User talk:Rex Germanus

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 [1], Antman tries to use his logic that Bohemia was in fact Germany accroding HRE. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 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)

^{Note: User:Kurt Leyman has removed the proof from his talkpage for some reason. For variability purposes, I will place it here. (Denial of nazi war crimes)Rex 18:45, 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)

^{Important background information: Kampfgeschwader 54 was called away from the Belgian front to be deployed in the Netherlands, this was a unit of heavy bombers, not Stukas necessary for a tactical breakthrough. Hitlers goal wasn't a breakthrough over the willemsbrug but the capitulation of the Netherlands. If the Netherlands wouldn't capitulate Utrecht, The Hague, Amsterdam, Haarlem and other large cities will also be bombed. The German defensive arguments supported by International law saying that Rotterdam was a defended city is worthless given that the bombing was a part of a much larger plan Rex 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}

Can I remind both of you that it's not our task at Wikipedia 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)

[Comment removed. User is banned for a week for misbehaving on talk page.] -- Matthead ^discuß!     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)

[Comment removed. User is banned for a week for misbehaving on talk page.] -- Matthead ^discuß!     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: [[2]], 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 Wikipedia; 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: [3], 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

Kaart van het 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: [4] Leuk en aardig dat het zo correct taalgebruik mag zijn, maar zo heet die organisatie dus niet. Zie [5] 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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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/wiki/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)

So you agree with the facts presented on the map animation, you just disagree with the wording? Come on, relax. It is not uncommon to do so, even in printed maps of reputable sources. Example:

http://members.chello.nl/~r.kepper/images/DeutscheMundarten-3.jpg

I can see that this kind of presentation might be perceived as "German centric", but then again that is not necessarily illegitimate e.g. in a context of German history directed at German speaking audiences. Conversely, Dutch dialect maps often marginalise the German speaking areas and could thus be accused of "Dutch centrism". Again, that is perfectly legitimate. See for example

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Taalafstanden.jpg

Some people even take this to extremes. The following map declares all of Northern Germany as "Dutch speaking":

http://ethnisme.ben-vautier.com/analyses/cartes/gif/allemagne.gif

And even in Russia they speak Nederlands according to this author:

http://ethnisme.ben-vautier.com/analyses/cartes/gif/kaliningrad.gif

Would you take offence at these maps? I don't, it's just a bizarre way of applying labels. :) Anorak2

It's quite the opposite. A Dutch dialect map, will generally only show what it's supposed to represent: Dutch dialects.(Example) Call it German dialect when you're showing German dialects, Dutch dialects when you're showing those, something else when you're showing both. It's very simple. But that is of course not my only objection, if it was I'd have already renamed the image. My main objection is that it is totally unreferenced and if there is one thing you should not do, is to trust the unreferenced maps made by neo-nazis who were banned on a wikipedia project for using flawed sources.Rex 08:39, 20 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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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)

Thanks for your input. Personally, I have a greater problem with fanaticism than I do with nationalism, as it can merely be a reflection of pride in ones heritage and so forth. It's fanaticism combined with obstinacy and narrow-mindedness that is a much greater danger to humanity (and the WP project too), IMHO. And when it is applied to any or all of the passions that can move people (like nationalism, religion, political dogma, historical bias, ect.) then it can become very horrific. Dr. Dan 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. No comment on Dutch nationalism?

To me fanatacism and nationalism are close to one another. Nationalism to me is a unhealthy pride in a country, nation or ethnic group (ie harming truth or other peoples feelings). Your definition of nationalism seems to be closer to patriotism, which I do not consider that harmfull. As for Dutch nationalism, what do you want me to say on that subject?Rex 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything you think about it.Dr. Dan 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well any form of nationalism, like I said, wether Spanish, Danish or Dutch, is to be avoided. Though Dutch nationalism ... it isn't as strong as many other national forms. Nationalism often comes from a feeling of jealousy, hate or fear. When that's largely absent, like in the Netherlands ...nationalism just isn't that extreme.Rex 08:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

With no offense meant to the Netherlands, it's also possible that "the bigger the dog, the louder the bark." But I strongly disagree that nationalism comes from a feeling of jealousy, hate or fear. The "often" part of the statement strikes me as weaseley. In larger countries (and some smaller ones too) the "powers that be" like to use many things to keep the general mass of people placated, and love of country (even an exaggerated one) is a very useful tool to do so. Of course there are others, like attacking scapegoats and letting people know what Paris Hilton is up to. At least that's my spin on it. Dr. Dan 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Germany between 1933 and 1945 is a good example. They feared (and at the same time hated) communism they hated the victorious WW1 allied powers and certain ethnic groups, and were jealous that (in their eyes) Germany didn't get the respect it deserved. (Just some factors of course) I'm also convinced that old view of "select group vs. masses" isn't correct. It takes a very long time of (willful!) indoctrination before nationalism becomes a second nature. In my view, nationalism often is allowed to happen because people experience it as pleasant (as longs as they're winning/on top of things of course)Rex 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure Germany between 1933 and 1945 is a good example, but also a good example of beating a dead horse. Who is the "they" who feared and hated communism? The German people or the "powers that be"? Read the proclamations of Napoleon. Read Shakespeare's King Henry V 's rallying of his troops on St. Cripian's Day. Come to the United States on the Fourth of July (especially in a smaller town). Nationalism leaves its imprint throughout all of history. Interestingly, Stalin and the "powers that be" in the U.S.S.R used nationalism to defeat their enemy (a philosophy they had so stridently combatted earlier). Take nations like Poland and Lithuania, who were deprived of their "national" existence for over 120 years and then overrun again by outside powers. Is their "exaggerated" patriotism or nationalism justifyable? I think so. Is it based on jealousy, hate, and fear? I think not. Dr. Dan 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"They" are of course the German people. I'm not one of those people who believe the German nation was held hostage by "the nazis". I don't make difference. Who hated who? Both hated communism how and why is another story but they still did. As for Polish/Lithuanian nationalism, of course it based on those 3. Jealousy of more advanced wealthier countries, hate of their historical occupiers/ideologies and fear of ever being pushed over again.Rex 14:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your interpretations very interesting. Where does American (U.S.) nationalism fit into your theory of jealousy, hate, and fear? It's been a part of American culture from the U.S.A.'s founding. I say this lest you concentrate on the "Cold War" or some such period. Dr. Dan 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you ought to differentiate. Your worldview is a bit simplistic. For example you don't differentiate between hatred of other nations and pride of one's own heritage without implied "superiority" towards other nations. IMHO the first is disgusting, but the latter is legitimate and actually necessary. Furthermore you don't differentiate exactly who holds what beliefs. If you think that "all of the German people" were nationalists at one point you're treating them as a collective instead of individuals. In some circumstances it is OK to think of nations as collectives, but not when you're talking about individual behaviours (which nationalism is - it is an attitude that individuals hold, but not a nation as a whole). (And it can easily be shown that there was no point in time when 100% of German people held nationalist views). On the other hand you ought to examine your own beliefs more critically. For example when you imply that Dutch nationalism isn't that extreme, aren't you asserting that the Dutch are superior in certain aspects, thus refuting your own claim? Regards Anorak2 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My worldview isn't simplistic your view on nationalism is wrong. With nationalism, not patriotism, there is always implied superiority. As for the Germans. I refuse to drop into semantics. The fact that never 100% of the population was a selfproclaimed nationalist says nothing. What does say something is that the 60% of the Germans who did not vote for hitler did nothing when he made himself a dictator. Apparently they thought it wasn't a big deal.Rex 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

With nationalism, not patriotism, there is always implied superiority. That is exactly what I said. The problem is that you don't differentiate. Dr. Dan described the Polish desire for statehood as rightful patriotism (and I agree), but seem to think they're not entitled to it.

The fact that never 100% of the population was a selfproclaimed nationalist says nothing. For one it says that the German people as a whole were not nationalists thus refuting your contrary claim. To emphasize this point even further: Can you imagine that German patriots were put into concentration camps? People who loved their country yet were opposed to the nazis (not a contradiction of course).

What does say something is that the 60% of the Germans who did not vote for hitler did nothing when he made himself a dictator. Apparently they thought it wasn't a big deal. That does not follow, non sequitur. There are lots of other possible explanations. Besides show me a nation who behaves differently, most ordinary people aren't heroes and who can blame them.

Regards Anorak2 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Apparantly what I already feared might be true. You 're one of those people who believes the nazis held Germany hostaged don't you? And that the overall majority of the Germans were on the good side? Rex 10:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No I believe none of the above. I'm trying to explain that simple explanations are always wrong. Your simplistic worldview is wrong, but the "opposite" simplicity is also wrong. Don't make me defend it. History is never black & white, it's always greyscale. Anorak2 11:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that shouldn't be an excuse to get ridd of main lines. Hitler would have said the reasons for WW2 went back to the 30 years war. But to many that is utterly irrelevant. Point and fact is that he, with the overwhelming majority of the Germans approving, started a war which killed millions and affects even more people today. Rex 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're changing the subject, we aren't discussing what Hitler did. We were discussing your individual interpretation of what constitutes nationalism and who to blame for it. And I still think you ought to be much more careful about whom to blame than you actually are. Regards Anorak2 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

History is never black and white, but never forget the main lines. Point is, that the Germans (just an example) did invade Poland. And to me its practically irrelevant if perhaps a dozen of soldiers didn't want to, point remains they still did and that it happened in their name.Rex 09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have an axe to grind. Of course you won't admit it. Anorak2 12:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

These kind of comments kill a factual discussion. Of course you know this.Rex 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made my point. Your wording in every paragraph emphasizes a collective view on "the Germans". You completely ignored my point that politicial attitudes (of which nationalism is an example) are by definition held by individuals, not collectives.

Collective descriptions on nations (or other collectives) are difficult. You have to be careful not to make judgements, because by definition it's not right to judge an entire group of people. Collective descriptions are legitimate only in the context of such things as cultural features, mentality, "character traits" (even though that is at the edge of prejudice already). But you cross that line without hesitance, you ascribe political viewpoints to an entire nation and blame them for it. That is not legitimate. What else is there to say, than to draw the conclusion that you yourself hold prejudices, and goodbye? Anorak2 07:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the last 60 years of German history not count for anything? Kingjeff 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rex, I have stumbled across a lot of your comments and articles. I completely agree with you that it is important to keep wikipedia clean off nationalistic biases, lies etc. But to a large extent I have to agree with Anorak2 that you seem to be struggling with prejudiced thinking yourself. Yes, I am German and you are Dutch. But I really can´t see why we shouldn´t be able to agree that not every German was a Nazi or supported the Nazis. I think it also not controversial to state that the support for Hitler increased after 32% voted for him in the last free election in Novembre 1932. And increased a lot until a very large majority did not only support him, but worshipped him. But there also was a minority who did not support the Nazis and if you really claim that everyone who didn´t actively fight the Nazis has to be counted as a supporter. And please don´t degrade the few Germans who did oppose the regime or even resisted in some sense as semantics. They certainly didn´t constitute a mass movement, but their numbers were not residual either, and I think they deserve as much respect as anyone else who had the courage. Your obsessive refusal to accept that not every individual German was a Nazi actually makes me think that you resort to this absolute black-white scheme, because that comfortably protecs your world view, German: Bad; Dutch: Good. After all, if not every single German was a Nazi, you might have to consider that not every single Dutch citizen was a resistance fighter, too. Jonas78 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read my comments and articles you would have noticed that I do not say every German was a nazi. I'm opposed to the view held by some (Germans) that the German people were somehow forced or held hostage by the nazis. Individuals who believe that the only way to have been a nazi is a nazi membership card. It does not work that way. I am familiar with the White Rose movement and Staufenberg (though the first wanted to end the war because they thought Germany was losing and the latter I believe was actually planning a coup in order to make peace with the western allies) but that doesn't change the fact that the overall majority supported the nazi ideology and hitler. That doesn't mean nearly every German was sticking his arm up every minute but it does include people simply agreeing with him, and people supposably disagreeing but doing nothing. In Dutch we have a saying, "wie zwijgt stemt toe" which is just perfect for the situation. But I understand your attitude and that of other Germans, no one wants his or her grandparents to have been nazis. (well, except the really sick ones) Rex 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you that you took the time to answer, I appreciate that. Even if we might not agree I think it is always good to understand why that is so. I think one problem is that it is conventional in Germany to use the designation Nazi more restrictively than you would, but without implying by any means that the others are to be considered free of guilt, as you seem to assume. And maybe thats also the core of the "held hostage" question, the question of moral guilt. I and I am convinced the great majority of Germans will agree that only few Germans of the time can claim to be free of guilt looking back at their behaviour, but that includes very different dimensions of guilt. Mentioning the fact that Nazi-Germany was a dictatorship, that speaking out against the regime was potentially very dangerous, that there was only propaganda, no free press, etc. seems to trigger the "held hostage" reaction from your side. I think it really depends on what people try to say with that. It is relevant to me in the sense that I would consider people "doing nothing" even more condemnable, if there wouldn´t have been potentially serious consequences, but it certainly doesn´t serve to absolve them of any responsability. The German society as a whole has failed because this could happen, in that sense it does bear collective guilt.

Basically what I am trying to say is, that looking at explanations for how people behaved the way they did other than that they were Nazis is not equal to trying to relatavize the "German guilt". If you have the time take a look at this story. I think it does make the point quite well, that it is not always so easy to judge behaviours, as "wie zwijgt stemt toe" suggests. And that in the sense that he was also actively participating in in the organisation of the Holocaust, for which others have demanded for him to be convicted as a war criminal. Jonas78 00:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the use of nazi is more restricted in German. But in the majority of the countries that Germany invaded Germans= nazis during the war. Very simple. Its based on the idea that one fight for what you believe in. Germans on the other hand call it "we did what we had to do" (along with such classics as "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" -set time to 1.20 for a real "nice" one-)I believe theres a word (refering to an exhibit) concerning the German army. (Wehrmachtsausstellung?) Rex 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

German translation

Would you like to help translate articles from German to English for WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, to be honest that takes a lot of time, and I'm not that terribly interested in Munich.Rex 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Willicher and Orangerider

I think you are mistaken, take a look at the contributions by Orangerider on german language wikipedia de:Benutzer:Orangerider, he has been contributing there since March 2006. Willicher seems to have been contributing since August 2004 on german language wikipedia de:Benutzer:Willicher. Both accounts with a large number of contributions.--Caranorn 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be. I still do not trust this.Rex 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willicher

I have closed the sockpuppetry case, and I have concluded that there has been no violation of policy by anyone. Thank you for taking the effort to present the evidence. You are welcome to request that I review the case if further evidence comes to light. Best regards. Shalom ^Hello 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Dutch language map

Hi Rex,

I am studying all the languages of the world at the moment on Wikipedia. Very interesting!

The Old Dutch language map that you downloaded is not correct. According the the Old Dutch article, Old Dutch ended in 1150 and was replaced by Middle Dutch. Untill that time, Noord- and Zuid-Holland were inhabited by Frisian speaking people. Dutch speaking people entered the area from Utrecht and Flanders during the colonization of the swamp area, in such amounts that the Frisians became a minority and started to talk Dutch as well. The article Frisia can tell you more about it.--Daanschr 10:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can better make it visible:

As you will see, the map doesn't fully colour the North of North Holland. By 1150, the Westfrisians were already retreating or assimilated. The map you show on Frisian settling doesn't apply for this time.Rex 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a history student and i followed a course on the history of the county of Holland a few years ago. The counts of Holland used to be Frisians. Due to the Dutch immigration they started to take over the Dutch language. That happened during the 12th century.--Daanschr 10:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, and I'll take your word on it, the map is accurate.Rex 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The county of Holland was predominantly Frisian in the early 12th century, but some parts of the kingdom of Frisia were inhabited by Dutch (or Frankish). There is probably too little data, so no exact evidence available.

I didn't downloaded the map of Frisia. I merely gave it as an indication.--Daanschr 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then.Rex 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Franks FAR

Franks has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That article should have never been given featured status in the first place.Rex 09:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiener

Hi. As for your edit to Wiener, I really do not understand your edit summary: "there are were few words that only have a diminutive, this isn't one of them." I am German, Germans do call hot dogs "Wiener Würstchen" (or just "Wiener"), and "Wiener Würst" is not a German name (but "Wiener Wurst" - note the missing umlaut - would be, but that's not what we call it). If the English speaking world calls hot dogs "Wiener(s)" because that's what the German call it, then of course it's the right thing to mention that on the dab page as reason for inclusion, but then in the right way please (that sounds harsher than I intend :-)). Greetings, – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

... You do not understand the edit summary... do you know what diminutive stands for?Rex 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew that "diminutive" means something with "smaller". However, almost all German words for objects have diminutive forms by simply adding -chen or -lein. German die Wurst is no exception -> das Würstchen, meaning (directly translated) "little sausage". What I didn't understand was you stating the opposite, i.e. that there are only "few" words with diminutive form (not the case with German nouns) and that "Wurst" doesn't have a diminutive form (also not the case). I as a native speaker know otherwise. ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with German grammar. I also, did not say there weren't many diminutive words in German, I said there weren't many words which existed solely in their diminutive form. Würstchen, is no exception, and since a quick google check shows that Würst is also used, and I do believe the 'normal' form should be prefered above the diminutive.Rex 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, almost every German word in diminutive form has one main non-diminutive form. For das Würstchen, that would be die Wurst. "Würst" (with umlaut) however is not a German word. My point was that Germans call it "Wiener Würstchen" (in singular and plural form identical), not "Wiener Wurst" (I have never even heard that combination in my whole life). In that sense Wurst is not correct, and impossible "Würst" even more so. And since "Wiener" is the German form of "from Vienna / Viennese" (of course you know they speak German in Vienna, Austria), the disambiguation page should reflect the German origin/usage of the name of the food. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I am familiar with German and you do not have to make it seem as if your language is harder than it really is. You're first sentence even makes me doubt if you understood what I've been saying at all. I do not care, if you have ever heard of Wiener Wurst, I know these people and many others have, and that a non-diminutive form is preferable over a diminutive form.Rex 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to give you a lesson in German ;-) but I just wanted to make it clear that this Wurst issue is not what I think but what I know. To make my point even clearer: Google test for "Wiener Würstchen": 88,400 hits. Google test for "Wiener Wurst": 580 hits. de:Wiener Würstchen (nothing surprising there) and de:Wiener Wurst (doesn't even exist, not even as a redirect). "Wiener Wurst" is not in wide use, not by far. Even if the non-diminutive form is generally preferable, it should not be if (almost) no-one talks this way. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Google proves little, let alone allows such conclusions. There is however indeniable proof that Wiener Wurst (and Wienerwurst) exist.Rex 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're just baiting me now, so I'd rather stop here. (BTW, there is undeniable proof that "wikipedia is stoopid" is real, although "wikipedia is stupid" seems much more likely. ;-)) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 'baiting' you I'm telling you that a google search isn't a source.Rex 08:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what is if you doubt a native speaker and all other de:wiki editors? Google merely backed up my claim by showing that all "Wiener Wurst" hits make up less than 0.7% compared to "Wiener Würstchen", which makes that usage an extremly negligible minority. And Hot dogs, an article that I have never edited, also says nothing to further your point. That's why I am so confused that you still defend "Wiener Wurst" that strongly. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright I don't know what they do on the German wikipedia, but here on the English wiki, other wikipedia articles are not references. Also, your initial claim wasn't that Wiener Wurst made up 0,7% of a google search, you claimed that you never ever had even heard of it. Thereby suggesting it did not exist. Which I've proved to be false. My point, which I somehow have to keep repeating, is that a non dimitive form is preferable over a diminutive form.Rex 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard "Wiener Wurst" (or "Wiener Würst") before in everyday-speech, and that is still true; I don't need google tests or other wikis to prove that. Everything else that I said after my initial claim served to back up my point that "that's not what we call it". As for preferring non-diminutive form over diminutive form: only if the diminutive form is in comparably-wide use, which is clearly not the case here (we could have the same discussion about de:Kaninchen or de:Eichhörnchen, and I defy any non-native speaker to claim that they could also be called "Kanin" or "Eichhorn"). If you don't agree with that point, then let's agree to disagree and move on. Happy editing. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and pears. Probably because you never really read my first comment. AFAIK both squirel and rabbit are words that only exist in a diminutive form. (probably a false one to given their greek and latin origins) this is not the case with Wiener Wurst. Which is very clear. You keep hammering on "I never heard of it" and "I am a native speaker". I do not care for that. My native language has about 10 different ways to create a diminutive and I have never come across a reference to a dim. noun in a Dutch encyclopedia besides if no other form exists. Its the same with English, and German as well.Rex 14:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we really debating on what should appear on the dab page anymore? :-) Of course I've read your first statement, and you didn't make it clear that you prefer non-diminutive over diminutive forms until your third reply. I admit that I may have overread the word "only", but then again you accidently said "were" instead of "very" in your edit summary (oversight mistakes by both of us). My initial points were pointing out to you that your proposal of "Würst" isn't a even word so I had enough reason to believe that you're not familiar enough with German (no offense). Your reason that "Wiener Wurst" has to be given preference because the word "Würstchen" can be construed from the non-diminutive word "Wurst" is not valid here because we're talking about the phrase/name "Wiener Würstchen", which has no non-diminutive form other than what I (yes, as a native speaker) and many others would feel is a contructed one. (See Ronaldinho and Ronaldo for the same reasoning, and the two animal names that I already mentioned). Names have nothing to do with grammar rules, and I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Wiener Wurst" (as a name) is by no means widely used in German language -- but "Wiener Würstchen" is. I'll stand corrected if that can be disproven. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You continue and continue to miss the point here. You should get the ümläüts out of your eyes, and pay some attention. For someone who claims to be a near native speaker of English you do seem to have an awfull lot of difficulties getting a point. Wiener Wurst exist no matter how hard and often you cry out you're a native speaker.Rex 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. And please tell me what's the point that I keep missing. I certainly feel like I've addressed every point of yours. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you WP:CIVIL me. You were lucky I ignored your minor initial "umlaut insults". My point, the one you continue to miss, is that I don't care which term is more used, it's about the one most preferable. Which in all encyclopedias (wikipedia incluis) is a non-dimunitive form, with the exception being if no alternative exist. Read these sentences carefully, because I'm getting really tired of repeating them.Rex 19:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any "umlaut insults" other than pointing out to you that your use of umlauts was wrong, and if that's considered uncivil... I also addressed that your preferable versions on the ground of grammar don't apply in this case, but hey, I just speak the language everyday so what would I know. Enjoy the (Personal attack removed) and goodbye, – sgeureka ^t•c 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, pointing out a typo is one thing, pointing it out another 2 times is trying to irritate people. I wish you succes with your way of debating, the "me me me" attitude apparently suits you best.Rex 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to chime in this dispute but I'm a native German speaker (currently officially on wikibreak, please forgive the IP) and its really "Wiener Würstchen" not "Wiener Wurst" or "Wiener Würst" (though the latter two can sometimes be heard in very dialect-heavy speech here in Bavaria) But the common reference is "Wiener Würstchen", i.e. the dimunitive form. "Wurst" does exist as a separate word, meaning roughly sausage. Best wishes! 84.145.215.161 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have read the discussion, that way you could have easily spotted that it is not a mere dialectal variant. Also, Wurst doesn't "roughly" mean sausage ... it "means" sausage.Rex 09:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that "Wiener Wurst" did exist as a non dialectal variant, though I have to admit, I fail to remember ever hearing (or reading) it used neither in common speech, nor in advertisements or movies or printed media like newspapers. I hope that you therefore forgive me for being sceptical. It seems that it had been once used at end of the 19th century, before changing to "Wiener Würstchen". Whatever the case might be, I think that we can agree upon that the primarily used name for the sausage in question is "Wiener Würstchen", right? Best Wishes! (And please be a bit nicer next time.) CharonX/talk 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

German Reich/Empire

Hi Rex,

While I applaud your efforts to eliminate unnecessary non-English words from this English-language wiki, I have to stop you with regards to the naming of the German Reich (1871-1943/5). Earlier, I saw that there was a long series of arguments across various articles about what "Deutsches Reich" should be translated to. Unlike almost all of the protagonists in these arguments, I'm a native English speaker and I have no POV either way in this particular matter - I just found the bickering over names non-conducive to work on improving the articles themselves.

Anyone with any knowledge of German knows that "Reich" means "empire/domain/whatever". But the question is what was the Deutsches Reich called in English, not what it translates to. Simple direct translations without checking if it was historically/legally accurate is WP:OR and occasionally nonsense (e.g. we don't translate Deutschland to "Germancountry", because we know that in English it is called "Germany"). So I looked through a heap of primary English-language sources to try clear up this mess. And here's what I found out (some of this I've already written at Talk:German Reich - I'm working on fixing up that article so this naming problem can be put to bed once and for all and we can all get on with other things):

The English term "German Empire" was only officially correct during the 1871-1918 period, unlike the terms Deutsches Kaiserreich or Duitse Keizerrijk which were unofficial. After the end of the monarchy, the word "Reich" was simply NOT translated into English at all - ostensibly to remove the monarchistic connotations that "Empire" can have (i might be wrong about the reason, but it happened - unlike many other languages, in English we have no problem stealing words from other languages without caring what they mean). The official English name of Germany after 1918 was the half-translated "German Reich" - there are countless English-language (i.e. not simply translated from German) legal documents to support this (eg. [6]). Later, the name "Greater German Reich" (not "Great(er) German Empire") was used in English - various English-language legal documents and encyclopaedias (e.g. Britannica) support this.

For covering the Deutsches Reich as a whole, English-language encyclopaedias, history books and professionally-translated legal documents (e.g. [7]) use the term "German Reich" - and not "Empire" since that word is used explicitly to refer to the pre-1918 period. So using "German Reich" is not a case of Germish (which i cannot stand), but historically and legally correct.

Something I wanted to ask: since you are keen to remove unnecessary non-English terms here, what are your thoughts regarding the prolific usage of such words as lijsttrekker and staatssecretaris for Dutch politicians when "(leading) party candidate" and "state secretary" are perfectly valid translations? - 52 Pickup 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In official use, Reich was not used. Germany surrendered in 1918 as the German Empire, and so did it to the Allies 27 years later. The instrument of surrender does not say German Reich, and if that's not official use then you've lost me. As for the Dutch terms, staatssectretaris would literally mean "state secretary" but the job/task itself isn't the same as "state secretary/secretary of state" in most Anglophone countries (mainly Britain and the USA) a more accurate translation would be "vice-minister" or similar. Lijsttrekker is more complicated as a "party candidate" isn't necessarily a lijstrekker (some are candidates and some are lijstduwers) though I guess 'leading party candidate' would roughly mean the same, do you have sources that its being used to translate lijstrekker? Rex 10:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The instrument of surrender did not say "German Empire", either. It says simply "GERMANY" (with capitals, which is not normal for such a document) and we know that that isn't the full formal name, so while official this document unfortunately doesn't help in terms of names. It must be noted that prior to the signing of the surrender, the Allies ruled the Anschluss and various other German annexations as null and void, so perhaps instead of using any official names that may jeopardise that ruling, maybe that's why they went for the simple "GERMANY" to encompass all forces/territory under German control (just a guess, but you never know). And sorry, but "Reich" was officially used in English: see Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 as an example of an English-language official document where a number of countries are listed with their full English formal names, including the "German Reich" (there are plenty of other official English-language documents that do the same). Even when learning history at school, "Empire" was only used for pre-1918 and "Reich" for 1918-1945 - although it was always common to simply take the easy path and just call it "Germany". And retrospective English-language history books never refer to 1871-1945 Germany as the Empire, but only as the Reich. Similarly, the "Weimar Republic" was never officially used as a name, but we now use it to describe that particular period.

In Australian English "state secretary" would make sense for staatssecretaris, but I can understand that in other versions of English it could be a problem (especially with the US "secretary of state" where we would name that position "foreign affairs minister / foreign minister"). In English-language news stories about Dutch elections, the term "leading party candidate" is generally used when referring to the lijsttrekker. A party always has a lot of candidates, but only one is put forward as the candidate for the top spot. - 52 Pickup 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record: "Deutsches Reich" was the official name of three different states, namely Imperial Germany 1871 - 1918, the Weimar Republic 1918 - 1933 and the Nazi state 1933 - 1945. First of all that's a proper name, which doesn't necessarily have to be translated. Otherwhise "Reich" is an ambiguous word, it can be translated as either "empire" or "realm"/"country" depending on context. In the context of imperial Germany "empire" is probably the best choice, but since the Weimar Republic can't be described as an empire in any meaningful way, I suggest that it should be translated as "realm" in this context. As everyone is probably aware, "Reich" is cognate to Dutch "rijk", Scandinavian "rik", English "ric" (as in bishopric). Anorak2 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "Empire" in English is ambiguous enough to cover all meanings.Rex 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah "empire" is ambiguous, but not in the same way. It can mean "country ruled by an emperor" or "colonial empire", but not just "country". Anorak2 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither can German.Rex 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was used at school than you should have problem digging up sufficient sources to prove your point. One mention will not do it.Rex 13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here's some more: [8] [9] [10], [11] and the Geneva Convention. - 52 Pickup 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant an explanation of the term. Meanwhile Britannica states under Reich; (German: “Empire”), any of the empires of the Germans or Germany: the Holy Roman Empire (q.v.); the Second Reich, led by the Prussian Hohenzollerns (1871–1918); or the Third Reich of Nazi Germany (1933–45). See Germany.

and under Weimar Republic: the government of Germany (q.v.) from 1919 to 1933, so called because the assembly that adopted its constitution met at Weimar from Feb. 6 to Aug. 11, 1919.. No mention of German Reich whatsoever.Rex 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, looking up "Reich" gives you a definition of the term, but elsewhere in Britannica the usage of "German Reich" is clear. Three examples:

• The German Reich, founded in 1871, began as a confederation of sovereign states. (...) As late as 1913 the debt of the Reich (4,900,000,000 marks) was less than half that of Prussia (9,900,000,000 marks) and substantially less…
• In 1807 the Anhalt dukes joined the Confederation of the Rhine set up by Napoleon and supported him until 1813. In 1815 they joined the German Confederation and in 1828 the Zollverein (Customs Union) organized by Prussia. In 1871 Anhalt became a state of the newly founded German Reich. Under the republican Weimar Constitution, adopted in 1919, Anhalt became a Land of the German Reich..
• From 1933 to 1939 and in some instances even during the first years of the war, Hitler's purpose was to expel the Jews from the Greater German Reich. In 1941 this policy changed from expulsion to extermination.' - 52 Pickup 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its nice its used in context, but no articles are called German reich. Notice that?Rex 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. The articles on Imperial, Weimar and Nazi Germany all appear as part of the main "Germany" article - which contains another section entitled "Franco-German conflict and the new German Reich". Sure, that section does not begin with an explicit definition of the German Reich, but if you read through that which is available (note that the online Britannica is incomplete and that one does not have access to complete articles), and the subsequent sections up to 1945, it is clear that this term is used in English to describe Germany from 1871 to 1945 - if that were not true, it would not feature in Britannica at all. Furthermore, I already have presented a number of English-language (i.e. not simply translated to English) international legal documents (one of which is the Geneva Convention), showing where the term was used in an official capacity. It cannot be denied that the term is valid. - 52 Pickup 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But that section is about the French-Prussian war and the following German Empire. Not the Weimar Republic.Rex 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I said, by reading that section and the ones that follow it, which include the Weimar Republic. Also, the above passage about Anhalt shows that the name continued into the Weimar period. And: the various legal documents that I have put forward were signed by the "German Reich" during the Weimar period. For example, the list of signatories for the Geneva Convention: " The President of the German Reich, the President of the United States of America, the Federal President of the Republic of Austria,..." - 52 Pickup 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw, so now you need to prove that German Empire (Deutsches Reich) and German Reich (Deutsches Reich, Reich meaning "Empire") are not variations of the same word. Rex 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This can easily be seen in Britannica:

• Britannica uses the term "German Empire" only to describe Germany for 1871-1918, and to make it absolutely clear, the section about the Empire is entitled "German Empire (1871-1918)" - and this is repeated many times throughout Britannica.
• Britannica uses the term "German Reich" to describe Germany from 1871 to 1945. After 1918, the word "Empire" does not appear at all - also since it is made clear that the Empire ended in 1918.
• Britannica never says "German Empire (1871-1945)".
• The word "Reich" is used untranslated and without italics - this shows that Reich, when used in this manner, is an acceptable English word and translation would be wrong. If "Reich" were in italics, that would mean that the reader should then go to their German dictionary and replace "Reich" with "Empire". But since "Reich" is not in italics, it is used simply as a name. For example, in the above passage about Anhalt, only the word "Land" was in italics in "Under the republican Weimar Constitution, adopted in 1919, Anhalt became a Land of the German Reich.", which makes sense since the usage of "Land" here is not correct English.

The Empire ended in 1918, and the Reich ended in 1945. When used to describe the German Reich, the word "Reich" is not a foreign word that means "Empire", but simply a name. Since this name was used in English in an official capacity (the various documents presented above), the name is valid. And, simply because the Empire ended in 1918, using that word to describe Germany after 1918 is simply wrong. - 52 Pickup 16:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Prove it.Rex 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have. If that isn't enough, then why don't you try to prove me wrong? I have presented mountains of documentation (and there's plenty more) that shows that the word Reich makes sense in English and was that only "Reich" (not "Empire") was used as an official English name for Germany after WWI without translation (e.g. why didn't the Geneva Convention say "Empire" instead of "Reich"? Because it would have been wrong. It is an English language document - it doesn't say "Republik Österreich", does it?). Everything I have shown makes it clear that in English the "German Empire" refers to 1871-1918 Germany. And nothing more.

Do you really want to give the Empire more credit than it deserves? It lasted for 47 years, and that was it. The fact that the word "Reich" was still used afterwards in German, it doesn't mean that the word "Empire" continued to be used in English, and I have demonstrated that the word "Empire" was not used. If the only reason that you don't accept this is because you simply don't like the usage of the word "Reich" here, then that is no argument. - 52 Pickup 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The day I have to disprove people who want to add a whole new way of looking at things is the day this project ends. Reich is Empire. If the Empire stoped after 1918 then why is what is the Imperial Chancelary?Rex 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one adding a new way of looking at things: you are. Look through the historical documents, they haven't been reworded just to give you trouble. Going against historical documentation in the interests of a simple translation is misleading, revisionist and simply wrong. Imperial Chancellor, that's your argument? The building in Berlin is still called the Reichstag - should they have renamed it to the Bundestag? Spiegelei are not "mirror eggs" but there's no need to prove it. Translation is not a simple as you make it out to be. "Lijsttrekker" is "leading party candidate", should the word "Lijsttrekker" be removed from the English wiki? - 52 Pickup 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course it should. Just like Reich should be removed from titles of English articles when there are simple English counterparts.Rex 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that - I was getting worried that you were simply against the usage of German words here. Of course, if it can be shown that "Lijsttrekker" could mean anything other than "leading party candidate", then I'd have no problem keeping that word here.

I'd love to say that Empire should replace Reich in all instances, that would make our jobs a lot simpler - but the facts speak against doing it everywhere and we need to show this if we want Wikipedia to be factually correct (and to prevent these sorts of misunderstandings happening over and over again). In all the documents that I've shown, there is no reason why they shouldn't have said Empire instead of Reich (deliberately not translating a single word in official documents like the Geneva Convention makes no sense at all) - unless saying Empire was simply not an option. For another example, nobody says "Third Empire". In English, Britannica makes it clear that the Empire ended in 1918 while the Reich continued until 1945 - this is also supported by the Allies during the Nuremberg trials - and that calling anything that followed WWI "Empire" is contradictory and false. Even British PMs referred to the German Reich by name after WWI (where previously they said Empire). Unlike most other languages, English has no problem stealing words from other languages and adapting them, not as foreign words, but English words or names where translation would be inaccurate. Everyone has an opinion on this matter, but here the historical documents and other sources must take precedence over what you and I believe. - 52 Pickup 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Les Gueux

I've just changed the name of this Wiki article back to Geuzen after discussion with Pietdesomere but I notice that you often use the French name in your articles about the Dutch Revolt and since you are Dutch I'm interested in your perspective. My attitude as a native English speaker is that we should use English names where possible but the original language otherwise. Since "Sea Beggars" is common in English texts, I've used that, but "Beggars" is not so I think that we should use the word "Geuzen" as the name of the article. I've never seen "Les Gueux" used in English texts - e.g. EB uses Guezen. Chris55 09:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wel, Britannica uses Geuzen and imediatly gives the French version. Given the history I'd use French. A councillor of Margaret of Parma first called them that (in French) subsuquently the Gueux used it as a name of honour, probably first in French, and then it was Dutchified ... into geus/geuzen. However, it might seem strange now to use French, because it simply does not have the status it had back then, so maybe Geuzen is more logical. Then again I know Sea Beggars is used in English, so why not use that instead? They were the most dominant group, it can be explained in their origins that they started on land as 'beggars'.Rex 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Globalize/Netherlands

Template:Globalize/Netherlands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarco/Eisack

The move you made is correct actually, from Eisack to Isarco. The consensus at the moment is to use the name of the linguistic majority. In this case the numbers come out for Isarco. I don't agree with this system actually, but since it is the one in place it should be put thru consistently. cheers, Icsunonove 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous.Rex 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: You watching my edits

Well, without going into specifics, sometimes it is difficult to determine exactly which part of a statement was taken from a source, especially when it concerns more general information and the source is not directly accessible. It is certainly not my intention to suggest those references say something different than they do, of course. As to "me watching your edits", I have this article in my watchlist, so naturally it comes up every once in a while and I may or may not decide to contribute on that occasion. Have a nice day. Iblardi 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, isn't is more logical to assume it isn't in the source? Really the excuse for watching my edits doesn't fly. Like I said I don't mind, but don't lie about it. This isn't the first time.A nice day indeed.Rex 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehm... Just compare your and my list of contributions, OK? There's nothing to "lie" about. Iblardi 17:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so I'm supposed to believe that it's coincidence you edited Dominicus Lampsonius (an article I find hard to believe you yourself searched for) a mere 18 minutes after I did and reverted my edit? I don't care what you think about me, but I'm not stupid.Rex 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that has happened once or twice. But a few isolated instances do not mean that I am following you around in any structural way. Relax about it. Iblardi 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am relaxed,I just don't like people lying.Rex 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Now quit the personal attacks. This is getting annoying. Iblardi 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look up Personal Attacks first before you start accusing people of making them. You denied watching my edits and I proved you were. So how do we call that action? Lying. It's not a personal attack that's a well proven observation.Rex 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to lure me into a flame war or what? What exactly did you prove? You would be right if I were following you around on Wikipedia. It is clear that I am not. And in case you didn't know, calling someone a liar is a personal attack. Wikipedia doesn't define language, you see. Iblardi 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A flame war over what? Calling someone a liar without proof is a PA. And a what is or isn't a PA isn't determined by you, but trough wikipedia.Rex 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not even talking about WP:NPA, but you are right: calling someone a liar without proof is a personal attack. I rest my case. Iblardi 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I already said, proof has been provided. Accept it and move on. Have a nice day.Rex 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, believe whatever you want. Goodbye. Iblardi 20:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Exwikipedian (who never stopped editing) joining in ...

Either way Rex, I think someone should be watching your every edit. I don't think you can be trusted. I've never thought that you would be wishing people nice days. Kingjeff 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the German guy right? We'rent you going to leave wikipedia? Or was that just to add dramatic effect to your provocative comments? Hmm, just like this one. I wonder if people should mind what you think... Rex 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The German guy. I have left. But I'm with Wikinews now and only do editing in regards to that. It's really only provocative to you and anyone who actually wants to give a damn. Kingjeff 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Really you left? Then what are you doing here then? You decided to leave Wikipedia on 18 July, yet, you never stopped editing... in Dutch we'd say 'mooie ruggengraat'.Rex 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rex Germanus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Let me put this out of the blue deblocking request just below the barnstar I received like, less than a day ago, for comparison. Says I was was blocked for gross incivility, and inflamatory edit summaries. I see no inflamatory edit summaries, not at all. As for incivility the only things that come close (note 'close' is probably still too strong) are the recent developements with Kingjeff (a user who says he left wikipedia but returns now and then to mix into a discussion to say I should be blocked) and Iblardi a user with I have no real argument other than his way of watching (and subsequenty editing my edits, is perculiar matter. From experience I know this probably wont help anything, because most deblocking admins are too afraid to speak out against another admin, or too lazy to check the edits.Rex 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Violation of revert parole [12] [13] on Dutch (ethnic group) warrants a block under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. This is your eighth block under that case, the seventh was for two weeks. I will continue to review your recent contributions. — Thatcher131 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checking the original report (by an anom IP on the noticeboard), there was no talk of incivility nor inflamatory edit summaries only about consistent anti German POV; nevertheless the block was for (non-shown) incivility and inflamatory summaries. That seems out of place to me.

Although I agree Rex would be advised to use more careful wording for German actions in WWII, I partially agree with his renaming (I regularly encounter German editors who put up German names even when there are perfectly common English names and are then upset if these are changed).

The reference to the block log of the blocking admin is in my opinion a bit easy. I have been encountering Rex for some time (and from time to time check his edits, just because of his history of sometimes disrupting editing by going into disputes [So yes, Rex, another editor following you around ;-) ). However, in my view Rex has been putting in a lot of effort in being more civil ad constuctive over the last few months. That effort to improve should be rewarded (and I think the barnstar is an illustration of such appreciation), rather than just holding his older history (block log) against him and block him for a long time, with other arguments then those made in the report. (Of course I am not an admin, but for what it's worth, this would be one (of the few) block I would be happy to lift). Arnoutf 09:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this, removing German terms where English terms can be used, or removing German terms where they make no sense is not anti German POV, it's just editing.

I'd also like to note that the anonymous IP only made 2 edits. 1 is a revert of one of my edits, (which was reverted by another user) and the next was a report on the Admins notice board. It wouldn't surprise me if this anonymous user is someone I've met before. In all it strikes me as strange.Rex 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Rex 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra relating block

Given that I had no notice of me being reported, let alone a chance to defend myself; I'll do it here:

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[14], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[15], adding a bias to existing article [16] [17], moving articles with german words without comment [18], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [19]. (note that even if this was POV, which it wasn't, it would not be anti-german) The Germanic Europe article was/is a laugh, it invented definition and in my option was heading for a White supremast/nationalist POV. Claiming there is something as "Germanic Europeans" (note the similarity to WWII defenitions of Aryans) in 2007 is a farce. It belongs, if anywhere, to the 1930s and 1940s hence my Fuhrerbunker remark. Regarding [20] The anonymous IP employed a trick here. I edited the article multiple times, yet his like (with 6 versions in between) makes it seem I removed half the article in one edit without edit summary. Let me say this. That article was full of 'expressions' which aren't used in English. In fact, I nominated 2 articles (from the list) for speedy deletion, and they were gone in seconds. Regarding [21] [22] that's not adding a bias, that just adding information. When you check the article (bombing of rotterdam) you'll find the same information. Regarding [23] The article itself used Thuringian sausage (the english term) all trough the article. I merely moved the title. I don't see what this has to do with Anti-German pov. I find his "summing up" (UNFOUNDED!)accusations disgusting. Especially for a anonymous user with 2 edits.Rex 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparent revenge motive anonymous IP

That the editors are anons does not mean they cannot be right. You have certainly met me before - remember, you had me blocked when we spoke about the Wurst-thing and Dutch grammar. I decided to let it rest and that editing on Wikipedia is not something I would waste my valuable time on if there are people being paranoid around, like you, who see an enemy behind every tree. You have some useful edits, but your social skills need brushing up. This is not meant as a nasty comment, just a piece of friendly advice to help you avoid future trouble. Stay civil, like plenty of other people around here do, and you'll be fine, just like them! I've also said the block was too long. 82.157.149.162 11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From this >>You have certainly met me before<< I conclude you're the same person who reported me. A clear case of revenge. I didn't have you blocked, an admin had you blocked after I time and time and time and time again had warned you. You even continued to be insulting on your talkpage while blocked. It clear that the only thing that was on your mind was to "get back" at me, not worries on supposed incivilty. You simple got some diffs, made uo a story and a admin (who apparently didn't check the diffs) just blocked me, based on my logg rather than facts. Rex 12:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP accustions etc

You can't just partially delete what I said, Rex. I will revoke my appeal for a shorter punishment if you keep behaving that way. I don't think it would help all that much (kust a meek anon), but I am not the one who reported you. Understood?82.157.149.162 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I did not partially deleted what you said, I delete the whole comment. Why? Because I don't like it when people make false accusations. In your case you alledged that I compared you to Hitler and Stalin.
2. Attemping blackmailing me, by saying matters like "I will revoke my appeal for a shorter punishment if [...]" doesn't get you very far.Rex 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User Mattheads allegations

Rex is already on probation and parole for one year

As some people who do not know his history seem to believe that Rex is an "innocent newcomer" or similar, I have to point out once again that according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz, Rex was placed on Probation and on revert parole for one year last November. According to "After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year", he should not be blocked for only a month, as he has been blocked 6 times since been put on probation/parole.

Since June, Rex was reported several times at ANI by several users. He got away several times, like at Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot, Rex Germanus, and Rex Germanus. In Rex Germanus user page he finally got blocked for two weeks in July. Among the first things he did after his return was stalking me [24], a habit he continued [25]. Rex Germanus' anti-German stance shows in many instances, e.g. when removing [26] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious fact that Matthead considers me his nemisis (I revert a lot of his pro German renaming and anti polish sentiment for which he is know) and wants to make me look even worse, let me say this. All these allegations were proven wrong in the past. I didn't 'get away' I never did a thing as shown by the absence of diffs to prove their accusations and the fact that Matthead wasn't taken seriously by the admins for clearly provoking me. This time, he added a new allegation; namely: [27] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. The section explained that it is used in Germany is and means good health. Apart from the fact that Gesundheit is part of American English, and very much English as a whole and hence doesn't need explanation, this information (if included at all) should go to the wiktionary gesundheid article. Nothing anti German or POV. Rex 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But apparently an admin, Thatcher131 thinks that accusations suffice because of the Ulritz case. Which I myself started btw (the case, not the conflict).Rex 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also violations of the revert parole at Ethnic Germans. What you have seemingly failed to learn after more than a year is that these sorts of content disputes should be resolved by involving more outside editors, not by edit warring and reverting. While the request for comment amd third opinion process are not perfect, in theory you can attract the attention of additional editors to your concerns, about unreferenced claims, for example. The Ethnic Germans article is also part of two Wikiprojects you could contact for help. Thatcher131 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)