User talk:Rex Germanus/archive6

Franconian Map
As per en:Image:Frankischetalen.png, may I ask what languages are spoken in northern Netherlands / Friesland, besides Friese? Ameise -- chat 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from Frisian and Dutch (Dutch) Low Saxon is also spoken in the Netherlands.Rex 15:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it spoken in those areas? I'm trying to adapt this map (and others) to your language map. I can locate low saxon, central and high German in Germany, but I'm having trouble with the Netherlands. Also, would Flemish simply be 'Dutch'? Ameise -- chat 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

German Language Map
In regards to the map which you uploaded here: commons:Image:Europe_germanic_languages.PNG, I've uploaded a revised, corrected, and error-corrected version of the map here: commons:Image:Europe_germanic_languages_n.PNG.

Please replace it. Ameise -- chat 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got fingers of your own haven't you?Rex 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My account on commons is too new, and I cannot replace images already uploaded; for the record, yes, I do have fingers. Ameise -- chat 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I hope you have patience as well.Rex 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether or not I will still have fingers. Ameise -- chat 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then you better hope to be lucky.Rex 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what with the increased prevalence of finger thieves around here... Ameise -- chat 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very funny.Rex 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Influence Graph
Hi Rex, I noticed that the plot at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Influencegraph.PNG

does not have a reference. First, I am curious where the data from this plot came from (relevant references, papers, anything). I am not an editor of wikipedia nor am I questioning it's veracity - I only hope to gain insight on where it came from.

Thanks much, jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.152.180.110 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * That graph was made quite some time ago, but I believe I made it based on information (percentages) already in the article.Rex 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nord-Pas de Calais
Hi Rex.

You inserted this passage in the articles on Nord-Pas de Calais, Nord, and Pas de Calais articles:
 * Historically the region was completely Dutchophone rather than dominantly Francophone. The marks of the Dutch language are still present as many of the towns and villages have frenchified Dutch names. Today there is still a small community that continues to speak Dutch, the language which has been present in the area since the early 8th century.

I changed this because the cited reference does not support the statement (the region was at most half dutchophone), and the wording appears to support Dutch or Flemish nationalism. See the Nord-Pas de Calais discussion for more.

I am new to wikipedia editing (the similarity between my username and the user matthead cited below is coincidental, I assure you) and I would appreciate any feedback on the edits.

Thanks.

Take care -mat Matthew Hawker 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: a book you would enjoy: The Myth of Nations, by Patrick Geary.

User:Matthead
Copied from my reply at WP:AN/I:

Rex, you are correct that Matthead is being incivil, and should not be following you around undoing your edits, but I'd give some consideration to the magnitude and scope of the edits you're making. Matthead's last revert on Pennsylvania Dutch appears to be mostly sensible (though he took out a well-sourced statement and replaced it with an unsourced one). Wikipedia is not paper; while we should edit for concision, we should not sacrificy accuracy in the name of brevity. There's always more room on the servers to explain in a little more detail. Argyriou (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I wrote that reply before I saw your talk page, and the stuff about the ArbCom case. Given that, I'd be very, very careful about making hasty accusations about others.


 * Believe me I'm not a troll. I will shortly try to appeal that arbcom decision. It concerned a series of edit wars between me and a German nationalist who, like matthead really, refused to discuss his edits, refused a mediation and to participate with the arbcom case. Anyway, I do feel ashamed or anything about that Arbcom case. I wouldn't know why. What irritates me is that a user like Matthead refuses to discuss his edits with arguments and instead post messages suggesting Im some troll because of the whole matter.Rex 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to Caranorn
I am getting very, very tired of your behaviour. I don't really care you have some urge to watch my edits and to pretend that you're some kind of unbiased supervisor, but I do care about the fact that you disrupt my attempt to make wikipedia more clear and accurate. A simple example:

The pennsylvania Dutch article. I replace unsourced information with sourced information. Then some guy, who thinks I'm on some anti German crusade because of some obvious name changing actions of myself, reverts me (note that he has been now warned by the admins). In other words, he removes unreferenced information and replaces it with bias (see lines above) information. Almost naturally you choose his side (deja vu?) and do this, you insert the old false information. Now the article says:


 * "The word "Dutch" in general is left over from an archaic sense of the English word, which once referred to all people speaking a West Germanic language on the European mainland. In the context of Pennsylvania Dutch, the word `Dutch' is a corruption of the German ethnonym Deutsch, which means German. Dutch is the West Germanic language of the Low Countries.[1]"

To me this is the same as "The words George W Bush originally refered to two-arsed frogs from the African sahara, but in this context refers to the president of the United states[1]

Catch my drift? I'd very much like it, and see it as a sign of good will if you'd remove the unsourced information. Thanks in advance.Rex 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you are imagining that. I've been watching that page for some time now, I can't quite remember when, possibly the article was on the front page or it was immediately after the massacre at an Amish school, another possibility would be following a link via language articles (which would then be related to a clash with you, but not because I followed you in any way). In any case I have some interest in the topic as a number of my relatives would be deemed Pennsylvania dutch (my extensive US family either lives in Pennsylvania and Maryland or had their ancestors migrate through the area shortly after WWI, even one of my own great-grand-fathers spent some time there before he returned to Europe). So I'm not watching that article because of you and I'm certainly not following you in any way.
 * Now to the topic at hand. You deleted a statement that 1) is supported by part of that community, 2) that is in part backed up by documentary evidence of the period and 3) seems to have a source (Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=91066792&oldid=90903067, I've asked that user to fill out the reference as just the name of the author is obviously insufficient). I do disagree with those who deleted your sourced addition, which in no way contradicts the other one.
 * For now I'll wait a few days to see whether Stettlerj or someone else adds a useful reference. If not you or anyone else may reasonably delete that sentence. But I'd plead to wait a few days, probably till after New Years as I believe this sentence is indeed relevant.--Caranorn 14:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant and adding unreferenced information while clearly aware that it is unreferenced is not the wikipedia way.Rex 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't add a thing, I reverted your deletion. I then added a fact tag as I agreed with you that a proper reference was needed. Next I looked at the article history and noticed someone had actually named a source in an edit summary, therefore I contacted that person and asked whether s/he could add the complete reference to the article itself. I believe all I've done is perfectly the wikipedia way. But I agree, at this point there is little more to say here.--Caranorn 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced unsourced information with sourced information. The you re add the unsourced information. Please tell me when I'm making any mistakes here?Rex 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually by tracing back the history of the article I've found the original source for that sentence. It's even still included as an external link under the Pennsylvania German language article. I'll add the same reference to Pennsylvania Dutch now.--Caranorn 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an article dealing with the possible explanations. Besides it includes both my implentation and the supposedly unreferenced explanation.Rex 16:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep and a few others too. You may have noted how I slightly changed the sentence in the article as the source indeed didn't pretend to prove a single origin of the term. There are a number of plausible origins, it's not for us to decide which one. For a moment I was tempted to also change your sentence to base it entirely on a single source. But considering my experience with you I decided to leave that as it is. And two sources partially covering one another are not a problem.

--Caranorn 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Part II
Hi Caranorn. Even though I still think the information you added to the Pennsylvania Dutch article is surpluss and unneccesary I've let it go. This is the latests edit of Matthead, your latest protégé. I find this edit to be totally unacceptable. His behaviour disgusts me. I'd like you to do two things (as he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to me). 1 revert this unnecasary edit, which he only did to revert me (if you look closely you'll even see his edit summary contradicts the actuall information given in the article). 2 talk to him, and explain to him this behaviour is unacceptable. I don't want to, but will go through the whole RFC, Mediation and Arbcom procedure if he keeps purposely obstructing my wikipedia work.Rex 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Matthead or any other user is my protégé. In his case he's been a registered wikipedia user since 2004 while I only arrived this year (I've obviously known about wikipedia a longer time and probably did some edits or at least talk page contributions as an annon). I'm not all that powerful (certainly not on wikipedia) to be able to take someone under my wings or anything of the sort. I'm not even sure I've ever talked to him.
 * But to the topic, I noticed your edit and his revert (and the oddity about the edit summary;-)), I will wait a moment (I have a pretty bad cold and can't concentrate enough right now) before I decide what's the best solution. It probably won't be before tomorrow if not a bit later.--Caranorn 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent.Rex 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism scale III
You might want to pick a better image for that one. As you may recall, that edit was justified as your source indeed did not mention warcrimes and only occupation... As I told you at one point, in many cases modern resentment is also generally based on such occupation and much less on actual crimes. I just noticed that at the time I'd just given up on you ever seeing reason and accordingly left your reversion. I really wonder how many people you ever met (and seriously talked to) who lived through WWII occupation, because your experiences in the Netherlands seem to be entirely different from mine here in Luxembourg. I'd also recommend dropping that crusade of yours.--Caranorn 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My source did mention them and Person Xs reversion edit summaries shows his true intentions. I've spoken to loads of people who experienced the second world war, not to mention my own family and books. The reason because your experiences were different were because of the fact that it was a totally different occupation. Rex 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, in what sense did occupation of the Netherlands differ from that of Luxembourg, Belgium and France. Or rather in what sense were warcrimes (and crimes against humanity which are actually the greater part, though I would agree if you said that such crimes could not have been perpetrated without the warcrimes) in the Netherlands worse then in those countries so that they would still today (or recently) be the basis for resentment.
 * As a note, your new reference still doesn't speak of warcrimes. It only mentions actions which could be anything, including the basic fact of occupation. Though maybe your reasoning is that occupation could not have taken place without attack and invasion, in which case I would better understand you. Though I'd still find the term warcrime inappropriate in that case (a short list of warcrimes: war of aggression, commissary orders, starvation of Soviet soldiers, massacres of surrendered soldiers or civilian populations, intentional targeting of civilian targets in bombing campaigns (Guernica, Rotterdam, Coventry (also a number of allied bombing raids, particularly the fire bombing campaigns against residence areas in Germany and Japan, of course the nuclear bombs, the best one can say about these is that they occurred after the German crimes)... (I could also list more modern examples like the lack of preparations for occupation in the recent US wars, but we are talking WWII and in particular Germany here)). In any case it would still come back to the question why this would have affected people of the Netherlands more then those of other western countries.
 * I won't revert that article again (at least not anytime soon, and I tend to forget these things as I did your original reversion), though you might want to edit it yourself to reflect the fact that warcrimes are indeed not mentioned by the source.--Caranorn 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The German occupation of the Netherlands was quite different from other western countries. I'm planning to rewrite the Netherlands in world war II article in the following days, so you could just watch that evolve.Rex 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands (1939-1945)
Just noticed you already started editing the article. Anyhow I just noticed the following sentence in the original and edited article.

In order to flank the French defences on the Maginot Line and to pre-empt a possible British invasion, on May 10 1940 Germany invaded the Netherlands.

This is actually incorrect. The main purpouse of operations in the Netherlands was to draw away attention from operations in the Ardennes. That is to draw British and French forces deeper into Belgium (move to link up with dutch forces and occupy a defensive line (forgot behind which river). As a flanking maneuver an attack on the Netherlands would have served very little as it opened only a limited additional frontage and instead added a substantial (if not well prepared) army against Germany. The flanking movement went through the Ardennes towards Sedan. Anyhow, I hope you plan to review this in your edit. If you need specific data on German units, or Western Allied units after 1940 (sorry but sources on the Dutch or even Belgian army of 1940 are pretty scarce) let me know. Though most of my material about the 1940 campaign is either pretty generic or very specialized (orders of battle).--Caranorn 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That particular sentence wasn't mine, nevertheless I'll change it. The river you're refering to is probably the Albert Canal.Rex 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved your comment down here so it would not cut my text in two, hope you don't mind. Anyhow the main reason why I told you about that sentence is that you plan to rewrite the article and that you seemed to include the old sentence. And it's not a good idea to start parallel, possibly contradicting, reversions. And no, not the Albert Canal, though that was likely part of the intended defensive line. Maybe it was the Dyle, but that could be a river somewhere entirely different related to another campaign/battle.--Caranorn 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group) religion reference
Thanks for looking up the correct reference.--Caranorn 14:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note that it all was a stupid mistake of mine. I hadn't seen the page number in the original reference, then while searching through the pdf I seemingly couldn't find the relevant data... I've now reinserted the original reference next to yours. I've also reworked that article entry to more correctly reflect the statistics. Oh stupid me...--Caranorn 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours from Wikipedia based on the incivil comment left in this edit. Per your parole you are to be banned from pages you disrupt with incivility, but I would hope you would agree it is futile to ban you from editing a User talk page. I ask you once again to try and discuss matters civilly and edit in good faith. Steve block Talk 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  I'll see it as my "good intention" for 2007. ;-)Rex 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rex, please try. Your parole only allows for a limited number of blocks before you are barred from Wikipedia for a year.  I've looked through your edit history and you do contribute some valuable things, so it would not be good to see you barred for a long time for incivility.  Now I've found the best way to deal with incivility from others is to reply politely.  Any comment I make that is incivil I try not to actually submit, I wait a few minutes and then re-edit it to make it civil.  Where I do submit it, I tend to strike it and apologise.  And I try to never make incivil comments in edit summaries, because you cannot take them back.  If other people frustrate you on Wikipedia, you are within your rights to simply say that you are finding the situation frustrating and ask if there is some way to reach an understanding.  I know it is hard.  I'm not claiming to be perfect.  But you really need to work this out in some way. Good luck, and happy new year. Steve block Talk 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best.Rex 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ulritz
Based on Ulritz's comment in this edit summary at Stahlhelm and also his comment in this edit,  I have banned him from editing the article indefinitely. Steve block Talk 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. That's one article less to worry about.Rex 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Orange Helmet Image
This image has two problems:
 * 1) Its license is not well-defined. If you did this image, would you mind relicensing it to something else?
 * 2) It is not on commons. Again, If you did the image, it would be useful to have it on commons so the other wikipedias can use it.CyrilleDunant 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * License is taken care of, and was correct when I uploaded. If you want other wikipedians to use it, take initiative and install it on commons.Rex 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that it is properly licensed, I can put it on commons. I am not saying you made a mistake, just that a precision was needed. They are very strict about the licensing there :) CyrilleDunant 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Helmpje.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, Image:Helmpje.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Helmpje.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Image talk:Helmpje.jpg. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:Helmpje.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just fixed the copyright, and what ever happened to listing them as possibly unfree images before deletion? I've reuploaded the image again, be more professional in the future.Rex 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to list the image anywhere. It is a blatant copyvio taken from the url provided, and as such falls under WP:CSD criteria G12. Do not re-upload the image before describing the release on the talk page or here. Who created the image? Was it you or somebody else? And if not you, how did and when they permit you to use it under the license you claim it to be under? – Elisson • T • C • 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it ever cross your mind that you could have asked me to provide the license instead of deleting it on sight and telling me afterwards? Seems far more logical to me. In fact, the last few images of mine that had troubles were are dealt with on the talk page, and all were solved. I'd suggest you keep that in mind when you have another case like this one.Rex 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I instead suggest that you take from now on start to leave proper licensing and sourcing on the images you upload. If you want to prove yourself to be correct in this discussion, I suggest you explain the copyright status of the image here or at the talk page of the image, linked above. What is the source, and who provided the licensing? – Elisson • T • C • 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I always engage in proper licencing. What I'm saying is that the regular image dealing admins have a more efficient aproach in solving these problems.Rex 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that I am not a regular image dealing admin. On the other hand, if you have been in this situation before, why haven't you learned to provide the source of the file as well as the copyright holder and a copyright license right away when uploading the image? Anyway, if you re-read criteria G12, you'll see that I did nothing wrong. The problem was on your side. Now please, if you want to prove yourself right, provide the info I ask for. – Elisson • T • C • 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because when I uploaded the image the tagg was correct, and if no one warns me of the fact that the particular tagg suddenly became obsolete then it isn't my fault whatsoever. A lot of fuss could have been avoided here, if you'd simply asked for the reference on my talk page.Rex 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the numbered list on top of Special:Upload. You have to provide both source of the file and the copyright holder with copyright license. If you do not, your file will be deleted in one week. As the particular image we are now talking about was a case for WP:CSD G12, the week thing does not apply, and the image can be deleted right away as a copyvio. Either way, you are responsible for providing the source and copyright info. You did not. I will not comment any further on this unless you provide source, copyright holder and copyright license. All three. Not just one. Even more fuss could have been avoided if you provided that when you uploaded the image. – Elisson • T • C • 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I provided the correct tagg, if that tagg suddenly becomes obsolete then that isn't my problem. You should have been civil and should have posted a small note on my talk page, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'd suggest that you leave image related stuff to the wiki experts.Rex 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the requested information. And no, the tag did not become obsolete, I deleted the image since it looked like a copyvio since no source or permission was provided. No, I won't leave image related stuff to "wiki experts". I instead suggest you that you try to remember to provide that kind of info for any other image you upload in the future. As said, I did nothing wrong, and if you read the pages I've linked to, you will notice that yourself. – Elisson • T • C • 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It might have looked like a copyright violation, but it wasn't and if you just asked instead of deleted at sight there would not have been a problem. I suggest you see this as a lesson for future situations.Rex 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see this as a lesson. I did what I was supposed to do. – Elisson • T • C • 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Elisson is perfectly right. Furthermore, in its latest state, the licencing scheme was still unnacceptable, as it did not specify any licence. You are free to re-upload this image under a valid licence as specified by the author. You can not invent a licence yourself. Thank you for your understanding. Rama 09:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikibureaucracy at its best. I found an image on the website of its creators. I then E-Mail them to ask if I and others can use the image, they say they do not care and that wikipedia can do everything with it they want, and then suddenly that's not good enough and I'm accused of making up my own licenses. If this is some sad game of admins not losing face, please drop the issue and just move on.Rex 10:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Batavians
Hi Rex_Germanus, you've editted Batavians a while ago. This sentence "The Batavians became regarded as the eponymous ancestors of the Dutch people." became "The Batavians falsely became regarded as the eponymous ancestors of the Dutch people.", can you explain why you added falsely? Even with the Migration Period, as far as I know there is no mentioning of the Belgae or Batavii moving out of the area. Thanks. ShotokanTuning 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the Batavians were a relatively small group of people, living around the rhine. There are indeed no records of them leaving (although the men hired for the roman army often never returned) but they were simply too small to be regarded the sole ancestor of the Dutch. As the migration period progressed new, more powerfull and less romanized peoples (the batavians never fully gained controll of the Low Countries) entered the Low COuntries, the Franks quickly made it their new homeland, conquered the Frisians in the North and the Saxons on the North West and never gave up their dominant position again. Hence they are regarded as the main ancestors of the Dutch. The Batavians quite possibly might have contributed, but only margininally compared to others. Early modern Dutchmen however read about the heroic revolt of the Batavians against the all powerful Romans and saw a link to their own fight against Spain ... Rex 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. The Franks were a gathering of Germanic tribes including Chatti. The Batavii once were a part of the Chatti. The Franks moved west from central Germany and the Southern Netherlands, settling in northern Gaul. It seems logical the people in the conquered areas would be called Franks (a Germanic federation) no matter how many Batavii or Belgae lived there. This becomes more evident with the Frisians, who were ‘conquered’ much later and their name and people never disappeared. Since the Batavians build the first settlements and never stopped living there, while the Franks (gathering of various tribes) just moved in what are now various different countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France). The Franks added tribes to their gathering as they went. It’s not illogical to call Batavians ancestors of the Dutch people, better words would be that they are an important part of the ancestry. This also goes for the Belgae in Belgium. Naming only Batavians as ancestors is obviously not true, like they did at the time of war against Spain, this makes it easy to say it’s entirely false. Do you agree we explain "falsely", as that they were only a part of the ancestry of the Dutch people?ShotokanTuning 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The thing is that untill the 1960 it was taught to children that the Batavians were the sole Dutch ancestors, that the reason of the "falsely" comment really.Rex 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the information. It's was nice to discuss this with you. May I paste this at the talk page Talk:Batavians? ShotokanTuning 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course.Rex 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Brandenburgisch
The Dutch interwiki of this article links nowhere, maybe you can move the page nl: Mark-Brannenborger Platt to Mark-Brandenburgs. Sarcelles 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This might sound a bit crude, but it's the Dutch wikis responsibility to accurately name articles within the project. I'm already hooked to this wiki, I don't think I could manage another one + making an account and all that, for just one tiny move of an article 2 sentences long? Sorry mate.Rex 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some words
I do not believe that saying The Dutch are the best falls down under Nationalism II category. I mean seriously, I've got a friend (well actually, he's my friend's friend -but that's a long story) and he's a Dutch and he always likes to amuse us in the company by jokes or etcetera.. and on one occasion, my friend indeed said The Dutch are the best and he's not a nationalist nor did he have any negative thoughts 'bout it. Or another occasion - we ate a meal that he cooked and it was indeed delicious - and on that occasion I said "The Dutch are the best" but again it had no connection whatsoever to that which You're insinuating at User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale.

By the way, the Bosnian Genocide article is a very controversial one. Considering that while we speak a trial is being held in which Bosnia and Herzegovina is suing the countries of Serbia and Montenegro for genocide, and it's very unlikely that the bosnian side will win the case (though we'll have to wait, soon the final decision will be brought), there is a high probability that the article gets deleted (after the event). --PaxEquilibrium 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally you need to put things into context. If that friend of yours would add unreferenced claims to articles saying "the Dutch are the best at [...]" or "the Dutch were the first to [...]" then I 'd consider him a nationalist. Besides, you probably didn't notice it, but my scale only refers to wikipedia edits, not vocal statements. Ratko Mladić, is accused of genocide and mass murder and isn't on the runn for nothing. I will say no more.Rex 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah; OK. Cheers & happy holidays. --PaxEquilibrium 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You too.Rex 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nibelungenlied
Your moved Nibelungenlied to Song of the Nibelungen: in line with other interwikies ...) has been reverted. You know very well that such controversial moves require prior consens by WP:RM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Just a note
You said you were going to try your best, and whatever you are doing is working. Just wanted to drop a note of encouragement and let you know it hasn't gone unnoticed. Happy editing. Steve block Talk 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Rex 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same compliments from me, even in a sensitive article like Dutch People you did not fall in the (oh so easy) trap of engaging in revert war; and you actually try your best to respond reasonable to some pretty harsh and unfounded remarks (you know from who). Arnoutf 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath
Okay, I'm looking at Talk:Dutch (ethnic group) and there's obviously an issue. Do me and yourself a favour and talk me through what the problem is and avoid commenting over there until I can get the gist of it and work out a way forward. You are bordering on breach of your parole and it would be a shame to see all the hard work of the last few weeks go down the drain. So what's up. Someone is requesting sources and you believe you have provided them? Where can I find the sources? Let's try and resolve this peacably. Steve block Talk 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll try. There is this bloke, Paul111 and he's convinced Arnoutf and me have some hidden extreme right wing agenda. We tried our best to get the best references for the article (just look at the amount) but somehow paul111 ignores them. He removes our referenced information and replaces it with his own (unreferenced) information. It's very frustrating as he only lists what he sees and as incorrect or problematic on the talk page (does not respond to our answers) and then deletes loads of information "per talk".Rex 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. This is out of my area of expertise, but I have a copy of Norman Davies' Europe here so I'll rely a little on that.  The first thing to do is maybe focus on discussing the issues with Paul111.  Don't worry overly what state the article is in, seek to resolve the dispute.  I suggest you work first on what you agree on rather than what you disagree on.  Steve block Talk 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just putting my voice in here. I have been on wiki for little over a year now, and only have been involved in 2 problematic situations (not counting the Ulrich thing as I was only a bystander there), one time opposed to Rex; but that was solved relatively peacefully after a while and once on Dutch people with Paul111. The problem with Paul111 is that whatever opening I try to provide he only answers to the things he disagrees with and never responds to the openings I give (read the full talk page since a few months and you will see I have given plenty, Paul111 has given none). I know Rex is easily pulled into very aggressive behaviour and seeing him around a bit more I think he is doing his best to constrain himself in the Dutch ethnic people thing. The latest comment by Paul111 more or less states he feels himself free to renounce any source as irreliable without arguments (including Encyclopedia Britannica), so I can see Rex is tempted to overreact, although this is indeed getting close to violating his parole. I am trying to talk to Paul111 but so far he does not seem to be listening; a difficult situation indeed. PS Thanks Steve Block for trying to mitigate the issues. Arnoutf 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin;-)
I obviously know that Latin is not a romance language, but it seemed best to add it to the closest related language group in the list. At first I thought to add Carolus Magnus to the lead, but was not certain you'd accept it, so as a form of preemptive appeasement I moved it into the names section... But as you can see from my edit summary I tend to say too much and run out of room for essential information (the reason why I opted for romance). I really should try and keep my summaries shorter then my actual edits:-).--Caranorn 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL
I just want to ask you if you would be willing to help me stop User:LUCPOLs wikipedia propagandist and compulsive lieing spree, ive made a report but im not yet finished....here it is User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL-- Hrödberäht 06:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

current title of the "Spiegel"
Hi Rex, as you speak German, I thought you are maybe interested in the recent topic of the magazin "Spiegel": "Die Erfindung der Deutschen" (please refer to: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/) which includes inter alia a very intersting passage about Charlemagne. Regards (194.9.5.12 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 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 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Danzig

 * "Gdansk was under German control for a reasonable part of its history"

Under german control? That's some sort of funny formulation... Indeed, most of the people there spoke german, but under what sort of "German control" could it stand? Since "German" was used by the prussians to claim some sort of hegemony about "german", and the following use of Deutschland (before 1866 "Deutschland" was just the country of german-speking people, and not some specific state or country) as name for this german-speaking state, you just can't say "under german control", because it would cause some missunderstanding... Like they were occupying the territory or so... But thes just lived there, it was just a german-speaking city, so I would prefer to say that until 1945 it was a german-speaking city, since approx. 1950 it is a polish-speaking city... "control" implies here to much, I think... I agree to your point of view about nationalists, but the topic about eastern territories is not an easy topic, and try to avoid emotional language whenever I can when writing about those topics... (And that's not just because half of my ancestors lived in west-prussia and were banished by the polish state after world war one, like most of their neighbors... Before stupid governments decided about making wars and drawing borders they lived in peace, friendship and often family relations with the polish minority in this area... No sign of "control"...) ... --PSIplus &Psi; 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just finished reading this "Nationalism scale III" ... That's quite a hard topic... It's always some point of view, what is accepted, what is forgotten, or what is an example for history. For example, I agree with the correction in the screenshot - just because it remove to emotional writing. When you write this, and forget that the voluntary SS-corps from the netherlands was the largest non-german one, and that there were lots of people helping the nazis commiting their crimes against jews and others? I mean, it's a bit like austria (but not so extreme): After the war people said "oh, we didn't do a thing, we were just victims", forgetting that they fought side by side with the germans. Same happend in many countries after the war. "It's the fault of the germans, and not ours." ... That's nationalism as well, "forgetting" that there were german people against the nazi shit, and many non-german people for the nazi shit...

Crimes happen. Independant of race, nationalism or religion. It's just how we "accept" them. Who knows about austrian people in Czech? Don't forget that 25% of the people before 1939 there were german speaking, and that they were removed by force after war... 30.000 of them killed... So nationalism, force and crime is no special ability of germans or any other specific group of people. It happens. And it happens even today, but: People just don't want do know. It's easier to accept, that products from the PR China are cheap, than thinking that many of them are produced in slave camps, and that unwilling people get executed. It's always the point of view.

I'm happy that at least once there is an example for history (the nazi one), but sadly it's not unique, new or inovative, it's just one of many examples of human civilization......... --PSIplus &Psi; 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my nationalism scale I do not go for political correctness. I do not feel the urge to revert a person who revisions the nazi occupation of the Netherlands with a edit summary like "That's not true, this is revisionism, but there was a SS volunteer corps". It makes no sense. Neither does the "control" remark. To me, control is a word, and when I read "the Germans control" I dont hear a Hitler speech in my head. Is there anything specific you want to talk about?Rex 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Political correctness where it makes sense. From my point of view, the wounds have to heal. The people should not forget about what happend, but the memory should never keep the wounds open. Humans killed humans in the name of ideology. That's the point. Putting emotion to facts is just not good, from my point of view. Facts speak for themselves.
 * And Amsterdam is currently under dutch control? --PSIplus &Psi; 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked Amsterdam was indeed under Dutch control. Facts should not replace emotions. World War II affected the lives of milions and those people have feelings which should be represented as well.Alongside facts.Rex 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just keep the wounds open... That's a good way... I don't agree with you in this point. Future needs to face the facts of human crimes, but to forget about certain stupid prejudices and emotional stupidities, because this kind crap causes the conflicts firsthands. --PSIplus &Psi; 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Low German
Hey man, I appreciate your candor about your German-bias on your userpage, but your comment that the guy on the Low German talk page would, linguistically, have more in common with someone from Austria than he would with someone from the Netherlands is simply false. Come on, man! Anyway, no attack here, just a comment. Zweifel 06:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My "German bias" has little to do with the above situation. I suggest you read my comment again, because I only spoke about "some cases", not "on the whole".Rex 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Antwerpian
I have added a "" template to the article Antwerpian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Frankly, despite your effort to salvage the article, it appears unlikely for this topic to make an article on the English-language WP. I don't think the centuries-old controverse between Antverpians (in English, as the dialect, not derived from Antwerp but from Latin Antverpia) and Mechlinians (from Latin Mechlinia) had anything to do with my proposal to obliterate the article. It's just a dialect, one out of so many, and the way its counterpart on the Dutch-language WP was developed, appears impossible for readers of English. The Echt Antwaarps teater might be mentioned in a 'culture' section of Antwerp. Kind regards, Rex. — SomeHuman 27 Jan2007 00:09 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I didn't start that article. I merely tried to make it more acceptable compared to previous versions.Rex 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Europe_germanic_languages.PNG
Hey Rex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_germanic_languages.PNG --> if you did this image please add South Tyrolia (Autonome Provinz Bozen – Südtirol; Alto Adige) in northern Italy to the High German area. Most People speak German there. Greez 84.113.231.132 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.Rex 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Map lacks a bit in detail... Compare it to this and that map, you don't include the swiss cantons of vallis and the parts of graubünden, wich are german speaking... And the green dot in trentino for the cimbrian minority ;-) ... --PSIplus &Psi; 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have paintshop or better, you can easily edit the map yourself. I released my file into the public domain, so you dan't have to ask me if I want to edit "my" file, you can do it yourself too.Rex 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rex, in the note on your map you say that the colours represent 'majority' languages only. Yet you exclude Low German (or, if you prefer, Low Saxon) areas in the north of Germany while you include Alsatian in France. Furthermore, I am sure that North Frisian, which is shown on your map, is nowhere a majority language, not even on the islands of Amrum and Föhr. Unoffensive text or character 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the same way I'm sure that Low German in Germany doesn't form a majority apart from a few very small rural communities. But again, feel free to adapt.Rex 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... But it is accepted as official minority language... I'll check out if I can find out some demographic data about this and edit it... I just asked before, because some maps are maintained by certain people and they use certain tools and so on, just tried to be polite before making unusual changes ;-) --PSIplus &Psi; 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Keesjansma.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Keesjansma.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Positive 'Unity' Nationalism vs. Negative 'Hate' Nationalism
I want to point out on two different meanings of what you call "Nationalism", and I believe there's a positive "human unity" kind: the European Union is a multi-national but continental-national movement to peacefully unite but voluntarily all the member states without regard to its' predominant culture, ethnicity, language and religion...and the negative "racial hate" type you worried about brings forth bigotry, cultural bias and prejudices that bred or caused wars, genocides and social conflict to break down, not create a nation.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Europe wasn't completely engulfed by the idea of modern nation-states, and a single ethnic or national group were entirely ruled by various monarchies, regional nobles and provincial rulers. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, France became a democratic republic or at times, an "empire" based on the concept of serving a nation other than king or emperor, followed by the strength of the Netherlands and Switzerland that had many cultural, religious and language groups whom agreed to unite in a common interest, not to leave out one race or look down on their neighboring countries they share some interests (France, Germany and Luxembourg).

The Belgians established a kingdom under a 1830-31 peace treaty might put an end to age-old animousity between Dutch-Flemings and French-Walloons who rather not be part of Napoleonic France or Calvinist Holland. Other positive examples are the German Confederation (1815) later the German Empire (1870-71) but was created out of war with France, and the Italian republic (1860-61) formed by an awareness of multiple descendant groups of "Latin" or "Romance" peoples of the Italia peninsula, but are the French, Portuguese, Spanish and Romanians are also "Latins", whose ancestors acquired enough culture from the old Roman Empire, including their "Romance" languages?

Even the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians became independent, but got along well with ethnolingual neighbors or cultural allies by uniting but not merging their nations in the 1800's. Japanese Nationalism was very influenced by both ancient eastern and western national movements in the late 19th century, but produced a violent war-like military state in World War II to devastate much of Asia and the Pacific rim in a move to create an "united Asian Pacific" empire that brutalized millions of non-Japanese like Chinese, Filipinos, Indochinese, Koreans, Malayans and Papuans.

Nation states are formed over the increasing contact between city-states and region-states, but they used war to declare independence from an oppressive or neglectful ruler who wouldn't represent their peoples' interests and needs. The United States and North America are said the best examples of positive Nationalism, while the Soviet Union's timely collapse in the early 1990's came from negative Nationalism, and the "gray area" of Israel and Palestine are said to have two different nationalisms at the same time.

I don't know the positive or negative nature of Arab Nationalism, Pan-Americanism and African Unity movements, but the "nationalism" of diverse countries: Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Phillipines seems to been working out, but there are hundreds and thousands of tribes, regions and ethnic groups living close together and the push to unify them into one "melting pot" is at the works. Latin American nations have a high rate of "extreme" nationalism, although Mexican revolutionarism, Argentine "justicialism" and Cuban socialism discusses the need to include, integrate, respect and celebrate racial and ethnic differences while they became acculturalized in their native country...is it "multiculturalism"?

In World War I, we seen the first example of racial hate nationalism (although the Russians pulled out of Finland and Poland with help from the Allied states: Britain and France, but used anti-German ntional sentiments to stir emotional feelings against both Germany and Austria), but the concept of "human unity nationalism" lead to the creation of Czechoslovakia (Czechs, Germans, Moravians, Poles, Ruthenians, Slovaks and Ukrainians) and Yugoslavia made of not one, or two, or three, but several ethnic, regional and language groups (Serbs, Croatians, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians-Slavic and Greek, Montenegrins and Albanians), however the two countries were marked by some type of ethnic tension (i.e. Sudetenland-1930's between Slavic and German residents under the Nazis and the Soviets, and Kosovo-1990's as the Serbs vs. Albanians in a violent war) throughout these "united" countries' histories.

Positive nationalism brought forth independence of the Irish Free State, now Ireland in 1919, but we also seen the effects of negative nationalism in Northern Ireland, a never-ending bloody conflict between the Protestant Scots-Irish/"Ulstermen" and Catholic Hiberno-Irish or "Fenians" to this day. Because the majority of Ulster Scots were invited to settle the northern and eastern parts of Ireland under the British in the 17th and 18th centuries, they seem loyal to the British crown, so would they be British nationals or Protestant Ulstermen to seek autonomy away from the Catholic Irishmen, a minority in an artifically created British territory in 1923...but the two nationalities are both native to Ulster, culturally similar to a point one can't tell the other apart, except for religious identity and sectarianism?

The end of European nationalism focused on ones' race, ethnicity or cultural chauvinism was World War II, and no doubt the Nazis introduced the most barbaric form of nationalism combined with anti-Semitism, psuedoscience, strong hatred against peaceful or neutral neighbors, false sense of racial superiority in what was culturally German (non-Jewish) became "Nordic" or Indo-European (white caucasian) as "Aryan". It's undoubtful on Adolf Hitler thought he could use the same "national unity" technique for all German-speaking peoples in post-WWI era and the Great Depression got him elected.

Because of the horrible fanatical nationalism of the Nazis and fascists in Italy, over 10 or 20 million people were killed in battle, unfairly executed or whole groups of people in death camps deemed unfit for Hitler's racial-nationalist "final solution". After WWII, Europeans (esp. in the North and West) strayed away from outdated and ill-conceived fallacies of nationalism that excludes, offends or threatened others for not sharing...or were born into a different culture, nationality, religion or language (i.e. Romani or gypsies, and Sorbs/Wendish). Many Germans who fit the Nazi race category opposed the Nazis and looked at them as a bunch of uncivilized tyrants.

The Communists in the USSR (Soviet Union) had invented a "race-less, class-less, and god-less" nationalism based on workers' unity, global cooperation and deep hatred for "imperialist national" enemies (like the U.S. in the cold war) don't "practice" wealth distribution, and even the Marxist doctrine wanted to make women as "legal equals" in the name of gender equality has never brought an end to ancient traditions of feminity in Russia, where the system itself never believed in freedom and poorly managed the "socialist utopia nation" economy, but the USSR only collapses by its' own weight.

Communism (esp. Stalinism) shared the same odious fanatical nationalism the Nazis and Japanese practiced, including the Soviets' demand to "Sovietize" or "Russify" non-Russian peoples are intolerant of other cultures, and the Soviet policy of fierce anti-Semitism to a point the Jews can't leave for asylum in Israel for not only to practice Judaism, but being of a dubious Jewish "nationality" who must assimilate to or segregate from Russian society, and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) were restored by nationalism in the name of human rights since the Soviets annexed them in 1945. However, the three Baltic states must accept the millions of Russians who arrived there long ago the right to obtain citizenship and benefits.

I'm glad to see you oppose most forms of nationalism, esp. in Wikipedia if it downplays or misrepresents another nation, culture or ethnicity in negative or deragatory ways (the Gdansk vs. Danzig name controversy). Nationalism when applied to set age-old hatreds inflame is destructive, other than patriotism or a softer but respectable nationalism focuses on the achievments not false notions of egocentric superiority, and might admit on learning from other countries advanced than them on some fields (an industrious country may say they aren't as agrarian, but admits on a major need to upgrade their farming methods, and can use free trade to introduce manufacturing to the others).

In Belgium, the controversial 1990's law abandoned bilingual village/town names, with now Flemish-only ones for the North, French-only titles in the South and solely German names to the far East, is to counteract what locals in all three ethnolingusitic groups felt is offensiveness of naming the area in a language not well spoken or not fully understood by the locals. The Flemings, esp. those in the national movement didn't want French names for geographic features they normally won't pronounce in their territory, while the Flemish names won't get accepted by most French speaking Walloons who don't call their town in French...and what about the Belgian Germans?

There are many Belgians able to read, speak and get along in two languages in daily lifes, such as government officials and business executives...and to be bilingual in Belgium is it's own nationalism, but I wonder if it's difficult to switch languages whenever one crosses the historic ethnic, not politically invented, boundary. After all Belgium had moved away from the "Francophile" and "Flemish revolt" divide to a "cold peace" since the 1970's as Belgians wonder if the two opposites can get along in the post-nationalist period, when in fact the Flemings and Walloons are more nationalist than ever!

And I worried much on the future trends in South Africa, after they suffered from Apartheid for 50 years, and the current multiracial government tries hard to consolidate the blacks/bantus, whites, Asians and "coloureds" into one model nation made of diversity, not usually the same ethnicity or racial group (Apartheid was basically "white minority" rule over the black/Bantu majority). The post-Apartheid era since 1994 wanted a nationalism about people of all races, living in peace after they agreed to take down racial barriers and become a single society. I believe positive nationalism under Nelson Mandela fought negative nationalism: Apartheid without a single shot.

+ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.1 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SouthparkDutch.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SouthparkDutch.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:British_Empire_Anachronous_5.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:British_Empire_Anachronous_5.PNG, has been listed at. 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. MECU ≈ talk 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST 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 February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't put fuel onto the fire
Hi Rex, I saw your recent edit on Pauls talk page. As you may have noticed I try to defuse the current situation. Although I agree the remark was bordering on the uncivil (or perhaps a bit beyond), I think your action is not the most effective way to come to a better relationship. Sometimes it is better to keep silent than to provoke if you disagree with someone. Cheers. Arnoutf 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you're trying to do, but I will not allow him to call you or me a nazi. That's crossing the line.Rex 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try to step away from Dutch People for a while even if that leaves the article in a sorry state for a while, Paul broke the standoff, but we can always rediscuss his changes after a while. I am meeting Paul on a few other projects and his style is ever the same (although usually less aggressive). I will stay true to my announcement and do nothing in Dutch people before feb 14. Arnoutf 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * His "style" is offensive. These ridiculous "list" (filled with incorrect information) to which the article must comply are ridiculous. Nevertheless I'll try to keep away from the article until feb 14.Rex 10:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have seen a new editor has reverted the table remove. One of the benefits of the cooling down, it allows new people to enter the discussion without being scared away by edit wars. Arnoutf 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Something for you??
Seeing your edits in this area, perhaps you may be interested in this proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Netherlands. Cheers Arnoutf 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure count me in.Rex 11:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dietsch
Hi, I noticed User:Paul111 was reluctant to accept an essay by Paardekooper as a source because an excerpt of it was on a site he didn't trust and went into a revert frenzy. I have rephrased the reference, by mentioning the essay alone (and not the site). Also, I slightly expanded the text that was there. I hope this prevents him from hitting the revert link once more. Cheers. Hrothberht 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much.Rex 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Move
I think you'll be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany. -- Hrödberäht (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed.Rex 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anachronous mapmaking
Hi Rex,

I noticed that you are the author of the Holy Roman Empire map (the one here: ). The idea of showing a historical situation superimposed over modern European state borders is simply brilliant. This method of map-making is far more superior to the usual historical map making techniques, because it gives the viewer a present-day point of reference together with the historical map (otherwise, one needs a lot of geographical knowledge to figure out where everything actually is when faced with straight-forward historical map). The downside of these maps is the necessity to update the background map every time there is a border change in the modern world (this happens in certain regions more often than in others).

What I was wondering is the following: have you ever seen a historical atlas in print (of Europe or the world) that has anachronous maps like this inside (historical situation superimposed on the present-day borders)?

Thank you for your time. --FreedonNadd 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I myself have never seen any atlas (excluding CDrom versions) that does it. Generally they soley give the historical situation.Rex 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Atomic1609 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhine Rhein
Well the names used in the countries its situated in are all ending with an "-in", or a plain "-n"(ex: Rijn, Rhin,Rhein), and its derived from the Greek Rhein after all. I dont get why it is spelled "Rhine", its a useless spelling if you were to ask me. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really weird explanation. Rhine, comes from a Proto Indo-European root "*reie" and is based on a Gaulish version of that stem (Renos) not a greek cognate. In Greek "rhein" just means "to flow" and does not refer to the Rhine. Besides that all, this is the English wikipedia and English has always used Rhine for this river. Don't replace it.Rex 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Turmbergbahn and Pfälzer Wald
Hi Rex.

I notice that you have just moved two articles to more English sounding names:


 * Turmbergbahn to Turmberg Funicular
 * Pfälzer Wald to Palatine Forest

The trouble is that I don't believe that either of the two new names are particularly in common English usage. Google shows no hits for Turmberg Funicular, and significantly less for Palatine Forest than for Pfälzer Wald.

I think these are quite different cases from the Rhine -> Rhein issues. I've just undone a lot of these edits, and bizarrely I discover when I come to look at your user page that you have been discussing the same. But Rhine is clearly the common English name for that river.

Anyway I've reverted your change on the Turmbergbahn, as I think the Google results are clear cut. I've commented on the Pfälzer Wald issue on its talk page, but as the Google results are less strong, I've not (yet) changed the article.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Chris j wood 20:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Google results aren't always the best. I do get hits on Turnberg funicular and Palatine Forest is just the proper English name (Just like Munich/ München) Rex 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you take a closer look at those hits, you will find that there is not a single instance of the Turmbergbahn being calles "Turmberg funicular". All you find is phrases like "the Turmberg can be reached by a funicular" or "al monte Turmberg se llega con el funicular". Unoffensive text or character 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite. The search I did was for the exact phrase "Turmberg Funicular", and that returns no hits.


 * The Google situation is less clear cut for Pfälzer Wald. But as a native english speaker I was familiar with the term Pfälzer Wald as a geo feature of Germany, although I did have to look up where exactly in Germany it was. I've never heard the term Palatine Forest before. I don't pretend one persons knowledge is good evidence, but it is suggestive. Can you cite any sources for Palatine Forest being the proper English name?. -- Chris j wood 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging from the Google hits, Palatinate Forest seems to be genuine English. Unoffensive text or character 12:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I guess I've just never come across it before. I'll leave the name as is. -- Chris j wood 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. Looks like someone else has reverted the move. -- Chris j wood 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming articles
You should be interested in this some users wants to rename proper czech city name to the german variant, as in the case Danzig/Gdansk. Please take a look if you don't mind.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. If that Matthead or Antman (or any other German nationalist) ever tries anything similar again, feel free to notify me again.Rex 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's a little crazy. I'll get it removed soon.Rex 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand to these people, like him, why they don't play on their own sand and why they're so expansive and offensive, keep people like him in work and you will see after a while that Egypt was found by a Germans, Christoph Columbus was in fact Christopher von Columbus etc. etc. etc. ...  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These kind of people see wikipedia as a personal playground. All that rediculous renaming of Polish towns for instance ... if it were up to them wikipedia would use German variants till the Ural. Most will never learn this isn't a idiological platform ... sadly. All you can do is hope they go to far sometime and get kicked off wikipedia for national(ism) (socialism)Rex 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that Ural would stop them ? From Neu York to Tokyostadt ...  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, don't tell them, but they tried to get past the ural once, but didn't get passed Moscow. Rex 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny Guys. Antman -- chat 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not funny. It's really sad people like this exist.Rex 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice the lack of a comma; I was implying that you are funny people, not that what you were discussing had any inherent humor. Antman -- chat 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All I notice is a lack of respect.Rex 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice the same. Antman -- chat 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't find it disturbing.Rex 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend not to worry myself with things that I can't change. Antman -- chat 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you tend to occupy yourself with matters you think you can change. Like History.Rex 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am only removing the modified histories that have already been put onto Wikipedia and correcting them as to what actually happened. Antman -- chat 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, like the Polish invasion of Nazi Germany?Rex 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Antman -- chat 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but Old Dutch works. Antman -- chat 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so Old Dutch invaded Nazi Germany. My oh my, you people do make history more interesting. However you also make it less than reputable.Rex 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, languages often invade countries; just look at English and it's vicious assault on France. Antman -- chat 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did any language ever cause the death of 62 million people?Rex 21:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are implying something, I'd remind you that I'm an American and of over half-Polish ancestry. Antman -- chat 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I should know because there were no Polish ... ?Rex 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because my user page states that I am Polish, and my name is Polish? Antman -- chat 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't get the logic behind your comment. What is it that I suggest can't what you claim I'm implying because of you claiming Polish herritage?Rex 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence doesn't make any sense. Antman -- chat 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. You said "If you are implying something, I'd remind you that I'm an American and of over half-Polish ancestry." What would I be implying and what would your herritage have to do with it?Rex 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My implication depends on what your implication was. Antman -- chat 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That you're a historical revisionist. How does claiming to be of polish herritage help you there?Rex 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why did you find it necessary to cite the casualties of WW2? Antman -- chat 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion and you'll understand. It's your old Dutch remark that seems odd, not my remarks.Rex 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of denying the Holocaust? Perhaps of denying that there was a World War 2? What are you accusing me of? Antman -- chat 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I accusing you of anything?Rex 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, are you? If you aren't, nothing you've said so far makes sense. Antman -- chat 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm merely stating that you are a extremely POV editor. Which I hope you're not going to deny.Rex 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am an editor with a strong bias, than so are you. Antman -- chat 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just your perception of my attempts to get your biased edits to an acceptable level.Rex 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's my perception of you biasing articles. Antman -- chat 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your biased perception.Rex 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your biased perception of my perception. Antman -- chat 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great comeback.Rex 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't an insult contest. Antman -- chat 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a pointless discussion. If you want it to stop, quit posting nonsense comments here.Rex 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I came here to -try- to mediate with you, but seeing as that failed, I will just have to report you just like I reported your Czech meatpuppet. Antman -- chat 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No you just came here because you hoped I would call you a nazi or similar, I was on to you from the beginning. As for "reporting me", like I said before ... make my day.Rex 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dream what you will. Antman -- chat 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...
If you have something to say, create your own topic for it. Antman -- chat 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't want to see the same topic to appear a hundred times on your talk page now would you?Rex 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you find that you -must- leave something on my talk page, please at least attempt to remain civil therein. Antman -- chat 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:Civil. I would point to you, for reference, well, to your own talk page, and to the incivil comments which I've since deleted from my talk page. Antman -- chat 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Antman, before you speak of civility, look at the origins of the word: Civilization. You've long since given me enough indications, you like to associate yourself with a certain people, of whoms history knows a period with a total laciking of the origins of civility. I have lost any respect I had for you, and at this point its highly unlikely you'll ever regain it. Wether you want to keep or remove comments from your talk page that undermine your fictional image of a NPOV wikipedian, is up to you. Just don't expect people to accept it.Rex 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I am reporting you for harassment and incivility towards me. Congratulations. Antman -- chat 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Make my day ant.Rex 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette_alerts Antman -- chat 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you also tell them about that Anti-Rex attack box of yours that got removed yesterday? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're not into the whole NPOV thing are you? Rex 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yesterday? Not yesterday, they removed that a while ago, and I had removed it from my infobox LONG before that... if you look at my talk (or my history), you will note that they acknowledged that I was no longer using it. Antman -- chat 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It got removed on 29 February, not far from yesterday. The fact that you had such a userbox, to me says that you are one of the last people to complain about a perceived lack of civility of others.Rex 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, it was removed regardless, and I had stopped using it long before that. You are continuing to act uncivil, even after I have requested you to start acting civil. Antman -- chat 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is you used it. As for being uncivil, I'm not. I'm merely telling you what I see. I can't help it it's not much good. Rex 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of civility is to put forth your comments in a civil, constructive manner, not to openly attack the person, or to purposefully try to get them to attack you. Antman -- chat 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right, well in my philosophy reverting and removing historical POV revisionism comes before civility.Rex 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A good editor can do both at the same time; regardless, you also have to acknowledge Wikipedia policy which states that just because you believe something to be correct, does not mean you are -- you still have to acknowledge the other editor's viewpoints, and try to compromise, such as what I am trying to do with User:Space_Cadet in the Legnica article. Antman -- chat 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

When I know I'm right, I don't need to compromise.Rex 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is why you find yourself in conflict with myself and other people. Antman -- chat 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people who know they're wrong and would gladly compromise.Rex 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I compromise for the sake of Wikipedia, not because I think that I'm wrong. Antman -- chat 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't compromise for the sake of wikipedia. I know when I'm right, and when I'm wrong. That way there's no need in damaging wikipedia by compromising on the truth.Rex 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you violate policy because you are righteous? Antman -- chat 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't break policy. I prioritize.Rex 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You violate policy by refusing to compromise. Antman -- chat 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that says compromising is obligatory.Rex 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh?
 * Consensus
 * Resolving_disputes
 * Civility
 * Antman -- chat 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What's there to "oh" about? I suggest you read those policies and guidelines before you suggest they claim things they don't. Like I said before; there is no policy that says compromising is obligatory.Rex 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolving Disputes: Be respectful to others and their points of view.. You are neither respectful to others or their points of view. Antman -- chat 23:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points of view do not deserve respect. Again though, you fail to back up what you claim, that a policy exists that says compromising is obligatory.Rex 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of respecting ones point of view is not to immediately dispose of it, which implies compromise. And who are you to decide what and what does not deserve respect? In my opinion, much of what you say does not deserve respect, though I do not revert all of your edits. Antman -- chat 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wise enough to decide what is a respectable point of view and what is not. You could try to revert my edits, but you'd get reverted yourself. As I generally represent the common view more than you do.Rex 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And... you can back that up with evidence, I assume? Or are you just making a baseless claim? Antman -- chat 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A baseless claim, like you just did on comprimising being wikipedia policy?Rex 23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually read the policy pages? Antman -- chat 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. Apparently you didn't.Rex 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am seriously doubting that you have ever read them... or at least understood them. Antman -- chat 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very well aware of wikipedias guidelines and policies. The fact you made some ridiculous claim on comprimising being a wikipedia policy says it all.Rex 07:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That you are ignorant of Wikipedia's policies? Yes, it does. I believe that we are done here. Antman -- chat 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion. I know you're good at twisting words, but this isn't even close to what I said. Getting people to stop implementing their greatly biased POV or revisionistic edits, comes before WP:Civility. Notice the ideological link between people I (so they say) am or was incivil to. (Antman, Ulritz, and Matthead) Rex 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block
I do not wish to be reviewed by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider her/him untrustorthy given earlier content disputes with this user as well has this users was already planning on blocking me and is hence completely biased. As for her arguments, I was blocked for Personal attacks and WP:POINT, in the exchange with Antman there was certainly some mutual disliking, but I made no personal attacks (If any of my comments are PA then Antman should be blocked too). Nor did I move pages because of wikipedia point whatsoever (if so which point am I trying to make) a block of 2 weeks for these incorrect reasons is not fair.Rex 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also; SHOW ME THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.Rex 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I must take an objection against block of user Rex Germanus because of lack of evidence, unclear reason, no description, no warning, not given any personal attack evidence. Pretty too little for 2 weeks blocks.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over this again, I must concede that 2 weeks is rather on the long side (I hadn't even noticed that block length at first). The Arbcom restrictions (which were definitely breached, and for the fourth time) allow for "up to one week". I'd leave it to other admins to consider a shortening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is something wrong with this block. First of all, it has not been put up on Rex talkpage; so that makes it a dubious block.
 * Secondly; while I agree an argument can be made that Rex' mass renaming has to be stopped, a very brief block (say 24 hourse) would do the trick. A 2 weeks block seems an unreasonably unfair penalty for that.
 * Thirdly, the log block mention personal attack - I think this refers to German nationalist go home type of message. I agree, not correct; but to say that is truly a personal attack, I doubt it; I would say more of a violation of Good Faith Assumption (WP:AGF), but that is hardly a reason for blocking. Even if the German nationalist claim is seen as a personal attack, there are (IMHO) some mitigating circumstances in the mass moving case. It is a fact that German editors have the tendency to rename articles even remotely connected to Germany after its German name. (This happened recently to the Rhine article.). While Rex action was not civil and was possible made to prove a point, his frustration is (IMHO) understandable.
 * Finally, with the reason to decline the unblock, new information was added (relating to alleged RR violation elsewhere). However a the original block log by User:Centrx does not say anything about reversions, which was the condition of Rex parole, so that should not be taken into account.
 * In brief; I think a block for 2 weeks on the charges listed by Centrx, taking into account the context and Centrx not posting it on Rex own talkpage, seems unreasonably long to me. Arnoutf 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there you have it, 4 user who think this block is either to long or unfair. When is another admin going too look into this? The first one was a lot faster.Rex 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd unblock request
On behalf of this user, I am reinstating the Category:Requests for unblock, which has been removed twice, and I am respectfully asking fellow administrators to actually give a fair review to this case. I myself declined the first unblock request, and I stand by that. However, Rex then did post a formal second request, which (for whatever reasons) he later reformatted as plain text plus a manual Category link. It boils down to the same thing. Two admins have removed the category and refused to consider the case on the grounds that they weren't seeing the standard unblock template. That strikes me as process-wonkery; an unblock request doesn't cease to be one just because it isn't enclosed in a fancy coloured box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I used it because the regular template didn't work properly, if you'd looked at the edit history you 'd known.Rex 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Declining unblock review because I see no reason for unblock being provided. Using the tag is necessary for easy identification of denied requests on the talk page.  Please post a correct request for unblock at the bottom of the page. The template works just fine in preview mode. Sandstein 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany
Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I already voted.Rex 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance with User:Antman please.
Is congratulating people with my block, as well as making unsupported claims of me making personal attacks (mind you these still have to be shown to me, preferably by the blocking admin) and Wikipedia:POINT, which I already said was never the case. Could someone tell him to stop this immature behaviour, or report him for Kicking them while they're down?Thanks.Rex 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not congratulating ANYONE with your block, and as far as I know, Future Perfect did not block you. I was congratulating the block itself, because I considered your acts to be, well, not vandalous, but against the fiber of Wikipedia. You deserved to be blocked, maybe not for two weeks, but at least for 24 hours. And the personal attacks? Don't worry, I'm compiling a list. Antman -- chat 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by Tulkolahten

 * It should be noted that the above request was placed here by, and not by the blocked user themselves. I will request comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm angry
Now, I've been watching this. This guy has had an unblock request sitting on his page for 24 hours. One user has seen fit to vandalise his unblock request to hide it from the admins. Three admins have passed by and casually dismissed the request for no other reason than that it wasn't enclosed in the standard purple box, without even bothering to consider the merits of the case. Hey, fellow admins, can't you read? The unblock request, complete with its rationale, is there, right in front of you, I even pointed you to it! It doesn't need rocket science to read that paragraph right below the first request to understand that it constitutes a reasoned request for unblocking, does it?

Note that I was in favour of the block, I was the first to decline the first request, but now I'm disgusted, this offends my sense of justice and fairness. Therefore, and for no other reason, I'm now going to lift this block myself, simply to ease the sense of rightful aggravation this user must feel by now. Well, I'll not lift it quite, I'll shorten it, because I really think the original block was a bit too long.

Call me a wheel-warrior if you must, and see you over at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the result, though not with your reasoning. I'll go into more detail on your talk page. Sandstein 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, Rex, as you've probably seen I've gone out on a limb and shortened the block so it will expire tonight. This is, of course, connected with an extremely strong warning. I've given both Antman and Tulko the same warning, to pull themselves together and leave each other alone, and I expect the same from you. And if you must make page moves, please make absolutely sure you get consensus for them in advance. Otherwise, needless to say, I'll be the first to reinstate the block in its full length. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta up for deletion
Hi,

I'm kinda coming in at the middle here; not sure exactly what's going on. But it looks like a template you made Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta has been nom for deletion. I didn't see a notice on this page. --Ling.Nut 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice was placed here, at the Ethnic Group talk page, and at the relevant (Dutch) article talk page.Paul111 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move proposals
I've commented on your move proposals at Talk:Konrad von Wallenrode. I'd strongly suggest we keep the discussion centralised in a single place; that page will be as good as any for that purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrrgh. Blocking again
I now see that immediately after coming off from your block you re-entered the Dutch (ethnic group) dispute and again made reverts, thus breaking your parole yet again.


 * Your edit:
 * Sum of previous edits while you were away:
 * Comparison of your latest edit with your previous one before that:

While not an exact revert, it was a partial revert and predominantly a revert, and a blanket removal of many intermediate edits at that. It's at least the third revert within the last 7 days; I haven't checked all the edits so there may in fact have been more.

I'm pretty disappointed, after setting my trust in you and unblocking you the other day. I am blocking you again for another week now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to inform you that you've now reached the limit of five separate blocks applied under your Arbcom parole. This means that for any renewed offenses from now on, the maximum length of blocks that may be applied under the Arbcom ruling will increase, to up to one year, at admins' discretion. So, do watch it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: it was most certainly a revert in the sense of the relevant policy, WP:3RR: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." I dare say you are experienced enough with 3RR to know the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I didn't do, I left in a lot of stuff (as it was properly referenced and not contradictory) and added a lot. I indeed know what a revert is, and whats an edit, hence the unblock template. If an editor adds biased information then I'm allowed to Be bold and remove it, which counts as an edit. Rex 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My reversion of Rex' edit was mainly because Rex changed a lot of things at the same time. Something I told Paul111 not to do; so I reverted Rex edits because the same rules should apply to both sides in the debate. I think blocking is a bit over the top for this action. Arnoutf 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of revert parole and probation
User Rex Germanus appears to have violated the terms of the revert parole passed on 10 November 2006 in Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. He can respond to the points below in accordance with this thread at User_talk:Sandstein - or since there are some problems with the page, simply via [].

User Rex Germanus is limited by parole to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. After the expiry of his last block, he reverted previous edits at Dutch (people) without discussion on the talk page (although most have been discussed at length in the preceding months):


 * he reinserted an earlier deleted claim that the Dutch mainly decend from... Germanic tribes


 * I deleted it as unsourced, and added cn tags


 * he reinserted a claim to Germanic ancestry in another section. In the same edit he deleted passages explaining the propagandistic use of the "Germanic heritage" of the Dutch, to promote German policies during the First and Second World War.


 * I restored those comments to the text.


 * he once again inserted the claim to a Germanic ancestry. In the same edit, he altered the text preceding a reference, to look as if the reference says that ethnographers still consider the Dutch to be a Germanic people. The cited source in fact says the opposite. This edit is not immediately visible in the diff, because he also meoved the section.


 * he reinserted several population figures, and a population total for the Dutch of 25 million, which had previously been deleted for lack of a reliable source. He reinserted a listing of Afrikaners and Flemings as 'related ethnic groups', previously deleted for lack of source.


 * he deleted a mention of the Dutch as a nation as well as an ethnic group. (He had deleted it several times in the past, and it was reinserted while he was blocked. In the same edit, he again reinserted previously deleted claims that the Dutch "predominatly descend from various Germanic tribes", and reinserted a previously deleted claim that the Dutch are to be regarded as a Germanic people. He reinserted a link to his own website, Germanic heritage of the Dutch. which had been previously removed (because it was a personal website and not a reliable source). He reinserted for the second time figure of 25 million for the Dutch population, this time in the text, and reinsterted a claim that the Dutch once lived in northern France (previously removed for lack of source)


 * he reverted a header note that the Dutch are a nation, which he had deleted in the past, and was added during his block.


 * he reverted an edit by user Arnoutf listing the Dutch as a 'nation' in the Terminology section.


 * he inserted yet again a claim that there are 25 million Dutch, which had been removed earlier for lack of any source.


 * he reverted a page move. He added a page move notice, but did not list the proposed move on requested moves and failed to add a new discussion template. I proposed, on the talk page, to remove the page move template for this lack of procedure, and I did so after re-checking that he had not listed it. He reverted that removal at 20.11 but then he moved the page anyway, 6 minutes later, without waiting for any discussion. (This is the second time he has renamed the page to this title).

With this series of reverts, if they are counted individually, he has broken the Three-revert rule. He can respond to this point also, in accordance with the thread at User_talk:Sandstein.


 * Please note that the 3RR rule is limited to a 24 hour period after which the clock is reset.
 * Please also note that according to his parole, Rex is allowed one revert a week. As he has been blocked for the last week, he has not been able to make any edits in a week. Hence he is allowed to revert everything he likes once. Whether this is a good idea, I think no, but IMHO it is not a breach of his parole. Arnoutf 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that he reverted only once, even if all sequent edits are taken as one. I restored comments to the text. and he removed them again in part. He reinserted an earlier deleted claim about Germanic ancestry, I deleted it as unsourced, and he reinserted it in another section.Paul111 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

blocked again

 * Edits made in an uninterrupted sequence count as one under the revert rules. All the edits listed here were made in close temporal sequence. However, Paul's edits (which were interspersed between Rex') can be counted as separating them into several runs, and hence several "reverts". I would normally be lenient with this if it was a mere technicality, but it isn't, because in at least one instance Rex was reacting to Paul's intervening edit and reverting that. This edit: (19 March, 16:36) is clearly a partial repetition of this earlier edit: (19 March, 15:23), reinstating the contentious "ancestry" section that had been removed in the meantime by Paul (19 March, 15:44). It is also a revert of Paul's {cn} tag on the "culture" section. This definitely makes it a "new", second revert in my book.


 * Hence, in light of this renewed breach of the revert parole, immediately after coming off the previous block, and continuing exactly the same revert war in exactly the same way, I have no choice but to block again. But I think it's not serious enough at this point to warrant an escalation of block lengths as foreseen by the arbcom decision.


 * This said, I generally agree with Arnoutf's assessment below, of the non-constructiveness of both Rex' and Paul111's behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As you have now imposed sanctions, I'm considering Paul111's request for admin intervention to be moot. Sandstein 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of unconstructiveness. I suggested mediation many times, I discused matters on the talkpage and I provide references for what I claim! Rex 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rex don't be so angry
Come on Rex, you just got back from a block. Try to see the good in other editors even if you vehemently disagree. This behaviour will only get you blocked again in the future, and admins will be ever less likely to even consider your unblock request with the history you are now building. Try to keep ahead of the game and live and think according to the avoidance of conflict suggestions or at least the subsequent diffusion steps as much as you can. Arnoutf 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone just altered an entire article without consencus while I was blocked for a week WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING, he also again calls me a nazi, and tried to get me blocked instead of discussing matters. Where's the mutual good faith there?Rex 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
([Proof of bias http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&diff=116315653&oldid=116308507]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise you have done it this time. I can honestly say any form of respect or trust I had for or in you has gone. This block proves what I have suspected for a long time. You are totally biased in your dealings with me, and take every opportunity to block me. Do you call this a revert? It is a totall outrage! I have every right to delete unreferenced information and replace it with referenced alternatives. I also have every right to remove Cite-taggs and replace them with inline citations. What you provided as a "certain revert" was simply an edit in which Paul111 added cite taggs.

There is no way anyone can say I did not try to prevent an escalation of Dutch (Ethnic group). I was the one who proposed and started a mediation, it was Paul111 who refused to participate. Instead of discussing matters Paul111 chose to visit an admins talkpage with false claims, and floods my talk page with what he considers "incivilities", but forgets to mention they are all older than a week, some even months. A shame.

My parole allows me to revert once a week, you blocked me for a week remember? And I did not revert, I edited. The removal of unreferenced information is not a revert, and not even a partial one. It is a totall shame. Everyone can go to that page and I see I ONLY EDITED AND DID NOT REVERT HENCE I DID NOT BREAK ANY PAROLE RULES AND WAS BLOCKED FOR NO REASON AT ALL.Rex 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rex, but I agree with Future Perfect at Sungrise on this one. The block was within proportion with only a week block for this; while he would have been within his right to block you for much longer.
 * As you may have read Future Perfect at Sunrise agreed that Paul111's behaviour is comparably problematic as yours. I would advice you to sit this one out and write a reasonable request for an enforced truce between you and Paul111 at arbitration request. I will tell you already that some grovelling and reasonable, easygoing arguments will carry much more weight compared to an aggressive tone. Prepare such sensitive text in a word processor; sleep over it for a night; reread it; substitute the other's name with yours; reread it again. If you still think it is reasonable, it actually might be. Arnoutf 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These 2 only want to see me blocked. One is an adminstator with a personal grudge and the other is a wikipedian who's found a way to push his POV by reporting me as "breaking my parole" for every bit of unreferenced information I remove --> supposably reverting. Well I didn't revert or break anything. What FPAS says about Paul111 doesn't mean crap to me, he's still ruining the article, accusing me/us of nazism and refusing to discuss. Rex 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rex should be unblocked.If anyone should be blocked it Paul111. Its a shame how wikipedia admins can let this guy be bullied by others. 213.125.116.112 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SEE?!
Is what he's doing on Talk-Dutch ethnic group wiki-like?! I referenced every claim I put back in there, as did I with all the new information and he is still calling it unreferenced: AND THE ONLY THING HE COMES UP WITH ARE HIS PERSONAL OPINIONS. This is exactly what wikidia should not be. Why the hell do we have policies on sourcing information when he can just add his unsourced pov and remove my referenced information at random?! Rex 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Rex 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)