User talk:Rex Germanus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:21, 28 October 2006

WELCOME TO REX' TALKPAGE

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here,

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

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

Comments:

...

Vote rigging on Pennsylvania German language

A vote from a indefinitely blocked user has been listed. That indicates to me that some underhand vote rigging has been used - which is to the detriment of the discussion. I have asked for this to be investigated. Widefox 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Are you somehow accusing me of fraud?Rex 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rex 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Your edits to Afrikaans

Haha, I just saw the edit summary on my watchlist! Thanks for that! --Adriaan90 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that User:Ulritz is a notorious German nationalist who hates Dutch. He pretends to know what he's talking about (in linguistics) but his comments are unreferenced and based on German nationalism.You did the right thing. Rex 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. PS: What about archiving your talk page? It's quite lengthy. Anyway, see you around then. --Adriaan90 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll archive it. See you too.Rex 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better :) --Adriaan90 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Ulritz

I would cordially ask you to refrain from labelling what you see as opponents "nationalists", "neo-nazis", "laymen", etc. as it doesnt quite advance discussion. Ulritz 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would not even know what cordially means. You are a German nationalist and you are a layman in linguistics, you do not discuss you insult. These aren't personal attacks merely observations.Rex 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Thanks for your response to my message. It's good to know that there are still a few rational people who consider what one has to say on the merits of the statement ;) Guettarda 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome. Rex 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

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

Thanks for the advice. I will. Rex 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 14 2006 to Stahhelm

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:No legal threats

I hope you read that article to the end. To be exact, I did not make a legal threat, rather I recommended Ulritz consider taking legal steps as your were continusly accusing him of a crime (dennying Nazi crimes is prosecutable in many countries, including the ones I assume you reside in, as well as the country I assume him to reside in). Such accusation without proof indeed constitutes slander, libel or defamation as mentionned in that very article you quote now. As you apparently don't intend to stop accusing him of such without proof (I'm not about to try and track everyone of Ulritz's contributions to wikipedia to find something, none of the occasional links you've included in your attacks seemed to support your claim) I'm not sure what other choices are left to him (mediation between the both of you doesn't seem to work and appears pointless at this time). I don't feel he should be silenced (his recent contributions, as well as yours, seem to have been unreasonable, another reason to try other avenues including if necessary legal ones (I would not react reasonably to accusations as the one you are proferring on Ulritz either) on wikipedia (neither do I feel you shoudl be, though you should moderate your editing and general conduct), continuing this conflict will drive at least one user (if not more as having to watch your exchanges is not very motivating) away which cannot be in the interest of wikipedia.

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

Advising to make legal threats or making them yourself makes no difference to me or wikipedia. Furthermore, I never said I removed your comment, though I would have if van Helsing hadn't beat me to it. You need to understand that on wikipedia we don't make or tolerate legal threats. So don't make them

Rex 12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I did not make slander, libel or defamation. I know what I said and I stand by it. Rex 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you'd payed attention to his edits you wouldn't even need to ask me for proof. He did question[2] and tried to cover up[3] nazi crimes (denial) and has a clear pro-nazi bias[4].Rex 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've twice lost my response (second time I expect due to Arnoutf's post bellow...). I won't retype it entirely a third time out of memory.

So just in short.

1) The Valkenburg article edit is pretty clear. The article essentially states that German law (or military code), applicable to the Netehrlands existed which called for death sentence for hiding Jews. To this Ulritz responded with a German-occupied Poland, not Holland edit summary and inserting a request for a reference. This edit by Ulritz is indeed correct as I'm not aware of any such law (applicable to occupied territories, vs. Germany proper, annexed territories of administred ones (like Poland which was in part annexed and in part administred)). He would have been justified to simply remove that passage or edit it to state that execution and deportation (with likely death) was common for people found to be hiding Jews. The punishable statement simply is not acceptable without a legal source to back it up.

2) The various trms for Germans article edit is indeed more neutral then the previous wording. At least going by Luxembourgish (French and Belgian) cases I know, most people don't hate Germans after WWII, also their resentment is largely based on occupation (and war) rather then crimes. Even among concentration camp survivors I've talked to (about the subject) only one expressed hatred for Germans, the others usually harbor resentment and quite commonly fear of Germany.

3) In the History of Austria article edit Ulritz does just the opposite of that which you accuse him of. In his edit summary he asks Are you here to whitewash Austrian nazism?. The question here is whether Austria was indeed liberated (and thereby whether Austrians played any, no or a small role in WWII and WWII crimes). It is indeed correct that Austria was forcibly annexed by Germany, but the Nazi regime had the support of a large portion of the Austrian population. If the article just talks about liberation in 1945 and ignores the fact that there were many collaborators in the country and that for them it was occupation there is a problem. Another question might be how a similar article on German history might treat this question (liberation or occupation), both should probably use similar wording and if this is liberation at least mention how that's just one point of view. Lastly I personnaly object to the securing Austria from complete Soviet domination statement which appears anti-communist to me. On the other hand this type of statement is pretty common in WWII histories and does correctly reflect the feeling of many people involved (in this case the people of Austria). And I don't have to like every article or sentence withing an article on Wikipedia, as long as it's not blatantly false, incomplete or something similar it won't matter overly to me.

In short, the three edits by Ulritz you link to in no way show him to be as you say questionning or covering up Nazi crimes or having a pro-nazi bias. If anything it would appear that Ulritz is requesting references instead of blanket statements, removing a non-neutral POV (which also misrepresents dutch people) and finally requesting that the role of Austrians within the third Reich not be downplayed (and therefore puts in question the use of the term liberation for 1945). All of this also makes me wonder to what degree linguistic bareers and resulting inability to fully comprehend the edits (and discuss them) is an issue.

Hopefully this time my post will make it to your talk page:-(, I certainly won't type it a fourth time.--Caranorn 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80 yrs war map

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

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

Rex 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Hello,

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

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

Appreciated

I appreciate your vandalism reverts, but can you please take WP:NPA into account when making edit summaries? Not being very nice feeds into the vandals need for attention and causes them to wreck the place up some more. G'day, - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 14:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry sometimes I forget ;-) Rex 14:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Images

Hi Rex, I don't know if you keep the images you've made on your watchlist, but I've made comments at Image talk:Continental West Germanic languages.png and Image talk:Frankischetalen.png. —An gr 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded ;-) Rex 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising edit

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Dutch people. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Injunction

A temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz which states that until the conclusion of this case, you and Ulritz may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 == Surprising edit==
 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view]] policy for editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Dutch people|, which you appear to have violated at [[:Dutch people]]}}. In the meantime, please '''[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]]''' and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! <!-- Template:NPOV0 -->  -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]</sup> 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
+== Temporary Injunction ==
+A [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz#Temporary_injunction|temporary injunction]] has been [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz/Proposed_decision#Revert_paroles|passed]] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz]] which states that until the conclusion of this case, you and [[User:Ulritz|Ulritz]] may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Thanks --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Srikeit|it]] <b><sup><small>([[User talk:Srikeit|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|Email]])</small></sup></b> 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)