User talk:Rex Germanus/archive5

Vote rigging on Pennsylvania German language
A vote from a indefinitely blocked user has been listed. That indicates to me that some underhand vote rigging has been used - which is to the detriment of the discussion. I have asked for this to be investigated. Widefox 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Are you somehow accusing me of fraud?Rex 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming the person who added support to your proposal - listing an indefinitely blocked account - did so in good faith to summarise previous opinions. In my opinion, the vote ambiguity caused by that - as shown by an attempt to clarify by another person - and the impression it left on me, was to the detriment to the discussion. I also assume you respect my desire to not wish to talk with you further about this, as the matter has been dealt with. Widefox 14:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let it be clear that (although the style of your messages tends to indicate otherwise) I am/was not that person. I don't care for your impressions or your false accusations. I suggest you take a crash course in tact.
 * Rex 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Which person? Widefox 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The person of which you speak of course.Rex 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I spoke of at least three other people. Who are you talking about? Please be clear. Widefox 15:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Sherlock, I spoke of, and I quote: "I am assuming the person who added support to your proposal - listing an indefinitely blocked account - did so in good faith to summarise previous opinions.".Rex 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume the best - that either we are talking cross-purposes or you can't remember your edits to the discussion. I also assume that you can't remember the comments from others in the same vain as me about not follow procedure. The admin has closed and archived that discussion. This discussion is not constructive, and I repeat, I do not wish to talk with you further about this. Widefox 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And I don't want you to start accusing people of things they did not do right out of the blue. Rex 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to Afrikaans
Haha, I just saw the edit summary on my watchlist! Thanks for that! --Adriaan90 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that User:Ulritz is a notorious German nationalist who hates Dutch. He pretends to know what he's talking about (in linguistics) but his comments are unreferenced and based on German nationalism.You did the right thing. Rex 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. PS: What about archiving your talk page? It's quite lengthy. Anyway, see you around then. --Adriaan90 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll archive it. See you too.Rex 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better :) --Adriaan90 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Ulritz
I would cordially ask you to refrain from labelling what you see as opponents "nationalists", "neo-nazis", "laymen", etc. as it doesnt quite advance discussion. Ulritz 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You would not even know what cordially means. You are a German nationalist and you are a layman in linguistics, you do not discuss you insult. These aren't personal attacks merely observations.Rex 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Thanks for your response to my message. It's good to know that there are still a few rational people who consider what one has to say on the merits of the statement ;) Guettarda 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're welcome. Rex 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi, I don't see that I have much to say on the matter; I only barely saw the arguments between you and Ulritz. But if you want the ArbCom to take you seriously, you have to provide diffs. Don't just say "All parties have been informed via talk page, previous steps in resolving this dispute are discussion and a mediation which was refused by User:Ulritz"; provide the diffs where everyone was notified, where you tried to resolve the dispute, and where Ulritz reject the mediation. Provide diffs of him doing the things you're accusing him of. Show the insulting edit summaries and talk page comments. Show diffs demonstrating "anti-Dutch" bias. —Angr 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will. Rex 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 14 2006 to Stahhelm
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

As per your report, I hope you're expecting this.

William M. Connolley 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am, thank you.Rex 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats
I hope you read that article to the end. To be exact, I did not make a legal threat, rather I recommended Ulritz consider taking legal steps as your were continusly accusing him of a crime (dennying Nazi crimes is prosecutable in many countries, including the ones I assume you reside in, as well as the country I assume him to reside in). Such accusation without proof indeed constitutes slander, libel or defamation as mentionned in that very article you quote now. As you apparently don't intend to stop accusing him of such without proof (I'm not about to try and track everyone of Ulritz's contributions to wikipedia to find something, none of the occasional links you've included in your attacks seemed to support your claim) I'm not sure what other choices are left to him (mediation between the both of you doesn't seem to work and appears pointless at this time). I don't feel he should be silenced (his recent contributions, as well as yours, seem to have been unreasonable, another reason to try other avenues including if necessary legal ones (I would not react reasonably to accusations as the one you are proferring on Ulritz either) on wikipedia (neither do I feel you shoudl be, though you should moderate your editing and general conduct), continuing this conflict will drive at least one user (if not more as having to watch your exchanges is not very motivating) away which cannot be in the interest of wikipedia.

Lastly to make matters clear, you did not remove my comment, Van helsing did without explanation (hopefully not on your behalf). Another note, I only realised you and Ulritz had been temporarily banned (triple revert) from editing after my post, otherwise I probably would not have posted at all and waited to see how the situation evolved.--Caranorn 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Advising to make legal threats or making them yourself makes no difference to me or wikipedia. Furthermore, I never said I removed your comment, though I would have if van Helsing hadn't beat me to it. You need to understand that on wikipedia we don't make or tolerate legal threats. So don't make them
 * Rex 12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But according to you wikipedia tolerates slander, libel and diffamation? I'll point you to Libel and again to the article you yourself are quoting No legal threats which clearly states:


 * Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you feel Wikipedia content libels you or someone else, you may bring it to the attention of the Community and administrators here, or by contacting the infoteam as described on this page. In either case the offensive material should be removed quickly. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. are not slander and legal threats cannot be used to have points of view enshrined in an article.


 * So to reissue your own advice. So don't make it (slander, libel and defamation).--Caranorn 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not make slander, libel or defamation. I know what I said and I stand by it. Rex 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't provide proof it has to be considered defamation. Would you simply go to someone on the street, accuse him of a crime without proof? I don't think you would, or otherwise you'd expect a strong reaction from that person (and the recommended action would be legal, not physical...). Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is to not accuse otehrs easily of crimes when you cannot seem to provide any proof.--Caranorn 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd payed attention to his edits you wouldn't even need to ask me for proof. He did question and tried to cover up nazi crimes (denial) and has a clear pro-nazi bias.Rex 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I've twice lost my response (second time I expect due to Arnoutf's post bellow...). I won't retype it entirely a third time out of memory.
 * So just in short.
 * 1) The Valkenburg article edit is pretty clear. The article essentially states that German law (or military code), applicable to the Netehrlands existed which called for death sentence for hiding Jews. To this Ulritz responded with a German-occupied Poland, not Holland edit summary and inserting a request for a reference. This edit by Ulritz is indeed correct as I'm not aware of any such law (applicable to occupied territories, vs. Germany proper, annexed territories of administred ones (like Poland which was in part annexed and in part administred)). He would have been justified to simply remove that passage or edit it to state that execution and deportation (with likely death) was common for people found to be hiding Jews. The punishable statement simply is not acceptable without a legal source to back it up.
 * 2) The various trms for Germans article edit is indeed more neutral then the previous wording. At least going by Luxembourgish (French and Belgian) cases I know, most people don't hate Germans after WWII, also their resentment is largely based on occupation (and war) rather then crimes. Even among concentration camp survivors I've talked to (about the subject) only one expressed hatred for Germans, the others usually harbor resentment and quite commonly fear of Germany.
 * 3) In the History of Austria article edit Ulritz does just the opposite of that which you accuse him of. In his edit summary he asks Are you here to whitewash Austrian nazism?. The question here is whether Austria was indeed liberated (and thereby whether Austrians played any, no or a small role in WWII and WWII crimes). It is indeed correct that Austria was forcibly annexed by Germany, but the Nazi regime had the support of a large portion of the Austrian population. If the article just talks about liberation in 1945 and ignores the fact that there were many collaborators in the country and that for them it was occupation there is a problem. Another question might be how a similar article on German history might treat this question (liberation or occupation), both should probably use similar wording and if this is liberation at least mention how that's just one point of view. Lastly I personnaly object to the securing Austria from complete Soviet domination statement which appears anti-communist to me. On the other hand this type of statement is pretty common in WWII histories and does correctly reflect the feeling of many people involved (in this case the people of Austria). And I don't have to like every article or sentence withing an article on Wikipedia, as long as it's not blatantly false, incomplete or something similar it won't matter overly to me.
 * In short, the three edits by Ulritz you link to in no way show him to be as you say questionning or covering up Nazi crimes or having a pro-nazi bias. If anything it would appear that Ulritz is requesting references instead of blanket statements, removing a non-neutral POV (which also misrepresents dutch people) and finally requesting that the role of Austrians within the third Reich not be downplayed (and therefore puts in question the use of the term liberation for 1945). All of this also makes me wonder to what degree linguistic bareers and resulting inability to fully comprehend the edits (and discuss them) is an issue.
 * Hopefully this time my post will make it to your talk page:-(, I certainly won't type it a fourth time.--Caranorn 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

80 yrs war map
Great map, Rex, definitely an improvement; thanks! 2 questions though. (1) I thought Spain also controlled two coastal towns in Italy, and the area near Milan in about 1550. If I am right, these are missing on your map (if I am wrong, I haven't said anything). (2) For consistency, could you also make a version of your map for 1648 peace of Munster situation; in the effects on the Spanish empire section, all the way down on the page. Arnoutf 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I based myself on 2 maps, yours and Image:Charles_I_and_V_empire.png. They seem quite close in terms of period. If you're sure I could always add them that's no problem at all.

Rex 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated
I appreciate your vandalism reverts, but can you please take WP:NPA into account when making edit summaries? Not being very nice feeds into the vandals need for attention and causes them to wreck the place up some more. G'day, - ¡Kribbeh! Speak!\Contribs 14:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry sometimes I forget ;-) Rex 14:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 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 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi Rex, I don't know if you keep the images you've made on your watchlist, but I've made comments at Image talk:Continental West Germanic languages.png and Image talk:Frankischetalen.png. —Angr 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded ;-) Rex 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Surprising edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -- lucasbfr talk 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What are we talking about? If it concerns the "Self Image"-section that information is fully referenced, and not my personal point of view.Rex 11:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Requests for arbitration/Ulritz which states that until the conclusion of this case, you and Ulritz may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Thanks --Srik e it (Talk 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay ... I don't see a problem with that.Rex 11:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch people
Sorry Rex, missed that (The Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch) completely. On the other hand, we don’t have to copy it word for word, do we? As long as the message stays intact.--Van helsing 11:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No we don't have to, but given that this is a tricky subject (very subjective) it would be wise to stick with what the "experts" think about the matter. I expect Xenophobe did some research.Rex 13:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for breach of temporary injunction
I have blocked you for 24 hours for breaching the temporary injunction in Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. The block has been logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Cowman109 Talk 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dutch conjugation
Sorry to bother, but if you have time can you have a look at Dutch conjugation? It seems too complicated and confusing to be read, and of course it contains some outdated and non-existent Dutch grammar informations. My dutch is good enough to notice some of those but not good enough to re-write it myself. Since I noticed you rewrote Dutch declension so I was wondering if you can do that one as well if it's not too much trouble? thanks. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, there are many outdated conjugations there and Dutch grammar terms make things confusing as well. I have a look at the article this week.Rex 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Low Saxon dialects.png
Op de afbeelding Image:Low Saxon dialects.png houdt de Nedersaksische taalgrens op net voor de Veluwe, terwijl de Veluwe er toch echt bijhoort, hetzelfde geldt voor de Stellingwerven en de Westkwartier (in Friesland). Ik weet niet of je het zou kunnen aanpassen. Zo ja, graag! (dan zouden wij het ook kunnen gebruiken) Servien 10:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Voor een duidelijke grens in het Nederlandse taalgebied, zie:

Mijn kaart is eigenlijk een aanpassing van een Duitse kaart, desalniettemin zal ik de betreffende kaart aanpassen. Mocht je hier nog meer taalkundige kaarten vinden waar dit verschijnsel op voorkomt meldt je het maar gewoon hoor, ik help graag.Rex 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Ulritz.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it (Talk 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture
You replaced a picture in Dutch people. Pictures are nice. They, most of the time, are enhancing the article. This one does not. The text in the picture and the picture itself have no relation. (Ik hoop dat er een ander plaatje te vinden is om de tekst op te fleuren, want deze doet het niet.) --JohJak2 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the text you'll see that they do have a relation. It's a picture of an example of Dutch anti-German feelings.Rex 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The picture has no information what so ever that relates to the text. Just a few guys looking over their shoulder. The only item added to the picture, the text, is just meant to shock, not to inform. I think it needs to be removed. --JohJak2 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll discuss this latter, apparently you don't have the same thoughts on what is and what isn't an example.Rex 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of Arbcom probation
Rex, your edit-warring on Dutch people (I haven't counted the reverts, but they must have been more than 10 or so) was not only a blatant violation of 3RR, but also of your Arbcom parole. Following the Arbcom judgment, I'm blocking you for 1 week. Please note that this is quite unrelated to whether the other user was indeed Ulritz. Even if he was (that will be investigated), this in no way justifies your reverts, quite to the contrary: you were put under parole specifically so you wouldn't start revert-warring with him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, with him! Surely the 1 revert parole was for conflicts with him, not others ?... as for the 3RR I don't think it counts for vandalism, which this was! Rex 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The parole is for all reverts on all articles, and no, it was a content dispute and not vandalism. BTW, a checkuser on the IP has been filed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. You are free to ask other admins to review this, by a request. I won't be around for most of tomorrow, so, fellow admins, feel free to overturn without consulting me if you think it appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This must be vandalism. He removes referenced information without any valid reasons other than hate.Rex 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ps, there weren't by far 10 reverts.Rex 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Checkuser has apparently shown that the user is not Ulritz, but it has been proposed on the bottom of WP:RFAR that the IP range be included to the revert parole. If you feel the need to revert more than once, your best option would be to go directly to the talk page of an article in which something is disputed, or see if you can find another editor who agrees with you. It would be better if another editor reverted for you instead, for example (obviously not sockpuppets, though! Hehe). Cowman109 Talk 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, that IP clearly is Ulritz, he has the same modus operandi and edits the same articles! Everytime he pops up Ulritz is gone! Just because his account IP doesn't match his doesn't mean it isn't him!


 * Ulritz sounds like a native speaker of English to me. The IP clearly does not.

As for talkpage discussion before reverting, I tried that but even IF i start a talkpage discussion or explain my edits there people like these will still revert and then what? Rex 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People should definitely not revert additions to talk pages unless they are vandalism or loaded with personal attacks, so you can tell me if someone decides to remove your comments from a talk page with no reason and I'll see to blocking them. Cowman109 Talk 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, misunderstood the question there. If other people continue reverting, there would be other users to revert the user back if their edits are indeed clearly controversial. If you have 3 users reverting against one, there is probably something wrong about that one user's edits, of course, and if they break the three revert rule (or simply just for editing warring against community consensus) they can be blocked. It looks like the IP will get added to the arbitration remedy anyway, though, so that shouldn't be a problem.  Cowman109 Talk 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: I am supposed to begg other users to revert for me for a whole year because some a-social neo n*zi has a personal grudge against me? Rex 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rex, get some people skills, or just take a break and calm down while you are blocked. Calling someone "a-social neo n*zi" is totally inacceptable, particularly if it has been demonstrated several times that you are misunderstanding that person. If your position was as strong as you believe you wouldn't have to revert all the time, someone else would do it for you. In that case the best you can do is to clearly state your case on the talk pages and hope to find a consensus. If you start with personal accusations or attacks that obviusly won't work, if anything it will make people stay away from any of the articles you are waring over, afterall, few wish to be caught between the lines.--Caranorn 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember when (or why) you showed up Caranorn, nor if you ever were objective in this matter, but when I call someone an a-social neo-n*zi you can expect it's pretty well founded. There is only one person here on wikipedia with whom I have problems and let it be very clear to you that I did not start making them. When someone if time and again wishes to implement his German nationalistic bias while he is proven wrong on every front, directed at talk pages, mediations and even arbcoms and still refuses to participate in wikipedia then I think it is not my talkpage, but Ulritz' on which you have to make remarks on "people skills". I hope you get the message.Rex 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, Rex. Ulritz (and shortly, the IP) are under the same restrictions as you. The world won't end if a page is not left in your preferred version for a short while - Wikipedia isn't life, after all. :) There is clearly no 'right' or 'wrong' person in this, as both you and Ulritz believe that your versions are better, so it is important to get others involved in the decision process should there be a conflict. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You bet there is a right and wrong here. Wikipedia is great, but people who purposly try to ruin it, do not deserve it. It's really sad that these people and their victims are punished equally.Rex 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you somewhat. You shouldn't be blocked for three reverting an asshole. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rex, Please remember you are still on probation for edit warring. Your recent reverts of User:Dennnnis' edits in Dutch People will not show good on your record, as I am sure Dennnnis' edits are no vandalism. Arnoutf 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The way I understand it, the 1RR thing only goes for conflicts with User:Ulritz... but I'll be careful anyway. I already consulted his talk page ... I hope this will be enough.Rex 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rex, I must contradict you again. As I pointed out to you earlier, the Arbcom restrictions are very clearly for all disputes, on all articles, with all opponents, only excepting obvious vandalism. So, basically you broke it again today. I'm not going to block this time, but please consider this a last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see ... it's strange you know, I was always the one open to discussion and yet I get punished equally, even though the PAs continue ... I wonder are there ways to appeal in some form to the Arbcoms decision?Rex 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Appeals? My understanding is you could theoretically appeal directly to Jimbo Wales; or you could ask for a re-opening by the arbcom itself at some later time. But, to be frank, I wouldn't try either right now if I were you. With the 1 1/2 instances of renewed edit-warring on the same issues, so shortly after the conclusion of the case, I guess you wouldn't have much of a chance. Give it at least two months demonstrating you get along better without edit-wars. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion passed for Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
A motion has been passed for the case linked above.

The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Flemish
Hi Rex. Please hold your horses when you take a bite into the article 'Flemish', chapter Flemish: I already got out some tremendous idiocies from subsection '1. Dutch' [its 'Standard Dutch', 'West Flemish', 'East Flemish', 'Brabantic'] (compare recent history) and I hope you do not want to become overly precise, but I would suggest you improve its 'Limburgish': just roughly get rid of the most ridiculous statements, errors and incorrect links. The present quality of the article is definitely not worth any kind of edit war. ;-) — SomeHuman 20 Nov2006 20:09 (UTC) P.S. The article formely had 'East Flemish' comprising both 'East Flemish' and 'Brabantic' as if one. This may explain why 'East Flemish' is mentioned under 'Limburgish', this might have to be 'Brabantic' instead. — SomeHuman 20 Nov2006 20:28 (UTC)
 * I see you're going for the "total information" style, I think it ould work. I'll try to create some simple trees to make a sort of "vereenvoudiging" ... I have to say, I had a minor stroke when I saw "Flemish languages" but, it's not so bad as I thought, quite good actually.Rex 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rex. Please first read the talk page of the 'Flemish' article, so as to understand what I have in mind with respect to where I want to bring the article to: The "language" as a mere vehicle to guide readers along the various senses of 'Flemish'; an entirely different approach from 'Flemish (linguistics)'. I already did some serious editing on the dialects (remember, it's neither about the Dutch language nor about linguistically cross-border Flemish, Brabantian and Limburgish, but tries to give an overview of Flemish relating to present Flanders and the origin of these terms - all in a Belgian context such as the names and historical dialects of provinces in Flanders and Wallonia etc.) There is one sentence however, that I assume to be completely false: "Bergish (to the North of Aachen near the international borders of the Netherlands and Belgium, still influenced by both standard French and standard German; its classification as a Flemish dialect is disputed, as some linguists consider it as a German dialect)" - I think it should end like "influenced still by [standard Dutch ??? and] Dutch and Belgian Limburgish, and [mainly???] by standard German; its classification as a Dutch dialect is disputed, as some linguists consider it as a German dialect)". But you know much more about this topic than I do... Kind regards. — SomeHuman 15 Dec2006 03:36 (UTC)

Bergisch, is a Low Franconian dialect, similar to southern Limburgish. It's spoken North of Aken then it is highly possible it experienced a strong Dutch influence (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:NederlandsinDuitsland.png) as Dutch was the standard language there in between the 17th and 19th century. It's not a "Flemish language" (do get ridd of that if you can ;-) and as per usual, well in Germany at least, anything that looks like German within Germanys borders is considered a German dialect. I'd suggest we avoid that nationalism influenced terminology and simply note that it is a Low Franconian dialect with a visible influence of standard Dutch.Rex 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 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 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how [..]
Edit summaries like this one "I don't see how you can at such an early point in history speak of Dutch" and a following revert aren't neccesary, if you'd simply taken a look at the Dutch language or Old Dutch articles you'd have seen that it was the case and you wouldn't have to revert. Rex 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The dutch language link provides no references for Old Dutch.
 * 2) The Old Dutch article provides conflicting references.
 * 3) Considering how heavily both articles are edited by you I can't trust them without said references.
 * 4) Oddly enough anyone I know who has/is studying linguistics seem to contradict the notion of a separate dutch language (versus a number of frankish dialects) at such an early time.--Caranorn 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't trust me? Says someone who sided with Ulritz a German nationalist ... That aside, there are plently of references in on Old Dutch, so your friend (not that it would help you anyway as its OR) ought to read a few of them before he comments. Rex 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Contradicting"
From your edit comment, "who keeps removing that template?", in the article German language, I assume you don't read edit summaries, even when they're only six lines down from yours. I'll therefore reiterate my comment here so that you can read it:
 * Please don't add the contradiction tag without giving your reasons on the Talk page, otherwise I won't know what to fix in the article.

I will remove the tag again. If you wish to add it back in, give your reasoning this time. Thanks. &mdash; Timwi 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already gave my reasoning on the talk page weeks ago. Rex 14:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Box
What was wrong with the original colors? I tink it was better than what it is now. Coojah 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I thought/think the darb/light brown box was a bit "dirty" and too dark. But if it really is a problem for we can discuss a solution.Rex 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

'Flemish' article, or 'Flemish' as disambiguation page + 'Flemish (terminology)'
Hi Rex. To my regret, your suggested compromise 'Flemish (terminology)' caught on. There has been further discussion amongst Peter Isotalo and myself while edit-warring. After a few RfC's (without response from others), there is now a proper proposal to move 'Flemish' towards 'Flemish (terminology)' with the intend to put the contents of 'Flemish (disambiguation)' in 'Flemish'. Please read the arguments and above all, be free in your choice. [Note that the older history of 'Flemish' is found as the history of for the moment a redirect page 'Flemish (terminology)': see here]. (Oh, did you notice my question here a little above in the section?) — SomeHuman 20 Dec2006 20:53 (UTC)

Anti-German Crusade
What is your business inserting a Dutch name into an article of a river that is not even close to the Netherlands? And then even pushing it into first spot ? Or removing relevant German names ? Blantant blanking of section or whole articles ? Moves of articles away form German names  ? -- Matthead discuß!    O       05:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anti-German crusade? Nah, the name change for the Moselle was pretty simple. It's close to the Dutch speaking area and for a long time Dutch skippers were very active on in. The "pushing to first spot" was explained in the edit summary, I was placing, not pushing them, in alphabetical order. In case of the Battle of the Teutoberger forest the German name is not important. There were no Germans or German language at the time, so why include it? Same for Charlemagne, his empire was multi lingual and I don't see why modern standard German should have some special position. Then the "blanking" of pages. The German "Sankt Nikolaus" is not related to christmas, and not the direct ancestor of Santa Claus, again: Why include it? Then the name changes. If an article has an unneccesary German (or whatever language) title while there is an English equivalent, then I think we should go for an English title on the English wikipedia. All very logical. Rex 10:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:BattleofFrance.png
There's a mistake with the image you created - the maneuvering from group C in the image, actually, should come from group A. See this image. I'm no good with editing images so could you please fix the error? I have removed the image from the article Battle of France for the moment. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 10:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll change it right away, but what exactly do you mean? I'm afraid I don't really understand what you want me to change.Rex 10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He's referring to the German Army Groups (Heeresgruppen). Your image shows HG C mounting the offensive through Luxembourg and the Ardennes. The Westpoint map on the other hand shows that movement coming from HG A. I expect Westpoint is correct on that point though I can look up some other sources if you wish.--Caranorn 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see, Army Group remain static in the initial phases of the attack I reckon? If so, I think it would be better if I made a brand new image ... Rex 13:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, AG C (guess AG is more appropriate here then HG, though AG has yet another meaning in WWII German language...) did not actively participate in the battles for the Low Countries. At least that's according to the Westpoint map (which is an excellent source for most of the war). I haven't really looked at the 1940 campaign in depth for a while (except for a small correction to a Luxembourg article).
 * Actually I just decided to take a look at my library and found some old notes (actually an order of battle). I can thereby confirm that Tessin gives all elements of AG A as active in the Low Countries campaign of 1940. The same for AG B. AG C on the other hand has defensive orders (Sicherheitsbesatzung in den Westbefestigungen).--Caranorn 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a new map right away.Rex 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) On second thought, the map I have in mind would only be a simplified variant of one already in the article. I'm going to search for a nic picture instead.Rex 15:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

German Language
National Geographics Collegiate Atlas of the World(2006) CLEARLY states this:

Italy National Languages: Italian, French, German, Romansch, Slovenian —Preceding unsigned comment added by R9tgokunks (talk • contribs)


 * German is a regional, not national language of Italy.period.Rex 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A gentle reminder
Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. If other editors find the image inaccurate, let them deal with it. —Angr 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will. I hope we can sort out the issue furhter on the talkpage ...Rex 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 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 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)