User talk:37ophiuchi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Gliese876)
Jump to: navigation, search

Walking with monsters images - fair use?[edit]

hello - just wondering if you know something I don't regarding using the screenshots from Walking With Monsters in articles? My understanding is that such copyrighted images can only be used under fair use in articles that are actually about the program. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I do not really know the limitations of "fair use". There is not anything comparable in Germany... However, I saw screenshots from Walking with Monsters being implemented in various other articles like Meganeura so I decided to take my chances and add some pictures to other articles, too. Let's say I just followed the basic Wikipedia-principle -

First comes action, then thinking ;-) If you know for sure that my actions pose a copyright infringement feel free to reverse them, however, there are numerous more articles which use screenshots from Walking with Monsters... --Gliese876 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bar[edit]

Sorry - just spotted what you'd done too late. Good work! Verisimilus T 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's probably worth setting up a template to be used for all the periods, so they can easily be kept in the same format. It would make it easier for me, for example, to remove the padding around the timeline if I could do it in one place. Verisimilus T 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, I do not know how to set up templates... I strongly encourage anyone with more experience in formatting issues to take care of this. --Gliese876 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. See the Cambrian article. I'll increase its functionality as I go! Verisimilus T 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Great:-) There seems to be some glitch with the CO2 percentage however... --Gliese876 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just fixed it. I'll make it do some rounding when I get the time, but for now I have to go out... Hope it's helpful! Feel free to pry around with the code of {{geological period}} if you like! Verisimilus T 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Jawohl ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool beans - looking very smart now all the articles have them! I wonder whether you could be persuaded to rattle off timelines for the Jurassic and Cretaceous? You can copy the Cambrian one, say, and just amend the values - it should be simple enough. All the best, Verisimilus T 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out those problems, which should now be fixed. Verisimilus T 10:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)



All the period starts and ends are automatically generated now. They are kept in sync with the International Committee on Stratigraphy [1], who recognise the Quaternary as a (fuzzily defined) epoch, but not a period.

Verisimilus / Smith609 Talk 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. And at the end of the day, what difference does it really make what they choose to call it? For now, though, I think we may as well go with the numbers and definitions supplied by the ICS; I think the timeline does a reasonable job of describing it, and I'm sure the controversy can be discussed in the articles! Seems to make sense to stick by the ICS's figures for now, though (I didn't make any concious decision how to interpret them, they did that for me!) - when they do reach a decision, the new numbers will be uploaded and the articles and timelines all automatically updated. Smith609 Talk 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the Q, it would be much too small to be visible! May as well leave it off; I'm sure anyone wondering where it had got to would click on the N to find out.
By the way, just to let you know, there's a convention in Wikipedia that new talk messages are left at the bottom of the page (in stark contrast to everywhere else on the internet!!) - just thought I'd let you know, as I sometimes miss your comments at a first glance through habit. Smith609 Talk 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah! No missing you now! (-: Smith609 Talk 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Babel Template[edit]

Hehe danke für den Hinweis mit dem Bild bei "User enjoys Heave Metal"! Mann ich kenn mich hier gar nicht mehr aus wie das alles geht. BerZerK (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming inaccuracies for plate tectonics maps[edit]

Some of the images you uploaded from [2] to WikiCommons appear to be inaccurately named and described. For example, File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg (labeled as being 50 Ma) corresponds with the author's Oligocene map (35 Ma). Other maps shown on that site are missing, and would be greatly valued. I will attempt to upload the correct images to replace the incorrect ones, but if you have time and permission, I would appreciate it if you could upload more of these images for use on Wiki. I'm particularly interested in K-T (65Ma). –Visionholder (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Titan Mare Explorer[edit]

Thank you for your review of the new Titan Mare Explorer article. I had seen the discrepancy of dates between this project and its possible inclusion in the TSSM, and I had made a mental note to research it further. You did a great job with few words! Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher‎[edit]

Hello Gliese876, i have also been working on another new NASA spacecraft proposal, a rover to to be launched together with ESA's ExoMars rover. This proposal was done officially on 15 September 2009. The article can use your research and writting skills: Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher‎. See you there, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Great job on MAX-C, ExoMars and TGM orbiter! Thank you and please hang around. Remember ESA-NASA will hold a mission status conference and will release a report in December. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: German-Japanese relations[edit]

Looks better. I went through just now and fixed a few simple formatting things.

I haven't done a thorough read-through but some quick observations:

  • If you are not aware citations (<ref>) are supposed to go after all of the text they apply to. What that means among other things is that, generally speaking, each paragraph (except perhaps in the lead) should have a citation at the very end (there may be exceptions if the last statement in a paragraph is just a transition that doesn't introduce new information).
  • The lead still needs to be expanded.
  • I see the phrasing has improved in several places. It could still use some copyediting in places (maybe if I have time I'll do what I can).

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I continued expanding certain paragraphs including the introduction. Do you think the article is ready to be suggested as a featured article? --Gliese876 (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The standards for featured articles are quite high these days. I don't think this article is ready for that yet.
You might want to try nominating this as a good article. It is still a little short of those standards too but probably not by too much. The main thing that is hurting is the fact that there are places where more references are needed.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Very good work Kransky (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how I would nominate the article (never done it before). I will second a nomination if you wish. Kransky (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you can think of a nomination, you need to get rid of the "citation needed" tags. There are still several in place. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your work on this outstanding article which Ive been delighted to promote! If you have time, please review someone else's nomination as there is a large backlog over at the Good Article page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I can just picture editor Groubani smiling down like a pround parent as BR articles mature into audited content! As an after thought to the review, one other thing you'll very likely have to address if you still want to achieve FA status is to get all the citations into a consistent format. Have a look at some of the existing feautured articles for ideas on the different ways to do that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File:SchroederKoizumiG8Schottland2005.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SchroederKoizumiG8Schottland2005.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:PrehistoricParkCarboniferousScene.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:PrehistoricParkCarboniferousScene.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:EugenOtt.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EugenOtt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:German-Japanese relations[edit]

That's not really the way it works- I know that the pact is of great importance, and so warrants discussion, but for a non-free image to be justified, it needs to significantly increase reader understanding, which this one does not. The mere fact that something is discussed or of importance to the subject does not mean that a non-free image is justified- for instance, an author is clearly important in an article on one of his/her books, but there is no way that a non-free image of him or her would be justified on an article on the book. Enhancing "the overall appearance of the article" is simply not important- we do not employ non-free content to do that. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're meaning you don't think it should be there, I completely agree- perhaps you'd like to remove it? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

German and Japanese spheres of influence at greatest extent World War II 1942[edit]

Hello Gliese876,

Regarding the file "German and Japanese spheres of influence at greatest extent World War II 1942" which you made, could you make some amendments to this map? Namely to include the Yenisei river demarcation line alongside the 70th meridian east? This division of Asia was proposed by the German OKW after they disliked the Japanese proposal which would have cut up a lot of traditionally united territories. It used the Yenisei river from the Arctic Ocean, the western border of Tannu-Tuva and China, the northern and western border of Afghanistan, and the border between Iran and India (modern-day Pakistan).

You might also want to take a look at this map, which uses updated WWII borders (as they existed in 1941).

And lastly, could you upload it in .svg or .png rather than .jpg?

Regards, --Morgan Hauser (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, do you have any source for the Yenisei-demarcation line? --Gliese876 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can refer you to Norman Rich's Hitler War Aims Vol. 1 p. 235 (which is also used for this article), and Gerhard Weinberg's Visions of Victory, which is largely available online. Take note of pages xxiv and 13.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gliese876, did you receive my request?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Sorry for the delay, but I'm a little occupied right now. Won't be able to tend to that matter before 2nd week of January, but I will... after all ;)--Gliese876 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: There's another issue: I'm in need of a solid reference to Japan's northward-expansion doctrine. Although this is mentioned several times in various sources, I have not been able to find a real elaboration of that matter (except for fictional alternate history-works). The respective article on Hokushin was deleted altogether lacking solid sources... now we have a red link in German-Japanese relations... --Gliese876 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response to the PS - forgot about you in the interim. Hmmm... odd. Maybe it's the inclusionist in me that's talking, but that article should have been fixed, not deleted outright. The German-Japanese sphere delimitations in Asia are a matter of recorded historical fact, as are the Imperial Japanese Navy's rivalry with the Imperial Japanese Army. And then there are also the 1939 Manchuria border clashes as an indication of military hostility towards Soviet-controlled/influenced parts of Northeast Asia.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. There were theoretical plans for a go-north strategy ("Hokushin") against the USSR, which has then hoewever been dropped in favour of the go-south one ("Nanshin")... Nevertheless, I do not have any solid sources (only an alternate history-work including a small section "In reality": Peter Tsouras: "Rising Sun Victorious", Lionel Leventhal Limited 2001, ISBN 978-0-345-49016-2) verifying that... --Gliese876 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were still going to do it btw, the file is also currently being used at Axis powers, German-Japanese relations, and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Flood of tiny edits[edit]

Hello. In the article History of Germany you accumulated two times five small edits in a row, sometimes twice in the same section. This kind of behaviour is very unnecessary. I currently can't find a rule which says that this would be a direct violation to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Nevertheless, it's inappropriate to boost the edit count by doing this. --Aetas volat. (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. You probably cannot find the respective rule, since it does not exist ;) I merely scan over the articles, finding bits and pieces, which I then improve or change. In most cases I do not "plan" my edits before I make them. Especially when I am just in the process of reordering articles and/or their illustration, which may turn out a rather lengthy task in the case of huge pages like "History of Germany". Just have a look at my other contributions, e.g. German-Japanese relations. I'd say you'll notice a similar behaviour, but the final outcome is acceptable nonetheless (I've brought the article from a near stub to a "good" one). Everybody has his own way of contributing. I realize that a flood of tiny edits might get annoying to some other users, though, and I'll try to limit that ;) --Gliese876 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

History of Germany[edit]

Hi Gliese876 -- Thank you for adding the picture to the Nazi Germany section of that article. I have simply noticed that the previous picture was inappropriate, but was not in the mood to search for a replacement. I commented it out in order to give others the opportunity to see what kind of picture had been in the article before (i.e. that it showed the territory under German control, not some other content like portraits etc.).  Cs32en Talk to me  23:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


In 2008 you uploaded to Wiki Commons a map of Earth during the Jurrasic Period made by Ron Blakey from the Colorado Plateau Geosystems website. I talked with Ron Blakey and he's upset that people are exploiting his maps commercially. I don't think you informed him that Wiki Commons' CCA license permits commercial use (provided that credit is given). You should have uploaded this map to Wikipedia, which supports more restricted licenses.Kurzon (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Should the pictures be moved then? Even if some "damage" has already been done, it's better than nothing. I cannot recall every detail of my correspondence with Ron Blakey in 2008, but perhaps I haven't sufficiently informed him. Anyhow, he saw the license himself before giving his OK, so apparently he hasn't really read thru it himself :p Although it aches my heart making the maps unavailable for the German and the other Wikipedias, we should have them moved to the English one, if that is in Ron Blakey's interest. --Gliese876 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Do not worry, I have uploaded the maps to Wikipedia, with the explicit statement that they are available only for non-commercial use:

File:Earth150Mya.jpg File:Earth430Mya.jpg File:Earth90Mya.jpg File:Earth300Mya.jpg File:Earth260Mya.jpg File:Earth220Mya.jpg File:Earth35Mya.jpg File:Earth500Mya.jpg

You can use these on the German Wikipedia, there is no problem now.Kurzon (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference missing[edit]

Hi, I really don't know what to say, in the situation, I personally prefer saying nothing that putting info that might appeared to be wrong. Because, if it appears to be the case, some would be to glad to call you a lier, even though you are full of good intention. After discussing with you I know that you are very implicate in the article, and I trust you for your action, but never underestimate the power of nuisance from some contributors,maybe it would be wiser to wait few days in order to find the proper sources. The article has not a dead line to respect.--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New map[edit]

Grüzie, Félicitation so pour ta nouvelle carte, par contre, tu dois choisir entre le jaune et l'orange. A savoir, le choix entre les régions ou l'allemand est parlé, ou les régions où l'allemand est langue co officielle. Tu ne peux pas mettre les deux, la Flandre, le bas et Valais central, le Jura bernois, ou bien encore les régions de Poschiavo, ne parlent pas le ditsch. Et pour l'Alsace et la Moselle, dans la mesure ou le bleu haché ne concerne que cette region, se serait mieux si tu remplace dans la légende le terme Allemand par dialecte ou alémanique. On parle l'alsacien et le platt, et c'est pas super bien vu de faire les amalgame, car ça donne une impression que les dialectes ne sont pas des langues à part entière. Et je sais que tu ne partage pas ce point de vue. Sinon bon travail selon moi. Bravo, tzüper comme on dit.--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Der Grund weshalb ich die gesamten Kantone Wallis, Bern und Jura farblich markiert habe, ist, dass diese Kantone offiziell bilingual sind. So spricht man im Westen des Wallis kein Deutsch, aber man befindet sich immernoch in einem zweisprachigen Kanton. Ebenso sollte man spezifische merhsprachige Kantone auf einer Karte zur französischen, italienischen, oder romanschen Sprache entsprechend komplett markieren. Für Belgien ist es das Gleiche - Ich habe extra die belgische Verfassung gelesen. Dort steht, dass Deutsch eine "offizielle Sprache des gesamten belgischen Staates" ist. Das heißt nicht Verkehrssprache und Verwaltungssprache, aber man kann z.B. in Ostende seine Heiratsurkunde oder seinen Führerschein in deutscher Sprache erhalten (so stand es im Gesetzestext). Für mich war das ausreichend gesamt Belgien farblich zu markieren. Die Einordnung der elsässichen und lothringischen Sprachen als deutsche Dialekte/Varietäten habe ich auf Ammon (2014) basiert. Seiner Definition nach, ist Luxemburgisch auch eine eigene Sprache. Meine persönliche Meinung ist nicht wichtig :) Ethnologue ordnet Elsässisch als Variation des Schweizerdeutschen ein oO
Á propos: Il nous faut le traduction francais (propre; pas mon francais) pour la description de la carte! Alors, si tu peux pas comprend ma réponse, je peux répèter celle-là en anglais ;) --37ophiuchi (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On s'est mal compris, je ne dis pas que ce que tu as marqié est faux, mais juste qu'il faut choisir entre les deux couleurs, sinon il y a confusion. Ou tu colorie par exemple tout le Valais en orange, ou tu ne met que la zone ou l'on parle l'allemand. Pareil pour la Belgique par exemple. Sinon voici la traduction que tu veux. Je n'arrive pas a la mettre dans la légende sans faire disparaitre les autres longues, il doit y avoir une parenthèse qui manque. Bref voici le texte en français:(French)--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Watch your image, my translation makes the others disappear, and I can't figure out why. Nothing has been deleted. Tschüss--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Das scheint ein Bug bei Wiki-Commons zu sein. Ich habe die ukrainische Beschreibung auskommentiert, solange der Bug nicht behoben ist. Jetzt werden Englisch, Deutsch und Französisch angezeigt. Zur farblichen Markierung: Ich hab die Definition für Orange verfeinert. Ist das so besser? --37ophiuchi (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oui c'est dommage que l'ukrainien ai disparu.--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I commented it out on purpose, so that english, french and german are visible. If you have the description in more than three languages, all but one disappear. It is a bug. So, does the color-definition of orange as opposed to red(ish) make more sense now? --37ophiuchi (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, it is a nice map indeed. Just keep in mind that the map that you used for Alsace is based on a linguistic map dating from 1880, and does not reflect the reality of the present day area of the dialect use. Otherwise, as far as I remember, the western part of Tchéquie has a German speaking presence. , Anyway it is nice to see new map coming up and refreshing Wikipedia articles. --Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I specifically looked for demographic data on the Czech Republic, but could not find anything indicating a geographic concentration of German-speakers, none worth mentioning anyways. The German-speaking minority in CZ is very dispersed, and those few town with more than 10% are too small to be drawn in the map. Alsatian/Lorraine dialects: I could not find a more modern map, and after I saw the more recent map of "dialectophone" Moselle is basically the same as historic ethnic maps of the area, I went ahead and simply assumed the same for the Elsass. I'd be grateful if you could refer me to a more modern map, but I think the regional government does not have language statistics as a function of municipalities. Btw, can you have a look at my proposed update of the infobox of German language? I linked it at the end of the speakers number discussion on the talk page. --37ophiuchi (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The changes are ok for me, but I can't tell you if it's completely accurate since I don't have the sources. For the stats they are indeed forbidden in France. It is illegal to make any census based on religion, sexual orientation, etc.. For the map of Moselle, it is also a map that has been copied from the linguistic border of the 19th century, and with the recent decision of the Saar lander to establish French as the second official language of the state, the situation is now reversed[3],[4]. As far as I remember in Alsace, 3% of the population between 3 to 25 years old have a knowledge of Alsacien or German and speak it at home. It was from a survey for the Alsace linguistic study of 2001. The number dropped after WWI and the humiliations and threats that the Germans made against the population of Alsace Affaire de Saverne, and more consequently after 1945, and the forced de facto annexion, where the people were sent to the german war agains't their will, Malgres nous. There is also numerous incident during this time like La main noire, this is just few example, you might already know them, but if not, it is interesting to have a look at those articles in order to have another point of view. All those numerous example illustrate the distance that we wanted to keep with our neighbours from the other side of the Rhine. You might know as well the episode of the deputes protestataires, when all the Alsatian and moselan deputies protested against their annexion to the german empire. Those episodes are not well known outside of France. 1871 is a sad date for the local dialects in France, because some analysts at the time thought that one of the reason of the defeat, was because the French soldiers did not anderstand the orders since all of them were speaking their own local dialect. After that, the third Republic with Jules Ferry forbade the use of dialect and thought French only at schools. Furthermore the view of pangermanism stating that because you speak a German dialect, you are German has been a terrible equation that pushed many locators away from their dialect, and many countries (especially Poland and Tchequie), took drastic measures against the German language. Anyway to get back to your map, I think it is good as it is, you could never create a perfect map, and this one is well done. The info box is alright as well. You did a good job to refresh the article.--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your insight, some of these things I knew, some I did not. I can see that it is a somewhat emotional topic for you. If you asked me, in 1871/1918/1945, Elsass-Lothringen should have become an independent country, with a multilingual landscape like Luxembourg and housing the "capital" of Europe (not just one of the seats of its parliament). Just my personal opinion ;) I read about Saarland's ambition to become "bilingual" around the year 2045 (no politician actually ever elaborated on the exact legal status of French within that plan. Theoretically, however, Bundesländer can introduce second official languages.): It was proposed by the current Minister President of Saarland, who, oddly enough, is a conservative^^ While I think bilingualism in a border region is a smart thing to do in any case, her plans have met limited support. In fact the French proficiency in Saarland is probably as good as the German skills in Moselle :D 30 years are a long time, and a lot can change. Perhaps Saarland and Moselle unite to become a bi/tri-lingual region :) Dreaming... IF the Saarland-plans are really being executed, one can only hope that this will be a role model for Moselle and Alsace. André Weckmann himself said that the regions on BOTH sides of the border should be bilingual Right now I cannot see any reciprocity on the French side :( Anyways... A lot of damage has been done, but the world, and especially Europa, have changed (for the better). While a lot of damage to the German language and its status in Europa/the world is irreversible, the past decades, especially after reunification, brought positive momentum to the language situation in Europe in general. It is ironic: The fall of the Iron Curtain cause most of those German-speakers still in east Europe to emmigrate to Germany/Austria, but also enabled a new era of support and appreciation for the heritage of those Schlesier, Siebenbürger Sachsen, Donauschwaben etc. etc. Now that so few are left in these areas, their language and culture is cherished (e.g., Romania) and received firm legal statuses. In the past decade, Brazil created a legal basis for German in some of its states/cities, and even in Russia steps where taken to give the Russlanddeutsche (only few of which still speak German as mother tongue) a legal framework by creating two "German National Districts" (comparable to those that existed before WWII in the Soviet Union, albeit much smaller). These examples do not indicate that German is on the rise to become an intercontinental lingua franca, BUT they clearly show that the perception of the German/Austrian language and culture has drastically changed for the better in the recent decades. German learners in the world have been decreasing in the 90s, but slightly increasing again lately. In general, one can say that the numbers stayed more or less stable for ~30 years (~17 million +/- 3). All in all, a thorough investigation of the situation right now and the development over the past few decades seems to draw a cautiously positive outlook, in contrast to WWII and the first few decades after it, in which German language/culture was internationally ostracized (a fate the Germans themselves brought upon them). However, the very fact that, after 70 years, talking about the German language still inevitably ends up in talking about WWII, is proof, that this will be an integral part of the image for at least another 70-100 years (which might not be a bad thing, I am not sure). --37ophiuchi (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
probably, but one thing that is shared by all French is that the region of Alsace is a French symbol of plurality, we see the state not on linguistic or ethnic ground, but rather on a will to built together a common future. It is indeed a sensitive issue, and we are very very attached to the region. If you say to an Asatian that he should be part of an independent country, you will be badly welcomed. The Germans tried to make Alsace an independent state after they had to surrender the territory to France in1918, but it failed. Believe it or not, we are happy the way we are, and we don't want to belong to another country. As for French language according to the last surveys it will count more thant 750 millions of locators in 20 years around the world. But one thing is for sure, we are French and proud of it, and it is not because we speak a dialect that we should be in a independent state. That would be the dream of the Germans, but not our. A motto in Alsace says, that you would never find a more truer French than in Alsace. The thing that is hard is to always have to justify our French citizenship to people that don't know our history. We are and you know it, part of modern France since 1648-1688, and it is something that has always been a source of contentment and pride. In 1918 when Clemenceau and the French president visited Alsace, the population welcomed them like Heros (they are still original films taken during this period). Otherwise on the birth rate evolution, in 15 to 20 years french will count appromatly 80 millions. I think that our conversations has been fruitful and now you know, that we don't want to be part of any German states, nor leave the French Republic. The best 14th July celebration are most of the time celebrated in our region. I know that what you suggeste the independent country you don't think bad, but it is an idea than can be very badly welcome by my Alsatians fellows, or even create hostility, don't forget that during 1871-and-1940, we never asked to be German contrary to 1918 were we welcomed the come back of the French. In 1915 when the French entered in Mulhouse for few day and the the population celebrated their arrival, after the retreat, the Germans punished the population and killed many innocents. They're only "fault" was to have cheered the French soldiers. A woman that gave a bunch of flowers to one of the soldier, has been shot to death in retaliation the next day of the German counterattack. In 1871 the major part of Strosburí was bombarded and destroyed by the Prussian. They forced us to be part of their reich agains't our will, and we protested for years in the reichstag. In a nutshell we are French, happy with it, and we don't want anything else. If the European contruction can bring peace and stability, this is great, but we want to stay who we are, in a country that we love (certainly as much as you love yours)--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope you can leave the past behind and look to the present and future one day. That doesn't mean one should forget history. But why are you citing future numbers of French speakers. I am saddened by the fact, that an educated person like you still sees it as a quantitative competition - who has more locateurs, who is the bigger language/cultural sphere of influence, who can dominate whom. I hope it is possible to put aside that confrontational attitude. As I said, I have many French friends, and I do consider the French-German (see, I put French BEFORE German. It doesn't hurt! :D ) alliance one of the biggest miracles of history. Actually "miracle" is the wrong word. Miracles are inexplicable, but the French-German alliance is very well explainable. It was the hard work AND courage by many people after the last war, to forgive, to trust, work together and NOT let the past destroy the future. I think that, seeing how closely and synergetically Berlin and Paris work together nowadays, how tight the alliance between both countries has become in terms being the driving force behind Europe, de Gaulle and Schumann would be content... to say the least. That centuries-old bickering about who has the bigger army, language, culture, area, wealth, influence... you name it... that is how people act who still think in the ways of the 19th century, in the ways of "arch enemies", competitors, at best as distrustful neighbors. --37ophiuchi (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it.. You were talking about the evolution and the revival of the german language with % and number, and there is nothing wrong by adding a fact regarding the French one, especially that I don't make any comparison nor using it to depreciate German. I don't participate to the French article, and personnaly, I think that if there is someone that has issue with the German language it is you, and your obsession to find even the smallest community to put it in this article. As I said earlier, putting Slovakia in the infobox because 20% of a total of less than 400 people total in two villages are allowed to speak in German during a municipality meeting is motivated. Talking about deutschrussland district, using maps from 1888 to define linguistic borders is motivated. I'm saddened by your comments suggesting that I try to depreciate, or try to confront two nations. I NEVER spoke about sphere of influence, culture, wealth, army, and so on. I brought to light links on Wikipedia articles that you did not know about. As all articles they are expressing facts about historical events. Unless that evolution bothers you. The one that would be upset is me with your suggestion that we should not be part of France. It looks like you are uncomfortable with us being French and happy of it. Anyway I leave you to it, and I don't want to carry on this type of conversation Good day to you.--Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Man, our communication is characterized by so many misunderstandings... on both sides. I meant nothing the way you interpreted it, and you probably meant little they way I interpreted it^^ Let's just call it a day for now :p (and as I said, I'd be grateful for any more recent data on the actual geographic distribution on Alsatian/Moselle speakers). --37ophiuchi (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

German language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alsatian
List of territorial entities where German is an official language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alsatian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sprecherzahlen Deutsch[edit]

Hallo 37ophiuchi,
erstmal danke für deinen unermüdlichen Einsatz im Artikel! Leider gibt es einige Nutzer, denen (pro-Englisch bzw. anti-alles-andere) Agenden wichtiger sind als Fakten, sodass Kwamikagami schon wieder nen Edit-Krieg vom Zaun gebrochen hat. Eigentlich wollte ich dir bloß weiterhin wünschen, dass dir der Spaß hier nicht vergeht angesichts der Windmühlen, gegen die du hier aufrichtig ankämpfen musst. Auch dein Beitrag zum Thema auf der Diskussionsseite im engl. Artikel ist beeindruckend - und vor allem beeindruckend konsistent. Schon hart, was mancher anderer Nutzer (Gabriel Haute Maurienne ist leider auch so ein Totalausfall) dann doch wieder alles abändert...
Gruß, (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dann hilf mir bitte mal und beteilige dich an der Diskussion auf der Talk page. --37ophiuchi (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

German language[edit]

Hi, my given source does clearly say "native speakers" as 105 million, and a total of 185 millions. There are two colums, one says: native speakers, doesn't it?!? – BTW: Why do you fall in my back, instead of providing backup? I'am puzzeled! -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole back-and-forth battling about speaker numbers and legal statuses of languages often is a highly emotional and thus unscientifically discussed topic... Therefore, I try to settle the matter with most concise and clear sources. Where do Statista's speakers numbers come from? The term "native language" is poorly defined. While most source equate it with mother tongue speakers (L1), some also include L2 speakers. Statista appears to be inconsistent. For Hindi, it certainly seems to be doing the latter. For French it appears to be the former. So I do not know how to evaluate the number for German speakers. And what are the "total speakers". 185M for German... does that imply 80M foreign speakers OR 80M foreign+L2 speakers? As the infobox clearly differentiates between the three categories, sources that do not do so, are not really helpful here. Furthermore ~105M is about the combined L1+L2 speaker number estimated by other authors, e.g., Ammon (2014). --37ophiuchi (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

German language[edit]

Hi, please note that Low German is an official language in Germany and in the Netherlands. It is also classified with English and not with German. Therefore it would rather be a dialect of English than of German. And Luxembourgish is more similar to German than Low German. Dennis9393 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There are sources claiming both Luxemburgish as well as Low German to be dialects of German and separate languages. Both cases are disputed; I've also attached source references for the case of Low German/Plattdeutsch. Being an official or minority "language" has no implications for a linguistic assessment. A separate, unified regulatory body, on the other hand can have an impact, as it is the case for Luxemburgish, but not Plattdeutsch. Personally, I would agree with you and I think it is fair to say both a are separate languages from German. But that's just a personal opinion. I say it is not necessary to include disputed examples of similar languages, as long as we have enough alternatives (there are already enough similar languages mentioned in the introduction paragraph). --37ophiuchi (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of territorial entities where German is an official language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Italian language may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Foreign languages in the United States[edit]

I've copyedited your added paragraph about foreign-language education in the U.S. for proper grammar and style. I also removed your tendentious judgment about American versus European students. As an American who studied four languages, I note that you didn't highlight more important factors besides "popularity" of language study in the U.S. and the skills of American students. In much of Europe, foreign languages are compulsory (English is often even a required subject). Not so in the U.S., where many states have no foreign-language requirements at all; many prestigious universities do not as well. Please beware of inserting your own opinion about a subject you know rather little about. Moreover, it has no place in the main article "United States".Mason.Jones (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Granted, I might not have been 100% neutral, but in general I was merely attempting to reference multiple articles (the one on being just one of many examples) which talk about the lack of foreign language proficiency in the US. That is a fact for which the meager language offers by schools and universities are the main cause. The 18% number should go into the paragraph, but maybe you can find a more encyclopedic wording. --37ophiuchi (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now restored that stat and source under Language, "United States".Mason.Jones (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I adjusted the wording to make it even MORE neutral (the 18% has little meaning without the comparison to the much larger 53% in the EU) and adapted the language listing according to the combined K-12/universities learner numbers (as is done for Spanish/French/German). --37ophiuchi (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to compare the US (national language English, widely recognized as the international language) with the EU (where English is compulsory in schools for almost everyone). But OK -- the current text is at least neutral. Question: For the EU, the latest wording "two or more languages" is a bit heavy, as this includes one's mother tongue. More parallel language might be: "their native language and at least one other language." Someone might change that in future (not me though).Mason.Jones (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)