
• " Ik zén de [Jan], en oo(j)iet-te gao?" of, bijna verkavelingsvlaams: "Ik iet [Jan], oo..." (Ee weurt van neemand gezij dat-em 'noemt', 'k zal ek-ik a wel iet nome, en anders noemt em mao wel iet ijve vees! — For Rex, word by word in Dutch: Hier wordt van niemand gezegd dat hij 'noemt', ik zal [u/je] wel wat noemen, [in het ander geval] noemt hij mij wel iets even vies! Er bestaat geen vertrouwelijke of beleefdheidsvorm in het (burger)Mechels; het is in voorgaande zin gebruikelijker 'en anders' te zeggen dan kortweg 'anders'.) One might in a very informal, or rude, context say: "Ik zén de [Jan], en wee zéd-de gao?", slightly more rude: "..., en wee zèd-de gao" (word by word, though this is not standard Dutch: "Ik ben de Jan, en wie ben jij?")

I use 'ei' for a sound between Dutch 'ei' en 'ee', 'ij' for a long version of the initial sound of the Dutch 'ij'='ei'; Mechlinian does not have diphtongs except for its equivalents of 'koeien', 'kooien', 'kaaien', 'keien' (in Mechlinian: "koeie" met korte 'oe', "koeie" met lange 'oe', 'koaie', 'kaoie'). I use 'ao' for the long vowel close to English 'a' in 'bath', oa for a long closed o; these sounds do not occur in standard Dutch.
SomeHuman 2006-07-24 18:42 (UTC) ; moved here 2006-07-24 19:55 (UTC)
In above samples, 'ie' (in "iet" for Dutch "iets") is not the Dutch 'ie' but a similar vowel much closer to Dutch 'ee'; though in "iet" for Dutch "heet" (both meanings: as here above singular conjugation of 'to carry the name', also adjective 'hot'), almost identical to but less sharp than Dutch 'ie' (Dutch 'i'/'ie' are between Mechlinian pronunciation of short 'i'/ long 'ie' and Dutch short or long 'ee'). Please note that most words with 'ee' in Dutch are pronounced 'ie' in Mechlinian and vice versa: "10 toes" = Dutch "tien tenen" = Mechlinian "teen tiene". — SomeHuman 2006-07-24 20:15, elaborated 21:10 (UTC)

So your sentences would be:

• Ed' astembleeft nog wa patatte veu mao?
• Een taal is e dialect mé e leiger en een vloet.
• Ik zén de [Jan], en oo(j)iet-te gao?

 Rex  20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. (Though 'patatte' should perhaps better have been written as 'pattatte' to avoid any possible misunderstanding about the first 'a'-sound, but as a speaker of Dutch, you will know this; same for 'diallekt') Of course, each 'g' is the soft version. — SomeHuman 2006-07-24 21:25 (UTC)

Other peoples' user page and archives

Do you know that mucking around with other peoples' user pages or Archives is not allowed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drogo_Underburrow/World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=65931361 Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at my contributions are we? Sniffing around until you've found some filth, hmmm how appropriate. I wonder if this counts as harrasment ... Anyway I was simple removing links to that particular map, so it gets deleted, as it is flawed. Can Str1977 live with that?

 Rex  11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't count as harrassment, not even as wiki-stalking. But your actions count as disruption: you are twisting old discussions. It doesn't matter whether the map is wrong (I grant you, in a way it is), but removing it from discussions falsifies that discussion, as the people were not discussing your map but another one. There's no need to delete it either, just replace it in articles with the new one. And finally, making changes to archives is the ultimate no-no! Please desist from this, or will have to inform some officials. I do not want to do this and appeal to your common sense. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Germanus, assuming that you hadn't read my last post I give you five minutes to revert your changes to archives. If you don't do it, I will report you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read wikipedia vandalism, and it says absolutly nothing about this. The term "archive vandalism" also does not link to anything. Care to explain?

On a smaller note, do not act like a little wikipedia angel with your "I don't want to but ..." as you are most certainly not.  Rex  12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Germanus, for being reasonable. Let me assure you that I understand your concerns and objections and my objection is not based on the map but based on common Wiki-rules. Talk pages contain all kinds of wrong things and archives archive these discussions as they happened. Short of personal attacks and spamming, nothing is remnoved from talk pages, let alone their archives. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The last post was typed in edit-conflict. Now let me answer your last post:

• It should be clear that messing around with archives is forbidden. The term was coined by me on the spot.
• Thanks for assuming good faith. I much prefer not having to go through official proceedings. My histoy on WP shows this, having to deal with two really disruptive editors. In both cases I was very reluctant to go to abitration or similar things, letting a lot of offences slide. And in your case, if I had really wanted to report you I could have done so without giving you a warning.
• Finally, don't call me a stalker. Wiki-stalking is something different. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

According to wikipedia policy it is not vandalism. So I ask you, why shouldn't I remove the map from those talk pages as it is likely it will be used again as long it is present on wikipedia?

Also, in the post directed at the admins hidden on your talk page I read the following;

Dear admins,

I have encountered a problem of disruption by User:Rex Germanus Contributions. He is a very patriotic Dutchman, which affects his contributions very much. Nothing wrong about that, but today he has spotted a map [1], which had been controversial for other reasons before. He objects to it, as Dutch is included in the German language area. I value his objection and do not object to his correction of the map [2], as long as it concerns articles. However, he also went around on talk pages (thereby falsifying the discussion that was based on the old map). He also went around to other users' talk pages

I did not interfere there, as I consider mucking around other users' pages wrong and do not want to contradict my explanation to him by my actions. Finally, he also changed the map in archives of user pages and talk pages. I reverted these, as changing the contents of (seldomly frequented) archives is IMHO a really major offense. I have told him to stop and he has reverted himself for now, as he says "examine wikipedia policies on matter".

I despise your allegations of semi nationalism, and see that where are no wikipedia rules on "archive vandalism" but that they only exist in your honest opinion.

Also, I did not discover that map today, I knew about the map 6 months ago when I deleted it from all wikipedia articles. I expected that the image would not be saved on talkpages and that the image would be deleted in 7 days. Yesterday I spotted the same map in an wikipedia article and found out, to my horror, that it still existed.  Rex  12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr G,

• I don't care when your discovered that map.
• We don't change other people's posts on talk pages. This includes pictures posted.
• You talked about wiki-stalking - now this is wiki-stalking. I saved a half-written report to the admins because you had complied with my request. I saved what I had written as invisible text, as there was no need to make it public, but I didn't to lose it, in case you might backslide. If it is now made public it is your fault.
• There's nothing in that post that is in any way inaccurate or insulting. You are, judging from your contributions are "very patriotic Dutchman", which is hardly the same as "semi nationalism".
• So correct articles were you find them wrong (using the talk pages however) and leave talk pages, user pages and archives alone. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't care Str1977, however I myself think a post directed at admins should contain accurate information. But to each his own.Secondly who is "we"? Also who are you to judge what is and what isn't wiki stalking?

As for patriotism, I've spend the first 6 months here on wikipedia mostly removing or adapting other peoples nationalism, if you can give me an example of (extreme) patriotism in my edits please do so, but don't just accuse people.

Also (as expected) you avoid the tough matters: I saw that where are no wikipedia rules on "archive vandalism" but that they only exist in your honest opinion which you pose as official policy. Care to explain?  Rex  12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr G, I do not avoid the tough matters. I haven't read the Wikirule book on this and hence I cannot tell you the relevant paragraph. However, common sense tells us that we don't alter archives or past discussions, if we don't want to end up there. I don't blame you for not knowing either, but would prefer if you heeded my advice. Otherwise, if you are really that desperate to find out, you can resume your disruption and get reported and some admin will inform you. However, my guess is that he will not only inform you. Consider: Those walking on the edge of legality are only a small step away from crime. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Maybe this template might be of interest: [3]. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother looking for the right paragraph it doesn't exist. You might want to read the oficial policies though. Also, calling my edits disruptive is demonization so please refrain from doing so, are I will be forced to inform an admin. I hope we have a mutual understanding.

 Rex  14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never intended to bother. If you resume disruption I will report you and the admins will know about the rules. If you remain reasonable on this, the whole issue is closed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you read my warning. I am not a vandal and calling my contributions to wikipedia disruption, really annoys me, and that's an euphemism. I suggest, again, to refrain from calling then that way because I do take personal attacks, in any form, very seriously.  Rex  16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please make yourself acquainted with the definition of "personal attack". Words do have meanings and misusing them really annoys me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In ANY form Str1977, keep that very closely in mind.

 Rex  16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PERSONAL attacks, keep that in mind. And disruptions of any kind. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In ANY form.

 Rex  16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PERSONAL attacks, keep that in mind. And disruptions of any kind. Hugh! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you got my message, watch yourself.  Rex  16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Joining Dutch military task force

Hi Rex Germanus,

I would like to join your task force. I know something about the history of the Netherlands, but i am not an expert. I am only expert in the Saxon conquest of Friesland in the end of the 15th century, since i wrote a paper about this topic. Also, i was so crazy to read all books of the Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog by Lou de Jong, so i know lots about the Netherlands during the Second World War. I have got a little bit bored with Wikipedia, so i don't know how much energy i want to put in this project.--Daanschr 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, just do whatever you can or feel like and it will be more than sufficient.  Rex  18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 Rex  Hey Rex, I would also like to contribute to the task force on the Netherlands. As you know, my knowledge is more limited to the medieval period, but I do have some knowledge of the 19th and 20th century historical period. I am asking, because this is your baby, and will help if you would like. I don't know how much time I could give, because I am trying to work with the military history project, but I hope you know I do try to work amicably with people. Again, I don't want to enter unless you approve, this is your area of expertise. Cheers! old windy bear 10:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Windy bear, I would be honoured if you'd join us.  Rex  12:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 Rex  Rex, it is I who am honored, and I will run my thoughts by you, since I consider this your project, and try hard to be a positive contributor. Do you have anything you would like me to work on in particular? Thanks again, old windy bear 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can work on whatever you like, but since you have knowledge of the medieval period, it would be nice to have some more coverage on the battles waged in or by the Burgunian Netherlands, or the wars/ conflicts by the Dutch fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire.

Also, you might consider this "my" project, but I do not see it that way. Of course I proposed it, but I don't want to seem as if I "own" it, or even have some kind of special position.

 Rex  18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 Rex  Rex, I meant "yours" in the sense I feel you have proposed it, and worked hard to make it a reality, and that deserves respect. I will begin research on conflicts waged by the Dutch fiefs of the HRE to start, and when I have compiled something worth examining, run it by you for your perusal. THANKS by the way for the kind words on the military coordinator position.old windy bear 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. As for the voting and all just because we had/have some differences that doesn't mean I don't know a good wikipedian when I see one.  Rex  19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 Rex  As I do, which is why I asked to join you on this project. I will enjoy working with you. Thanks again...old windy bear 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Banner

Done. Kirill Lokshin 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much.  Rex  15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dutch military history taskforce

Hey Rex, I've added the project page to my watchlist to keep informed a bit. However, I haven't done much work the past few weeks due to non-wikipedia activities. It should be better the next months, but by now my todo-list has become quite long, and I don't think I'll be able to help you guys a lot any time soon. Anyway, I'm glad we've improved the Eighty Years' War article because it was quite miserable. I'd love to do more, but now that it's in a reasonable shape, other things become more urgent... I'm definitely interested in the project though and probably we'll meet again some time later. Good luck! Piet 09:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not matter at all Piet, you just help out whenever you can.Glad to have you on the team. Rex 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Germans

Rex, how is saying that Austrians and Swiss are Germans nationalism? It's practically common knowledge that ethnically Swiss-Germans and Austrian-Germans are German people. It's a revisionist theory to state otherwise. Antidote 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is practically common knowledge (of which I am not aware) then you should not have any problem providing references to back up your claims. In the meanwhile, making those edits without any explanation makes me think of nationalism (ie Greater Germany) rather than well intended modifications.

Rex 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit at User talk:CyrilleDunant

Rex, you have now reverted four times at Cyrille's talk page. First of all, please be aware that 3RR is not generally enforced against users on their own talk page. In some cases, removing unwanted messages is considered uncivil, but there is absolutely no policy forbidding it. To replace that message a fourth time, knowing that Cyrille has been blocked is a particularly objectionable form of kicking someone who is down. I am removing the message, and will block you myself if you replace it again. AnnH ♫ 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot that the blocking message itself is sort of equal to the warning, so it was kind of unneccesary didn't think of that at the time. However I never meant to "kick him while he was down". Rex 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Austria

It's not so much a question of being "an old nazi" (as you argument) as the degree of complicity of the Austrians in their own government. Liberation is a term reserved for the truly oppressed and ruled by force, such as Auschwitz inmates, and equating Austrians with them, who actively fought the "liberators", by using the same delicate terminology is moral relativism. Ulritz 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I did not call you a nazi, Austrians living today feel liberated from nazism, making it seem the allies defeated the good guys is ridiculous.Enough said.Rex 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just a FYI ~~~~ doesn't work in edit summaries, just thought you would like to know. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, thanks for telling me anyway. Rex 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman military tactics

I put Roman military tactics in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Computergame images

Wandalstouring 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, this had got to be the 5th time that articles gets into trouble ... Rex 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Roman military tactics I still consider it as an inappropriate trial. Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations is currently trying to cover the same topic as your article should do. They do mention a lot more tactics.

Relabel your article Roman military equipment and I will be the last to object GA rating. Wandalstouring 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your query on the Romanian noticeboard

Hi. What you asked for is a bit complicated at this stage. The name we use is nemţi (singular neamţ), which is direct borrowing from Slavic or Hungarian, with its original meaning lost. What I suggest you do is ask speakers of Slavic languages and Hungarian to fill in their versions, and then copypaste nemţi/neamţ as a variant. Cheers. Dahn 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rex 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on the Dutch Provinces During HRE Wars

Rex Greetings Rex my friend! I have been studying the history of the low countries, especially the 17 provinces, during the HRE, and intend, if you agree, to write a separate article on that subject alone. I have probably two more weeks of research to do, (I went to the library of congress with my stepson last week!), and then will begin writing. I did not want you to think I had forgotten the project - it is just, as you know, if you want an accurate article, you have to research it! I am working away on just that. Hope you are well, old windy bear 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks, and it's great you've made planns to create an article, I must warn you though that, from my experiences at least, the line between the Dutch provinces as a (clear) part of the HRE and the semi/fully independant nation only formally linked to the HRE is very blurry and can be tricky. Good luck! Rex 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex Hey my friend, yes, it is VERY blurry, and I am going to try to run the article by you first, and see if we can make sure that the language is acceptable. I am REALLY researching this one carefully, so that hopefully I can minimize the inevitable complaints. But I think there is a very clear history of the low countries in the wars, especially from the Carolingian period to the Eighty Years War, and that needs to be addressed. I knew when I started it would be a lot of research, but I hope the article will be good enough to be worth it. Take care! I will update you when I have a draft - I would rather email the draft to you and have you edit with suggestions, rather than post it willy nilly, if that is allright with you. old windy bear 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Rex 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex Thanks! I would guess the draft should be ready for your review in about 3 weeks, since I expect to take at least two more studying. I appreciate the help, and will keep you updated. old windy bear 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman military tactics

I have modified the article and the main part is Roman military equipment now. The part about tactics is in the article I linked Roman military tactics to. Wandalstouring 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fonds??

I'm not going to revert your revert of my revert on the Anne Frank page.

You may speak Dutch (or German, which is good as), but to an English speaker, the word "Fonds" makes as much sense as "Fliguloodik". Of course one is not going to translate the name of Anne Frank herself, but a word like Fonds has a meaning which is important to English speakers, which actually expresses what the organisation is about - the word Foundation to an English-speakers ears speaks volumes, the word Fonds says absolutely nothing. I think my solution of translating it, but retaining the actual Dutch name to the side is the most helpful compromise.

I leave you to translate it or not. As it stands, it is complete nonsense to an English speaker who speaks no Dutch.

Rugops 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the institution is in a language other than English it is a proper name and should not be translated into English. Rex 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the name of the institution is in a language other than English. There is no dispute that it is a proper name. Isn't the discussion only about whether the name should be translated into English? You, from looking at the edits which you have done, speak Dutch, though of course you also speak English, and so it perhaps looks great to you. To me it sucks, because it is completely unintelligable to an English speaker. It is not true that a proper name of an institution should not be translated into English. Take almost any Wikipedia article, House_of_Lords, for example, and take a look at all the pages talking about exactly the same subject in other languages - almost every other language translates the institution name. Even with people's names, these are sometimes translated, for example, take a look at the names for John_the_baptist in other languages. Rugops 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The site in question belongs to a swiss organisation, the institution commonly translated as "Anne Frank Foundation" is of Dutch origin called De Anne Frank Stichting. Rex 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That certainly makes the task of translation much more tricky. Certainly in that case "Anne Frank Foundation" may not be a good choice, though what does "Stichting" mean? Rugops 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Foundation. As in "institution with a certain amount of recources dedicated to a goal". Rex 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'Anne Frank Fonds' in an English text could by many, even Dutch, people be assumed to refer to the 'Anne Frank Stichting'. The article should make clear what by 'A. F. Fonds' is meant. Normally a 'fonds' is a foundation that either gathers money or was started with considerable financial means, for a specific, usually non-commercial purpose; this may be translated as 'Anne Frank Fund'. My information on the - as I now understand: Swiss - institution, is far too limited to certify this to be the best translation. I leave it up to Rex to put a word on the nature of it and a proper translation ('Fonds' really does not look best) in the article. — SomeHuman 2006-08-10 17:00 (UTC)

Rex, you seem to be the expert on the source languages. How would you (if you had to) translate the two organisation names so that they are different? And another question - what are the languages? - Dutch (Fonds) and Swiss German (Stichting)? And why is the Stichting institution not linked to? - Rugops 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch AF site - Stichting Swiss AF site - Fonds

I would use "fund" to translate fonds and use foundation for the Anne Frank Stichting. Rex 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:BATTLENETHERLANDS1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BATTLENETHERLANDS1.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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Hbdragon88 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't shoot me please, I'm just completing the procedure, notifying you per step three of the procedure. Hbdragon88 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) File:BATTLENETHERLANDS1.JPG I'm not going to shoot you ... I starting to think that it might be better to lie about these licenses though, to avoid all this fuss. Rex 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Language

Please see the talkpage there for my rationale for removing the section. I believe in the end we'll conclude that it's not appropriate for wikipedia. --Improv 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Decline of the Roman Empire, and other subjects!

Rex Germanus Greetings my friend! They have begun the elections for the military coordinator positions. I was very grateful for your support prior to the election, and if you can vote for me, would appreciate that as well! [4]

Also, I hate to impose on you, but if you have a chance, would you review the way I am trying to rewrite the history of the "Decline of the Roman Empire" subject? I really value your input, as you are well aware. They did not have Bury's theory listed at all, and had really shortchanged Gibbon. I have just begun to add on and rewrite, but would value your advice and editing as I continue to expand the section on Gibbon, (the section i literally just added), the part on Gibbon I am expanding, and the part I am getting ready to add on Norwich. Thanks in advance! Also, I will have the draft article next week on the role of the 17 provinces in the wars of the HRE, and would like to shoot that straight to you in advance, for your help prior to posting a new article. I really believe this is something all of us could do to help reduce some of the controversy; find someone who is a skilled historian and writer, and enlist their editorial input prior to even posting the article - I honestly believe this would dramatically reduce the adverse critiques from jump sreet! Sort of a "peer review" prior to the article's birth! old windy bear 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That really is a great idea. Finding an historian won't be that hard I guess but of course you do need one with information on the particular subject, which could prove to be harder. Rex 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rex! I think it is a good idea also - it is like my proposed article on the role of the 17 provinces in the wars of the HRE - you are my expert! We have to work with each other, and I believe much of the constant sniping could be eliminated, old windy bear 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Look in your own Dutch version

[5], so please try and stop your massive edit waring as we are here to write an encyclopedia. Ulritz 13:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you think your next reverts over. Ulritz 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read why I am proposing (because I'm will add that template again) is because your article does not add anything instead it is just a copy of Franconian German and a quick mention of Dutch and Afrikaans. Rex 13:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At a more accurate, logical page, even per your native Wikipedia, before your purge. Ulritz 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article title is neutral now. See? No German :). Thats what probably earned your grudge. Cheers.Ulritz 14:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't cheers me, the article will be restored. Rex 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of throwing threats, take a deep breath and see the Dutch article, which somehow doesnt share your grievances. Please calm down. Ulritz 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not throwing threats I'm giving you a fact. Restore the deletion template or you will be reported. Rex 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about waiting for some feedback from say, DBachmann and others, instead of engaging into an unproductive, tedious all-out revert/delete war? Ulritz 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You have an extra 10 minutes to add that deletion template again, otherwise I will report you. This is your last chance. Rex 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I react to arguments, not threats- you havent yet provided a valid reason for your aspirations. Turn to discussion mode and state your grievances on the article's talk page instead of slamming menacing templates. Ulritz 16:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You refused to comply and readd the deletion template again, hiding behind false arguments (such as saying I haven't provided valid reasons, which were added to the deletion template) therefore I will now report you to the admins. Rex 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize.UberCryxic 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings then.

Rex 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User Ulritz' offences.

Attempts to irritate me:

• User:Ulritz watched my contributions and decided to make a comment, most likely trying to irritate me.

• User:Ulritz while making a comment on one of my messages on a talk page (in which I said I am not "happy" with him turning an article into a redirect) he feels the need to add a ps. Saying the redirect works beautifully

The above 2 offences resulted in a 3rd warning by administrators

• User:Ulritz watched my contributions and decided to make a comment, most likely trying to irritate me.

Full Personal and Semi Personal attacks:

• 14:32, 12 August 2006: "please consider people who actually seek unbiased information"

• 14:11, 12 August 2006: While asking another wikipedian for a comment he calls my edits nationalism

• 13:57, 12 August 2006: "rv nationalist-driven OR"

• 13:55, 12 August 2006 "after your rabid splitting, nationalist-driven spree"

• 13:54, 12 August 2006: "rv misleading nationalism"

• 13:52, 12 August 2006 : rv nationalist dribbel

• 13:33, 12 August 2006: "no place for nationalism in Wikipedia at the cost of knowledge"

• 13:22, 12 August 2006: "rv germanophobic edit"

The above offences resulted in a 1st warning by administrators

• (23:11, 12 August 2006) "troll"
• (23:10, 12 August 2006) "vandal"
• "troll" (after warning from sysops)

The above 3 offences resulted in a 2nd warning by administrators

take it easy

Rex, I think you should forget about Ulritz and focus on the subject matter: I agree his behaviour is too belligerent, and lacking in wikiquette, but I think things are fine as they are now, with Franconian German redirecting to Franconian languages (which are a superset of FG), per nl:Frankisch, de:Fränkische Sprachen: I 'frankly' see no source of controversy here. I know the feeling of annoying users forcing you to clean up after them. Depending on mood, I try to ignore them, or in cases of particular mismatch of self-assertiveness and competence, to have a little fun arguing circles around them in mock seriousness :) It appears the term "German" has some irrationally strong implications to both you and Ulritz: negative for you, positive for Ulritz: you are thus cut out for annoying each other. In my view, you should both take a step back and attempt to view things sub specie encyclopedicitatis. That's not to say I don't recognize a difference in style between your and Ulritz' behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not want him messing up wikipedia just to annoy me. (Just look to the section above) He classed Luxemburgish as Low Franconian, and added a template mentioning that Dutch low saxon is a Low Germanic language, he is messing up wikipedia and I can't fix it because he reverts everything I do, no matter what I write on talkpages or edit summaries.

Rex 12:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Low Germanic isnt Low German, chill out (though it is Low German/Saxon, Im afraid). If I was to respond to all your allegations, Id have no time to clean up the whole mess that some articles are/were in. And if you think youre sole the reason I edit here, then I would suggest a reality check. In fact, your edit is just me with the tables turned. PS I overlooked the "low" that you, in good faith and very civily, pointed out. Now grow up. Ulritz 07:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who should grow up here, you are an editwarrior and an extremely impolite person, so don't lecture me about wikipedia civility as long as your talkpage is full of warnings from admins. You are also not improving articles, you are using them for nationalistic ends, to irritate me, and most of all you are messing them up. Rex 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please append new threads at the bottom of the page. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it into the existing Ulritz thread. Thanks for cooperating. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Can you please directly report 3RR violations here in future? It seems you were involved in an edit war yesterday that included violations by both parties. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not report anyone for the 3RR, are you sure I'm the right person?

Rex 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Can you please not mark your posts to ANI as minor edits? See Help:Minor edit. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, must an automatism of mine.

Rex 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Such reverts arent helpful and display extremely bad faith, as you remove all interwiki and "see also" changes, all for the sake of Dutch. Ulritz 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Prove That all Franconian languages decend from Old Frankish first Ulritz, like I have proven that Dutch/Low Franconian does, then come back and lecture me about bad edits.

Rex 10:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see there is no sense talking with you as you just turn the table when confronted with reality, but since you persist, take a look here:

While a variety of languages and dialects are refered to as Franconian, it hasnt been proven whether they constitute a language group. Low Frankish (Old Dutch) for instance is commonly excepted to be a descendant of Old Frankish, the proposed common ancestor and language of the Franks, while West Central German and the Upper German transition dialects are though to have been heavily influenced by it.

Sorry but your cheap talk just wont go down. Ulritz 10:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, I take a look there and it repeat what I've been saying: "Low Frankish (Old Dutch) for instance is commonly excepted to be a descendant of Old Frankish" which has been sourced by me.

Rex 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Prove That all Franconian languages decend from Old Frankish first Ulritz.

Where exactly did I say that? Or just more bs? Ulritz 11:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You remove a sourced statement, why else would you do that? Hate for anything that Dutchs is all I can think of. (and I can source that too). Rex 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time Im talking to you, which, like countless editors before, I have realised to be pointless. Goeden dag Goedendag. Ulritz 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By this I assume you are not willing to take part in the mediation? Also, I fail to remember all the times we talked. You see, you don't visit talkpages to solve something, you visit them to list your view so you can write "per talk" in your edit summaries which, to me at least, still beats the more regular insults and namecalling. Rex 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

West Low Saxon

The edit warring here between you are Ulritz is unacceptable. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Ulritz has been blocked for 24 hours for being uncivil after multiple warnings. You both need to stop and think before edit warring next time. pschemp | talk 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part." You undid Ulritz's addition 4 times. 3 is all that is allowed, therefore, you broke 3RR. I'm sorry you disagree with our rules, but you did violate them. pschemp | talk 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm glad administrators have finally send a message to Ulritz, me getting suspended for 3RR (while not knowing I broke it) well ... I suppose it's still better than geting blocked for personal attacks and harrasment. Rex 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of war

Hi, do you remember how you came to this change? greetings Aleichem 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd heard about a continuous war with portugal for quite a while before, when I checked the Dutch wikipedia it was already listed there. I'm pretty sure the "event" which is spoken about is the start of the Eighty Years' War. I guess because the main battles in this war were delivered by the Dutch and Spanish, Portugal was pretty much forgotten.

Rex 10:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex Greetings my friend! This topic is particularly interesting, because as you are better aware than I, the Dutch played a paramount role in the Eighty Years War, and speaking of that conflict, my draft on the low countries and their role in the wars of the HRE will be hopefully be ready for your review by the 20th. I hope you will be pleased! I also wanted to thank you for your support in the military coordinator elections, and to tell you what a pleasure it is to work with you. Isn't it ironic, considering we did not get off on the best foot, that you are one of the people who I genuinely enjoy working with most in wikipedia. I will keep you posted on when the draft will be ready for your review. Take care, old windy bear 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it helps to constantly remind yourself that most of the time that "on the other side" is a guy or girl just like you, trying to improve wikipedia. But it's not always that easy. Rex 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex Hey my friend. Certainly for me it aids me mentally and emotionally to strive to try to remember that the opposition in many of these arguments is simply another human being who is striving, like one's self, to simply improve this wonderful treasure house of information. But as you also noted, saying that is far easier than doing it! Remember Kipling's great parable:

• "four things than all men are,
• Horses, women, power and WAR!"

Don't you find that this in some ways, no matter how hard one strives, it is VERY difficult to refrain from personal attacks? Still, I really do believe you and I are a marvelous example of two good editors striving to work together, even when viewpoints are sometimes poles apart. old windy bear 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I must say in "real life" (which I always find sounds a bit weird) people can take A LOT more than on the internet ... probably because anyone can be who (s)he wants to be. I can tell you that I have never been called a nazi or fascist off the internet but I lost track of the times online ... people just know there are little to no concequences. I recently had a bit of a row with a user called Ulritz, he made some bad edits which I reverted (which triggered some primal hate or so) in which he started edit warring, suddenly I hade a full blown war going on, after countless personal attacks, listed above somewhere I think, it took 3 warnings from admins (and a block eventually) to stop him.

Rex 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex Hey Rex. I find it sad that someone would call you a nazi, though I was not surprised, (not that you in any way remind me of a Nazi, simply that people's capacity for cruelty and personal petty vindictiveness from the safety of a chat roomm dourly amuses me!). Lord, I have been called everything from a Nazi to a Communist, and every personal slur in-between. About a year ago, when I was "enjoying" the end of my latest round of chemo, I actually had a man threaten my life. (Of course, as you wryly noted, people feel free to puff up from the safety of a chat room and say things they would never dare to say in person, old and sick though I am!) I made a vow after a very vicious row about 4 months ago never to engage in any personal exchanges again, and I have honestly tried to keep that promise to myself. I have found in our case, to have come to enjoy talking to you, and that we agree on more than we disagree on. In any event, we both attempt to resolve any differences through our scholarship and avoid unpleasantness - and again, at least for me, I enjoy the intellectual challanges you present on many of these issues. I was quite pleased when you invited me to join the project, and I hope you find when you review the first article that I have done my best to examine very honorable people who seem to be bypassed by the historians who write the "history" of the great powers at the expense of the minority viewpoint! old windy bear 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

Go to the article's talk page, please. BillMasen 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of translation: at your request, I gave it my best shot and included the phrase (that had been translated quite well before) again in the article — since only the translation seems to have been questioned. I did not verify the named source itself. By the way, if you have it at hand, please check the Dutch spelling of the Dutch word 'word' (as had also earlier been quoted in the article) instead of 'wordt', perhaps the author did not make the spelling mistake. ;-) SomeHuman 2006-08-19 20:32 (UTC)

Thanks, (for the typo as well) ;-)

Rex 21:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Dutch / Old Low Franconian

R.G., I have no opinion on whether "Old Dutch" or "Old Low Franconian" is the more appropriate title, but since both articles treat essentially the same language, and both explicitly state in their first lines that the other term is a synonym, and your "Old Dutch" article is the younger of the two, your article counts as a "POV Fork" and is therefore not legitimate. If you have content you wish to add about that language, please add it to the existing article; if you want the article renamed please instigate a "requested move" (you'll need admin assistance if only for technical reasons, and you must seek consensus since it's likely to be controversial); if you want the two articles to actually deal with separate topics (like e.g. saying that "Old Dutch" is only a subtype of "Old Low Franconian" or whatever) then you need to edit both articles accordingly and link them in an appropriate way so that the relation between the two is clear to the reader. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I hope I solved the problem by making Old Low Franconian into a disambiguation page, and Old Dutch into a propper article. Anything to avoid contact with "edit warring Ulritz".

Rex 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to your solution in terms of content (as far as I can see right now, but I haven't looked much into it.). Technically, for preserving the edit history of the old main article at its new location, I think it would have been better to first delete the old redirect at "O.D.", then make a clean move from "O.L.F." to "O.D.", and then expand the new resulting redirect at "O.L.F." to the stub/dab/whatever form. And of course I'm not sure if consensus actually supports your move. But I'll leave it to Dbachmann to work out how it should be best done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex, your cut and paste move has not preserved the edit history of this article. You need to use to move button to rename an article, that automatically leaves a redirect at the old one. In the future please do this rather than copying and pasting. The edit history is legally required to be preserved by the terms of GFDL which wikipedia operates under. I am going to fix this, but in the future, please use the move function, rather than just chopping articles up. It is not easy to fix an incorrect move and I'd appreciate if you learned the correct procedure. Please read WP:MOVE pschemp | talk 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes pschemp I know, okay I'm not some newby. If you read my other contributions as well you'd have read my explanation. Being an admin is one thing, stalking is another. Thank you.

Rex 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you are a newby about moving pages because you did it wrong. Learn how things are done around here and it will save you a lot of trouble. If you were doing things correctly, I wouldn't have to watch you. pschemp | talk 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved pages many times before without any trouble, this time was different and I already explained why. Now I would like it if you'd leave me alone and would stop reading my contributions as if I were some troll or vandal. Rex 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You moved the page wrong, I read your explanation but it is incorrect. All page moves are done with the move button, there is no exception. This is for legal reasons of GFDL, and I'm sure you are smart enough to understand that. pschemp | talk 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read it well enough otherwise you'd understand.

Rex 16:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Watch your civility please. GFDL trumps your reasons. pschemp | talk 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My civility is doing fine, my patience is another matter. I do not care what you think of me, but I will not be treated as a vandal, not even by an admin. Rex 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From the policy "So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that." Since you were not splitting this into two article, the page should have been moved with the move button. Note it says "never" here. That means under no circumstances. Not even yours. pschemp | talk 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not even yours" is that supposed to be a insinuation of some kind? Rex 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

no, that means not under any circumstances, not even the ones you think are an exception to the rule.pschemp | talk 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And those are? Rex 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The ones that made you think a cut and paste move was ok here. It isn't. Any move has to use the move button. pschemp | talk 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, no. I don't think that at all, read my explanation. Rex 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't think a cut and paste move was ok then why did you do it? It doesn't matter what your explanation is, cut and paste moves are never ok. Just please promise to use the move button from now on instead of cutting and pasting and we can drop this.pschemp | talk 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't proper way to do it, yet I did. That's the whole thing. So I'm not going to promise anything to you. If you want to drop the whole matter stop making this fuss and go improve wikipedia instead, with all respect, bugging me. Rex 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Storing image

Legend:

  Period in which a particular nation or empire was a Great Power.

  Transition period in which the nation or empire lost its status as a Great Power (Examples include Germany after the First and Second World War.

Ten days campaign

You asked me to unbias the Ten days campaign if needed, relying on my Belgian nationality. I'm not entirely ignorent about the facs leading to Belgium's independance and its early history, though too vaguely. Topics on this subject are not without danger of causing controversy, because of different Belgian sensitivities that still exist: Some are Belgicists, others support Belgium as an alleged beneficial factor for its Frenchspeaking community, others are Flemish regionalists who indulge Belgium as a fact-of-life, others deplore its existence and might try and reverse that part of history. Since already in the first half of the 19th century, these different sensitivities were very much present, the job you asked me to do requires one who knows the facts in detail and can produce good references for those. Sorry Rex. — SomeHuman 2006-08-19 21:52 (UTC)

Ah don't worry about it, I've been abusing you too much lately anyway ;-)

Rex 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Perhaps one suggestion: In 1831 Belgium was already independent, so its scouts would not sabotage but instead block the roads by cutting trees along their sides. — SomeHuman 2006-08-19 22:03 (UTC)

See there you have my bias, the Dutch did not really treat Belgium as a country untill 1839 eventhough they did sign a treaty before that date. I'll change it though. Rex 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i recently stumbled across...

I recently stumbled across your photo of Dutch people on the Dutch ethnic group article. You really should list on the photos page who those pictures are of. If you dont have time to do this, then I'd like to at least know off hand who they are. Thanks, 69.157.126.241 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Sure ... Rex 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listing those in the photo. Cheers, 69.157.126.241 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem.

Rex 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your abuse report

Wrong place. You'd have to go to WP:RCU, but they only take requests in rather more serious cases. Unless he develops a really consistent pattern of attacking or insulting you, there's nothing you can do about him contributing anonymously, whether he is in fact Ulritz or not. Continuing his edits is not abusive in itself. Calling you a "nationalist" once is perhaps not particularly nice, but hardly a reason you would get him blocked for (and, forgive my bluntness, there might be a tiny kernel of truth in it.) I personally disagree with certain admins who have generally treated "nationalist" as a "personal attack" in the past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! But I don't want to do anything about it, I just wanted to know if it was him or some other user. I don't oppose anonymous users, not at all, but if it is him, I think he should use his account. Finally I'm not a nationalist, but I can understand how people get the image ... if only for the list of articles I created.

Rex 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, fyi: I am not Ulritz nor presumably anybody else you know. I was just linked to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_words_for_Germans

by the Germanspeaking Wikipedian`s notice board, that is all.

However, when Rex feels free to demonstrate and foster his anti-German feelings (founded or not founded) in such a frankly way, he could hardly complain that some people have the impression that he is a nationalist. (194.9.5.10 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I would like to see in what way an Old Dutch discussion links to an Anti-German bais ... In any way, if what you claim is true and you aren't this User:Ulritz this still isn't an excuse for insulting other wikipedians.

Rex 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but as long as you do not have answered my question (What was your intention to create the above metioned article?) I am not willing to apologize for my assertion that you seem to be a nationalist. (194.9.5.12 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

ps: the connection between anti-German bias and Old Dutch is to prove that you try to deny any link between German and Dutch culture because of strong anti-German feelings (194.9.5.12 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

Your remarks are ridiculous, what on earth is the German bias link between a name change between Old Low Franconian and Old Dutch? I don't need you apology, I know what I am and am not. The reason for the articles creation is simply because I was interested in the subject, like with all "my" articles.

Rex 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually censorship is not a very pluralistic behaviour but, nevertheless, let me try to put it this way: It goes without any saying, that you have created the article because you are interested in the topic; however, I would like to know why you are interested in it, what is the intention to inform people about synomyms for Germans, what is the surplus to have it in an encyclopaedia? (194.9.5.12 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

If users fail to meet the level of civility I require on my talkpage (which I consider to be above average) I remove the particular comment. Before I answer your question (and I can already promis you that you 'll not get the answer you want) I'd like you to answer my question, which I already asked:

"What is the German bias link between a name change between from Old Low Franconian to Old Dutch?"

Rex 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider my deleted response to be more uncivil as your responses ("ridiculous", "what on earth", etc.) but I do totally accept that it is your good right to remove any comment from your own talk page in case you do not like it. However, I think that my answer depends a bit on your answer. In case your answer leads to the reasonable result that you have not created the article because you want to demonstrate and foster anti-German feelings, there is no link and I would bag your pardon (although you do not need it). (194.9.5.10 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I see you fail or refuse to answer, that means that my "ridiculous" comment was in fact justified. Your comment was not. Next time you make a similar comment, apologize instead of trying to talk your way out of it.

Rex 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should rather stop the conversation at this point and let the people who might read this paragraph form their view on the discussion. (194.9.5.12 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm glad you agree you refused to reply, that you think my ridiculous comment was justified, that you made a false statement which you could not back up and that you're going to apologize the next time you make the same mistake.

Rex 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SSP

I hope you are OK, after those IPs: they have been blocked. Thanks, Iolakana•T 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Rex 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Map Battle of France

Hi, Rex! I've seen you've replaced the old extremely ugly image, which nobody will feel sorry about :o). However the new image, though being infinitely superior in its esthetics, contains some factual inaccuracies. In case you should be both able and willing to be remedy them, I'll list the main problems:

1. Not Army Group C, that remained inactive, but Army Group A carried out the main offensive; however the main arrow now originates from the C block.
2. The main offensive should also show a second more northerly arrow (representing Rommel's advance), just south of Namur along the Sambre extending all the way to Cambrai. The map now gives the impression as if it had been a narrow front campaign.
3. The southern arrow should stay north of the river Somme, which functioned as the main defence line for the French in early June.
4. The counter-offensive to the south in red should be at Arras, not south of Amiens, where in fact at the same time the French counterattacked to the north.

In fine the general point is that all things should move a bit to the north. And precisely the fact that your map looks so much better, puts much stronger demands on its preciseness, so I hope you may attain an even higher level of excellence! ;o)

WikiProject Military history/Dutch military history task force

Hi Rex,

Great intro you got!

You asked me to join your task force and i responded that i had become bored with Wikipedia. This has primarily to do with the lack of debate and the lack of use of literature. I recently have become enthusiastic about Wikipedia again because i want to help solve the problem. I started the User:Daanschr/WikiProject Quality on friday. Unfortunately nobody responded. Is it ok with you if i can implement my ideas within the context of the Dutch military history task force to start with? We could both pick a war or another event from the Dutch military history, read all the relevant literature and create a great article during a debate about the literature.--Daanschr 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, go ahead!Rex 12:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you like to join to improve the Eighty Years' War article? It only has two footnotes and it is English literature instead of Dutch, French or Spanish. We could use three handbooks for instance. Another article could also be possible.--Daanschr 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you like. Remember joing the taskforce doesn't oblige you to anything.

Rex 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. You aren't obliged to do anything as well.:-)

I will look for some literature. Maybe i could find some other participants.--Daanschr 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am to busy for my own project and i couldn't find many people who would like to join. I have found lots of good literature about the Eighty Years' War, so we could continue working on that article. It will be very slow from my side, because my agenda is pretty full. I really enjoy reading about history and would like to use the information that i read for editing on Wikipedia.--Daanschr 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert in Germanic languages

I did not understand this revert comment of yours in Germanic languages:

understand that there is a difference between mutual intelligibility and intelligibility

I thought that mentioning that Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are mutually intelligible was meaningful information in relation to listing their total number of speakers as a sum. Can you clarify? --138.227.189.10 09:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "mutually intelligibility" suggest a "mutual", so both (in this case 3) sides, understanding of the languages. The percentages of some of the mainland north Germanic languages differ quite bit. Danes understand approximately 45% of spoken Swedish, but the Swedes can only grasp about 25% that difference it simply too big to speak of "mutual" intelligibility. I it however sufficient to speak of intelligibility on behalf of the Danes.

Rex 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do those numbers come from? Mutually intelligible languages states that they are mutually intelligible, and that is also my experience as a native Swedish speaker. Spoken Danish is harder than spoken Norwegian, yes, but by no means incomprehensible. In writing Danish is actually trivial. --81.233.40.12 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (the same person as the last comment)

From the article "North Germanic languages"> Rex 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From a Norwegian aquaintance's point of view about Danish and Swedish, one language is quite easy to understand by hearing but rather difficult to read, while the other one allows easy reading but presents difficulties when heard (I'm afraid I'm not quite sure any more which is which). — SomeHuman 29 Aug2006 20:37 (UTC)

Germans

Apologies for the misunderstanding. No content was lost indeed. I sorted the population figures in decreasing order. I have no time to find verifiable references for the other countries but I believe that this needs to be done (this is why I marked some entries as {{fact}}). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No I should apologize. I only looked at the text marked in red, I thought you'd replaced data, I'm sorry.

Rex 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's my fault anyway, I was using the same edit summary for a few pages and it wasn't clear enough. Best wishes, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

old dutch

Hi, first congratulations for rewriting the whole old dutch/middle dutch article, they've been useful, however, i saw that you know a lot about dutch history, so maybe if you know something, like:

• 1. when dutch begun shifting [ft] --> [xt] for example in words like lucht (german, frisian luft "sky") or zacht (german sanft, frisian seft, "soft")
• 2. when dutch lost L in words like oud, houd, woud (old, hold, wood, german alt, wald, frisian, ald, hald)
• 3. when dutch started changing s to z, it doesn't only changed initially, at least f --> v always initially or between vowels (voet, vinger, vlag, vliegen, zeven, german fuß, finger, flag, fliegen, sieben) but never finally, like english (dief, thief --> dieven, thieves; half, calf/kalf, self/zelf, german halb, kalb, selb) german but s --> z always when before a vowel, including initally (reflecting standard german spelling, that pronounce s [z] when before a vowel, example, unser --> onzer and many others).
• 4. If you know if all "th" and "dh" changed always in D like in german or there are exceptions where th shifted into a simple T (for example think = tinke/tenke in frisian and scandinavian languages, denken in dutch and german), cause maybe only th before vowels (including initially) changed in D, cause, for example, old english had a regular consonant system where f, s, and th became v, z, and dh between vowels, nowadays english have f, s, and th pronounced always (with some exceptions) v, (f --> v is represented graphically, same example thief --> thieves) s and th between vowels and (not always) finally, for example the final s of plurals is always pronounced [z], and the F of the word OF is pronounced V (also cf. dan. "af", norw./swed. "av", both meaning "of"), and the th (sometimes) is pronounced dh in word finally too (ex. with in british english is spelt with the "dh" [wið]), so all this for supposing that maybe in dutch the process is inverted (like english voices f, s and th word-finally and between vowels, while dutch voices f, s, and th -shifted to d- word-initially and between vowels), so that i'm asking to you that maybe you know (probabily not, cause there aren't much informations on old dutch) is if from old dutch to modern some TH sound (word finally) has been kept, so one will say that dutch hasn't been influenced by high german consonant shift (like frisian) that changed all "th" sounds (both voiced and voiceless) into D.

So the thing that have to be found is an old dutch word finishing in "th" that shifted in T in modern dutch, for example a word like earth (english) would be "aart" if there was not the final "e" (c.f. old english eorþe, frisian ierde, dutch aarde)

• 5. the more important thing is (always if you know something about), why dutch started writing e.g. woord instead of wort?, when and why dutch begun changing spelling, and why did not kept the original form of the word (wort - c.f. modern german kept the original form = Wort), only because it was more pratical (d was pronounced anyway t word finally and so with the plural (or declined) form there was no need to change the t in --> d (like is now done with F and S in modern dutch).)
• 6. In middle dutch you wrote: Linguistically speaking, Middle Dutch is no more than a collective name for a number of closely related West Germanic languages/dialects which were spoken and written between 1150 and 1500 in the present-day Dutch-speaking area. There was at that time as yet no overarching standard language, but they were all more or less mutually intelligible. By convention mediaeval Frisian is not included, does that mean that anglo-frisian languages can be considered a group like high germanic or low germanic languages, or a group against the whole continental west germanic languages or even a group like north germanic or west germanic languages?
• 7. lastest thing is: "Middle Dutch case system: Middle Dutch had a case system, somewhat similar to modern written German. Since the Middle Ages Dutch has gradually lost an active case system, first in the spoken language, much later in the written language, so it is now mostly limited to fixed expressions. The spelling reform of 1947 removed most remaining parts of the case system, among them the accusative --> That means that the written dutch before 1947 did have the same/a comparable case system to the conservative modern written german?

So that's all and i will very appreciate your help if you can answer to some of my questions, and thanks for the "supposed" attention if you read until here. Thanx!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Äpple (talk • contribs)

Hi, I hope you don't mind I edited your post a little but it was kind of incomprehensible while it was one big chunk of text.

To answer your questions;

1. To be honest, no I can't. The amount of Old Dutch that is known to linguists is minute considered to the loads of documents that Old English and Old High German have. Because of this there are great gaps in the Old Dutch timeline. If I recall correctly it appeared around 900 but I'm not sure and would have to check.
2. Again, we don't know for sure, but it would be in the later Old Dutch stadium possibly early Middle Dutch.
3. In change s → z apears during the Middle Dutch fase, in Middle Dutch it was still common to use the s. But this only accounts for the written language and differt greatly between regions. The f → v change was present before s → z.
4. I know of no Modern Dutch words ending in "th" nor any (native) words beginning with them pronounced other than "t".
5. Why "woort" (not "wort") became "woord" most likely has to do with the plural ("woorden") in speech however it is still "woort".
6. By convention here means that Frisian isn't a part of Dutch. Some people think that Frisian is a Dutch dialect you see. While in reality it is part of the Anglo-Frisian languages.
7. No not at all. The Dutch case system dissapeared very gradually, around 1600 nearly half of it was gone already its limited now to personal pronouns and fixed expressions. But untill 1947 (and in fact it was still accepted around 1960) the masculine accusative case was still in use (den man vs. de man) by no means did Dutch have a case system similar to German until 1947.

Rex 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vengeance is Bad

It may be smart of you to stop reverting my edits, as an act of vengeance for my comments on your poorly-made map. Ameise -- chat 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Antman surely you've thought about the consequenses of openly desribing oneself as a German Nationalist. At first I thought it was a joke but when I checked your contributions I noticed you actually were one and to be honest, I did not spot any "socialism" in your edits.

ps. Vengeance may be bad, historical revisionsm is worse.

Rex 17:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it to be you who is the one who is embarking on cultural and historical revisionism. As long as you keep randomly reverting my edits to change it to what you see fit, I will do the same. Also, maybe you should stay on the Dutch Wikipedia, your English is not very good at all. Ameise -- chat 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)