Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 20 June 2007

Archives

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there.

Comments:

...

RE:

Done, if you don't mind check this , Antman tries to use his logic that Bohemia was in fact Germany accroding HRE. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and I'll check it out.Rex 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsja

Rex volgens mij is het niet de bedoeling dat je commentaar van anderen van je talk-page afhaalt; zelfs niet als je ze uit de tent proberen te lokken. De opmerkingen zojuist geplaatst zijn heel subtiel om elke vorm van belediging (een reden voor verwijdering) te voorkomen. Er zijn mensen die dat soort edits als een soort vandalisme beschouwen. Laat je niet uitlokken, een nieuwe blok ligt wel heel erg makkelijk in de buurt gezien je recente verleden, gewoon negeren dan houdt het vanzelf op. PS Je mag deze opmerking wat mij betreft direct verwijderen als jou dat beter uitkomt bijvoorbeeld in relatie tot slapende honder wakker maken, ook de reden om dit in het Nederlands te schrijven (Removal of this message is explicitly allowed by the original editors of this message) Arnoutf 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: as far as I'm concerned, you can remove Antman's messages as much as you like, and I'll also ask him to refrain from posting here as long as he hasn't something really important and constructive to say. At the same time, I'll remind you that if you want to stand any chance of actually keeping the articles the way you want them, you'd better seek constructive discussion with everybody involved. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ik heb Antman al tijden geleden gezegd dat ik hem niet om mijn talk-page wil zien. Elke vorm van communicatie gaat gebeuren op de talk-page van het artikel in kwestie, niet op die van mij.Rex 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop this, please

Stop accusing me for being nazi crime denialist. --Kurt Leyman 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You deny nazi war crimes, of which I have provided proof on your talk page for everyone to see.Rex 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any sort of real proof. Now you are merely trying to blackpaint me, especially as I provided reason for my edit on that certain page. And if you wish, a certain convention supports me. --Kurt Leyman 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which convention? The one that says it's okay to attack a citys center with dozens of heavy bombers while the supposed target is a small bridge near the edge of town? Rex 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind both of you that it's not our task at Misplaced Pages to work out what that event was, but only to find out how that event is usually talked about in the relevant literature? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutchman

Good point. I always thought "Dutchman" was neutral at worst, and possibly affectionate, not an ethnic slur. Whoever posted that might have been jumping to the conclusion that any colloquial ethnic identification is automatically a slur. Wahkeenah 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps the person who added it didn't understand the meaning of 'slur'.Rex 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollmops correction

I just noticed you reverted my edit (your reversion has been unreverted in the meantime.) Apparantly you took issue with my comment "presumably corrected". I try not to claim things I am not 100% sure of, therefore the "presumably". I am not sure that the word "rollmops" is German, but I am sure that the little evidence I was able to find supports this, whereas I was unable to find support for a dutch origin. If you have a source that demonstrates a dutch origin of the word, I'd be happy to see it. Then we can raid the German rollmops page together, OK? :-) --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's my mistake. I was pretty sure I once read the etymology being Dutch, but I'm getting idea it's a folk etymology, although it could be related to rollmop, some vaguely similar scottish dish.Rex 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sinking of the Bismarck

Hello, Rex Germanicus. Thank you for your interest in the The sinking of the Bismarck article. I perceive that you had a problem with the article's former title, Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, since you renamed it to its present title. However you have not posted any explanation of your change. Could you explain, either her or (preferably) on the article's talk page, the reason for your change? Regards, John Moore 309 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Be right there.Rex 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Lygophile

i didnt make a personal attack. you said fallacies about me, which i pointed out, thank you· Lygophile has spoken 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You said, and that's for everyone to see "You're full of shit", and that's a personal attack. Everything I said about you is true, and can clearly be seen in your edit history.Rex 09:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Lygophile has spoken 10:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Rex, you seem to have found a new way to silence the (I agree sometimes blunt) reactions from other editors on your edits; removing them as being a personal attack. Be very careful that you do not interpret every disagreement with you as a personal attack, añd start removing angry remarks which do not fall within WP:PA Anyway removal of personal attacks is frowned upon. Removal of just critisism is (of course) vandalism. So, make sure you don't cross the line. Arnoutf 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I know when people are making blund remarks and when they're seeking to offend me.Rex 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just warning for caution. Personally, I think leaving up Personal Attacks is better for two reasons. 1st: Leaving them up shows bad on the tally of the attacking, rather than the receiving editor; 2nd, you avoid any speculation of vandalism. But its your talk page/account, so you are free to do what you think is justified. Arnoutf 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving them might make others think they can get away with them. Rex 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Matthead      O       23:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to say there are several Germans who seem to be out there to relate everything to German. This happend once to the river Rijn, which has an established English name. And actually until this day the Dutch streams of the Rijn/Rhine are called Niederreihn on the map in the infobox of the page. With Niederreihn neither being Dutch (Nederrijn) nor English it is clearly a German POV map that is set up there. I understand some of Rex' frustration with this, althoug I tend to disagree with his approach. You yourself seem to have a fairly German POV; and your comments on Rex are not truly fair either, so to quote a suitable quote for a Christian holiday: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7).Arnoutf 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Matthead      O       03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ter leringe der Nederlandschen tale van den Afrikaanschen broederen

Hallo Rex.

Ik bemoei me voornamelijk met nl.wiktionary, voorheen ook de afrikaanse versie daarvan. Daar werkt nu eigenlijk alleen Manie en hij heeft de neiging om alle Govertsche uitghebreiden uitghangen als zoete koek te slikken. Ik heb wel eens getracht zijn enthousiasme te beteugelen maar dan krijg ik dus alle onzin die op nl.wikipedia staat naar mijn hoofd. Dit laat wel zien hoe schadelijk het Govertiaans gebeuren is. Dus mijn dank voor je optreden hier. Wellicht dat je ook wat op af.wiktionary ervan kan zeggen?

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf, nl.wikipedia: Sokpopje

Als je me de link geeft zal ik dat zeker doen. Op de Engelse wikipedia had hij twee z.g.n "sockpuppets". Govert Miereveld (talk · contribs) - Scavenger (talk · contribs) - Bombshell (talk · contribs) zijn één en dezelfde persoon. Rex 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bijvoorbeeld: ], maar er is veel meer van dat schoons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Okee, waar wil je dat ik mn zegje doe?Rex 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh Manie's gebruiker bladzijde lijkt me: hij is vrijwel de enige ebruiker

Heb je zelf al geprobeerd er iets van te zeggen?Rex 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe

Hi Rex Germanus,
Something seemed to've gone awry with links to the above, in lieu of which I'm guessing you created {{Regions of Europe speaking Germanic languages}} and {{Regions of Europe Speaking Germanic languages}} (although the second of these doesn't use WP:MoS's sentence-case style). I think I've now repaired the confusion, meaning that both the template pages you created in lieu could now be deleted, but thought I ought to check with you first. Thanks for trying to sort out whatever happened!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I created those templates to replace {{Germanic Europe}} which was very inaccurate and biased from a nationalist point of view. For some reason I couldnt edit the template itself, I later found out this was because it was used in the featured article of that day, Germany. I'm sorry for the mess, and it's okay to delete it as long as the information I altered in the inaccurate original stays.Rex 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now, having looked at the pages' histories. {{Germanic-speaking regions of Europe}}'s content currently seems identical to that of {{Regions of Europe Speaking Germanic languages}}, so I've deleted the latter and {{Regions of Europe speaking Germanic languages}}. If, though, I've missed something, let me know and I'll compare them more closely, amending {{Germanic-speaking regions of Europe}} accordingly. Yours, David (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Dutch Dwarf"

Thanks much for trying to improve the Netherland Dwarf article by moving it, but (despite most things related to the Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) the breed really is called "Netherland", not "Dutch". Thanks, though, for trying to improve the English Misplaced Pages; I know that I'm not good enough at any other language to work on any other Wikipedias. Nyttend 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nemi ships

Hello, I see that you have edited the article on the Nemi ships and written "however the ships were destroyed by the Nazi German army". This is widely disputed, do you have any reference to support your view? Regards, 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Kon-Tiki001

Hi Kon-Tiki001, yes I did provide (a reference) proof for the Nazi Germans destroying the ships. However, it seems a certain User:Drknow2000 edited the section, still saying the Germans destroyed the ships (as they did, there is little dispute actually) but leaving out the reference I provided.Rex 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rex Germanus. The web page you're refering to can't be considered "proof", this is just one persons opinion. The fact that we're actually discussing this problem proves that the issus is disputed. I've been a part of an excavation team excavating at Nemi a few years ago and the general consensus among scholars is that it's neither possible to prove that the fire was cause by the Germans nor by squatters. Both are equally possible and as long as we're able to find real facts about this, and not just some random web page that says that it was caused by the Germans, we're better off leaving both options open. I suggest we revert the edits to include both options. Kon-Tiki001 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that page is at least something, and it's a university page, not someone personal opinion. If you have a source that clearly says the Germans didn't burn the ships, then we're open (if the source is reliable/unbiased) to make clear the burning is disputed. Rex 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if some info is posted on a university page doesn't necessarily mean that it's peer reviewed and unbiased. I can put something on my web page at my university and link to that. See the point?. Any way, I'm not going to use more time on this. Kon-Tiki001 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But it is a reference from a non-personal website, and up until now you have provided no counter-reference that supports your version. Once that's set, we can discuss which source is more reliable.Rex 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. First of all, check out this web page: , quote: "Some do not think the Germans committed this act of historical irreverance, but that it was caused by Italian refugees fleeing the fighting between the Germans and the Allies. The refugees were known to have taken up refuge in the structures housing the ships and could have inadvertently torched the ships through a campfire or some other means." Secondly, in an article in May/June issue of Archaeology by Deborah N. Carlson "Caligula's Floating Palaces" she states regarding the fire "An official report filed in Rome later that year described the tragedy as a willful act on the part of the German soldiers. A german editorial blamed the destruction on American artillery fire. The true story of what happened that night will probably never be known". Not surprisingly German and Italian views differ on this point. But as long as one is not establish for a fact what really happende, it's better to include both possible explanations in an unbiased article. Kon-Tiki001 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Nemi ships-discussion

Hi, I've moved the discussion to the talk page of the Nemi ships article. Kon-Tiki001 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic

Greetings - I'm curious as to why you don't think Icelandic should be considered the "closest living cousin" of Proto-Germanic. On the one hand, this could be merely another manifestation of every man's desire to regard his own culture and language as having the most noble and ancient roots, but on the other hand, Icelandic grammar is certainly extremely conservative - as far as I'm aware, more so than any other Germanic language. Thoughts? Colonel Mustard 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic first of all is a reconstructed language, and unless we're somehow someday able to build a timemachine, we're never going to know for sure what the language was actually like. But even then, even the reconstructed information doesn't support the idea. Icelandic (like all North Germanic languages) for example lacks both a instrumental and vocative case. This means PG had 6 cases and Icelandic has 4.

Point is, there is way to be sure, and no way to accurately compare. If I were you, I'd go to say that Icelandic (together with Faroes) resembles Old Norse most of all. Rex 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consociationalism

Hi there. I saw that you took the Netherlands off the list of examples at consociational state. I always thought that the Netherlands was a classic example, with the division being between Calvinists, Catholics, socialists and liberals. I'm therefore re-adding the example, with the disclaimer that this was only the case until the 1960s. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cordless Larry 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No in that case you are correct, but only from the 1850s till 1960s.Rex 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wanted to make sure because although I've read lots about consociationalism, I didn't want to contradict someone who clearly knows more about Dutch politics than myself! Cordless Larry 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaart Nederfrankisch

Dag Rex, je had laatst de kaart voor het Nedersaksisch bijgewerkt een verbeterd. Ik vroeg me af of je dat ook kon doen voor de kaart van het Nederfrankisch, de lijn van het Nederfrankisch loopt namelijk te ver door (op de Veluwe), zie de kaart voor het Nedersaksisch voor de juiste lijn van 't Nederfrankisch. Alvast bedankt! Servien 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ik zal er eens naar kijken. Waarschijnlijk heb ik voor vrijdag een nieuwe versie voor je.Rex 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okee, de kaart is af. Ik heb de Nederfrankische dialecten in Duitsland lichter geel gemaakt. Dit omdat deze dialecten al heel lang blootgesteld zijn aan een niet-Nederfrankische (zelfs niet Nederduitse) standaardtaal. Dit is de zelfde procedure als bij het Nedersakisch, waar ik de in Nederland gesproken varianten ook lichter geel heb gemaakt. Ik heb ook Flevoland als Nederfrankisch invult, alhoewel ze technisch gezien leeg moeten blijven omdat Flevoland (op Urk enzo na) geen inheemse dialecten heeft. Ik heb wel nog een opmerking, de lijnen die we nu gebruiken om een scheiding te geven tussen Nederfrankisch en Nedersakisch zijn wel erg scherp, terwijl het werkelijke overgangsgebied (dat in Nederland over de veluwe loopt) ontzettend vaag is. Maar dat zijn details waar later altijd nog naar gekeken kan worden. Ik hoop in ieder geval dat je tevreden bent. Rex 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nederlandse Publieke Omroep

Hoi, je hebt deze pagemove gemaakt: Leuk en aardig dat het zo correct taalgebruik mag zijn, maar zo heet die organisatie dus niet. Zie en de website van de European Broadcasting Union. Dus ik stel voor dat ik dat ongedaan maak ok ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Als je zeker weet dat de organisatie die naam altijd gebruikt ga je gang.Rex 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Move requests for categories

Please note that WP:CFD should be used for changing the names of categories, not WP:RM. I have therefore removed your request from WP:RM; this does not indicate disapproval of the request, but is only a procedural matter. --Stemonitis 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure...Rex 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Sorry, but I'm only semi-active these days and don't feel like taking on another of these disputes right now. Can you try someone else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Netherlands

Hi Rex, knowing you as a tireless editor of Netherlands related articles I was surprised not to find you among the members of the recently created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Netherlands. There is a lot of work to be done in tagging articles; and even without your membership you may contribute by tagging Netherlands related articles (you can use {{WPNL|class=}} or {{WikiProject Netherlands|class=}} to tag Netherlands related articles). best wishes Arnoutf 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

dutch-afrikaner related image

You are missing a third part of the diagram, how the groups are related ethnically/ancestrally. You will then have culture, language and ancestry/descent. I think it will look great if you make this improvement. In the ancestry sense, the Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaners are obviously very closely related (basically descended fromthe same ancestral group), while the Frisians would be more distantly related to these groups. Peace. 69.157.116.59 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the ancestral line become clear from their sequence to another? Anyway, the Flemish and Afrikaners already have lines that even more clearly indicate decend. What would you like to see altered? Do you just want lines going from the Germanic peoples to the Afrikaners?Rex 07:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dutch and German

Rex, I came here because of your comment on

http://de.wikipedia.org/Bild:The_development_of_the_German_linguistic_area.gif

Your quotes in italics:

This map incorrectly portrays Dutch as German. Dutch was never a part of German.

Dutch and Low German formed a continuum until the Netherlands established a standard language separate from Low German (and High German of course). As someone interested in Germanic linguistics you ougth to know that. The animation reflects this fact by "blending out" the Dutch-speaking area after that point in time. It doesn't specifically claim that Dutch was "part of German", but merely that the two formed a continuum at one time, which is true. The only page where that animation is used is http://de.wikipedia.org/Deutsche_Ostsiedlung, where this fact is relevant. Flemish people and language played an important part in medieval "Ostsiedlung", therefore it would be faulty to omit it.

he was banned from German wikipedia because of nazi sympathies

I see comments edited by the author Michael Postman after your wrote the above, so it probably isn't true. Even if it was true, it wouldn't be a valid argument but rather an ad hominem. The fact that specificially the German wikipedia community bans someone says nothing about that person anyway, because the "banning" practice and culture of free speech there is abysmal .... Anorak2 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I know of linguistics I know that the dialect-continuum between Dutch and German did not end when the Netherlands established a standard language. The Dutch and (High) German standard languages emerged virtually simultaneously, with mass education and increased mobility further signaling its end. Besides, though often moribund, extinct or disappearing the continuum still exists. That was not why I made the remark. The map has/had the following caption: "The development of the German linguistic area". The map then shows Dutch as German, as everything green is supposed to represent the German language, which suddenly 'disappears'. If you're making a map about the Dutch-German/Continental West-Germanic dialect continuum that's perfectly fine. But when you make a map on the developement of the German language (which this one is/was supposed to portray), or German dialects, leave Dutch out of it. It simply isn't German. Michael Postmann was banned on the German wikipedia for Nazi sympathies and doubtfull sources. His maps are flawed and based on lies. A simple example. He once made a map on the German language in 1910. He claimed it was based on a national census of Germany, yet the German language could be seen far outside the German borders. Which is unreferenced as it concerned a national (ie Germany) census. People who are nazis are not to be trusted, ones who also use doubtfull sources ought to be banned. It is hence not a personal but a valid argument.Rex 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at my ArbCom

Thank you for your comment, but please note that ArbCom pages are not meant to be normal, threaded discussions. Your post should be moved to its own heading in evidence if you can provide diffs to back it up, or to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, where normal comments by various editors are presented.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it right away.Rex 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rex' nationalism scale

User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale is an interesting read, may I suggest categorizing it with Category:Misplaced Pages essays for wider publicity?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, good idea.Rex 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

German Nationalism

After reading your posting at the P.P. ArbCom evidence regarding Matthead, and looking over your user page and some of your contributions, I have the impression that you are particularly adverse to what you perceive as "German Nationalism". What do you think of "Polish Nationalism", "Russian Nationalism", "Dutch Nationalism", and all the other "nationalisms"? Are some less obnoxious to you? How do they rate on your scale? And please understand that I ask you these questions with an open visor, in other words, with a genuine desire to to know your perspective without a bias on my part. Dr. Dan 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. I'm also intrigued with your user name. What made you choose it?

All extreme forms of nationalism, and there rarely are other forms, are to be avoided and condemned, hence "my scale" deals with nationalism on wikipedia in general. However, I do indeed have a particular aversion concerning German nationalism. Simply because of German history. It's important to know your history, and let's be honest, the Poles/Poland have/has a lot less bloody history than Germany. Is that a reason to be less proud? Probably not, but it depends on which particular aspect of your country you're proud of. As for my name, I originally had a totally different name, a Dutch one with diminutive, but I experienced that it wasn't really compatible (if you will) with the edits I made to wikipedia. So I went out to look for something different. I liked Rex but it was already taken by some Indonesian contributor who made 2 edits a year ago (but still 2 too much for me to take over his name) so I added Germanus, "Germanic" (though some see it as "German", in my view though that would be teutonicus) because of my particular interest in the Germanic languages. I'm still not completely pleased with it though, and I'm thinking of changing it again, but I'm not sure into what.Rex 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)