User talk:Rex Germanus/archive3

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

linguistic map of Dutch languages/dialects[edit]

Hi Rex Germanus,

this map as one and the same coloured area for East Flemish and Brabantian. This is contradicting articles.

Kind regards, Sarcelles 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the maps.I hope you 're satisfied.

[Image:Nedersakisch.PNG]
[Image:BRABANTS.PNG]
[Image:HOLLANDS2.PNG]
[Image:LIMBURGS2.PNG]
[Image:ZUIDGELDERS2.PNG]
[Image:DUTCHDIALECTSMAP.PNG]
[Image:ZEEUWSWESTOOSTVLAAMS.PNG]

Rex 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex Germanus,

there remains the question whether parts of Germany should be included. These are included in both Limburgish language and Zuid-Gelders articles. Either should Germany included on both the maps and the articles or in neither one.

Kind regards, Sarcelles 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean.I don't think parts of Germany should be included, not on the modern maps at least. Rex 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Rex 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex,

the problem is however that there are - at least in this Wikipedia - no names for the varieties in Germany. Kind regards, Sarcelles 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tussenvoegsel[edit]

Nice. :) That one needed badly to be translated. ¦ Reisio 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd expected there was an accurate translation for "tussenvoegsel", but there just wasn't ;)

Rex 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stroring image[edit]

History of XXX[edit]

Please don't revert moves like that of history of Dutch again. There are many other language histories that are don't use the overly long format and it's completely unneccessary since there is nothing that "history of <language name>" can be confused with since <language name> refers to a noun, not an andjective. Articles are called "XXX language" only to disambiguate them from "XXX people". That's why articles like Hindi, Urdu, Esperanto, Latin and Inuktitut don't use the "language"-disambiguator.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC) THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!![reply]

Every language history, and every language page uses "XXX language" you made a move, not discussed in anyway, which I reverted. Rex 10:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, every language article isn't named "XXX language", see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Structure. You're welcome to join the thread that I started concerning this.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:LIMBURGS2.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LIMBURGS2.PNG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Frankish Empire[edit]

I've temporarily blocked you from editing wikipedia. This is your third block for violating the three-revert rule. Please do not edit by reverting; work toward consensus on the talk page. This block is for 31 hours; if further blocks are neccessary they will likely be longer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (VRT) Article[edit]

I see that you've changed "Flemish" to "Dutch" and "Walloon Language" to "French". I think that change is wrong. BRT is a Belgian organisation, so Flemish and Walloon are the correct terms. Comments here please... Unsigned comment by User: John259

The VRT broadcasts in Dutch, not Flemish, and there is no tv stations that broadcast in walloon either. Rex 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!![reply]

WP:CIVIL[edit]

Please remember to be civil in edit summaries as well as on talk pages: edit summaries like "none of the states save France and Germany" what the *@#$! does that mean?! and get me out of this? You get yourself into pointless arguments time and again.If you cant take it just bugger off don't appear to be very civil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I lose my temper, especially in pointless discussions and/or when I have the feeling people are just (excuse me for the choice of words) fucking with me.

Rex 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch fight against water[edit]

I've just seen your comment left for me regarding the talk page for the above-mentioned article. You must know very little about IP addresses if you can imagine that User:66.56.217.48 and User:81.159.253.188 could possibly be the same individual. I noticed that you had removed perfectly legitimate comments by another user which did not constitute personal attack or any other breach of Wikiquette sufficient to justify deleting comments you happen not to agree with, and felt I needed to point out your error. I know however that you are someone with a particularly foul and often irrational temper, and since this is hardly an issue which I'm inclined to lose much sleep over, I'm content to leave it at that, apart from saying that you might like to check out the definition of slander. Best wishes and all that. 86.135.110.128 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977[edit]

BTW, you have way way violated the 3RR rule and I have duly reported you. Str1977 (smile back) 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful yourself[edit]

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!! Those Merovingian "See also" sections are superfluous and ugly, so I'm removing them. I am opposed to your attempts to put a certain (less than significant) modern nation (the Netherlands) into every article related to the region on which that nation sits today. Srnec 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Srnec. Your edit to Frankish Empire is a clear case of WP:POINT, and your insistence on adding History of the Netherlands to articles on Frankish kingsblindly is ridiculous. What does Chilperic of Aquitaine have to do with the Netherlands ? I have removed all national history articles from the See also section of the relevant articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Netherlands "less than significant", says everthing about your obvious bias doesn't it Srnec? I find it very strange those "See also"-sections became "superfluous and ugly" when a link to the history of the Netherlands was added. You didn't seem to have a problem with them before ... care to explain?!

My edit to the Frankish Empire was a fair one,and let me say this: I will not tolerate one case of "Germany + France = Western Europe" as long as I'm active on wikipedia.

Rex 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" sections have long been superfluous and ugly, that's why I removed them from the articles Clovis I and Childebert I before you ever touched them. I was planning all along to remove them from all Meroving kings. You can check edit histories to verify this.

I have no anti-Netherlands bias, nor a pro-French or German one. I only see historical fact and you see what you want to see. The Netherlands arose out of Germany (w/i the Holy Roman Empire) at a much later date than the breakup of the Carolingian realm (see Talk:Frankish Empire. I called the Netherlands "less than significant" because it only arose in the sixteenth century as a separate nation and therefore is much younger than either France or Germany and has only had a significant part to play in European or global affairs intermittently, unlike France or Germany. Nobody has claimed that "Germany + France = Western Europe," but who made you dictator of Wikipedia, able to nip contrary opinion in the bud? Srnec 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see historical facts you probably want to check the date of german nation hood, You'll find it to be several centuries AFTER the Dutch nation hood.

The Netherlands did not appear out of nothing, and denying its role in world and European history is ridiculous.Maybe you should check Military history of the Netherlands.

Rex 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read my arguments before responding. See Talk:Frankish Empire. I never claimed that the Netherlands were born out of nothing nor did I deny their role in European and world history. Germany predates 1871, see Talk:Charlemagne. Srnec 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should my respondes before making assumptions. When did I claim you said the Netherlands were made from nothing?!

Rex 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that "The Netherlands did not appear out of nothing." If not referring to me, why bring it up? That's intellectual sloppiness or worse. Srnec 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC) THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!![reply]

No, that's a fact. Don't tell me you've never seen one before?

Rex 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why state a fact I never disputed? Again, sloppiness or worse. Srnec 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that fact to reinforce the view that the Netherlands aren't some break away state from France or "Germany".

Rex 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is. Quoted from Seventeen Provinces:

The Seventeen Provinces originated from the Burgundian Netherlands, that were inherited by Maximilian I of Habsburg in 1482. His grandson and successor Charles V united all 17 provinces under his rule, the last one being Guelders, in 1543. Most of these provinces were fiefs under the Holy Roman Empire, of which Charles himself became Emperor. Two, Flanders and Artois, were French fiefs. The French king and the Holy Roman Emperor agreed to release all seventeen from the largely nominal, and by then anachronistic, ties to both realms. This was called the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.

Note that the Holy Roman Empire was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation at this time. Srnec 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My god you're unbelievable? How many times do I have to tell you? The Holy Roman Empire isn't Germany!

From the article itself:

This page is about the Germanic empire. For the ancient empire centred on Rome, see Roman Empire.

The constituent principles of the Reich (Empire) as a political entity derived from medieval Christian thought rather than modern conceptions of the nation state. Furthermore, both the territory and internal cohesion of the Reich varied over the course of its existence. One way in which the Reich can be described is as a cross between a state and a religious confederation.

Most of the Empire's rulers and subjects were Germans. All of the Emperors were staunch Catholics. However, many of its most important noble families and appointed officials came from outside the German-speaking communities. At the height of the empire it contained most of the territory of today's Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Slovenia, as well as eastern France, northern and part of central Italy, western Poland and western Croatia. Its languages thus comprised not only German and its many dialects and derivatives, but many Slavic languages and the languages which became modern French, Dutch and Italian.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Its division into territories ruled by numerous secular and ecclesiastical princes, prelates, counts, imperial knights, and free cities made it, in the early modern period at least, far less cohesive than the emerging modern states around it.

For most of its existence, the Holy Roman Empire was more akin to a confederation of sovereign states than a state in and of itself.

Rex 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's unbelievable? All you quote is irrelevant. The fact is that Germany predates 1871, indeed began in 843 and this I have supported with more detailed arguments before (see Talk:Charlemagne). I will not continue this absurdity any longer, I have never, not even once, equated Germany with the Holy Roman Empire'. Srnec 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany does indeed not predate 1871. What does predate it are the Germans and their culture.Germany doesn't. "I will not continue this absurdity any longer" Great, if you will stop your absurdity I don't have to respond to your absurdity anymore. Rex 08:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne[edit]

Greetings,

I would suggest that you do not try to appropriate an article for yourself ; in the case of Charlemagne, it seems to so happen that a majority of users think that mentionning France and Germany is not innappropriate. If you have issues with this, I suggest that you use the talk page to draft a wording that would satisfy everybody.

In any case, taunting your fellow users is neither appropriate nor constructive.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. Rama 11:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point, I have no problem with mentioning France and Germany, I object to the fact that they are solely mentioned. Rex 11:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the situation is based on the history of the article [1], where I see you reverting no less than 5 other users in the last week. I am not the only one who would appreciate if you could adopt another mode of discussion. Rama 11:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I suggest that you read WP:POINT. Rama 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you or 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Please try to use them to re-think the issue, particularly your interactions with fellow users. Thank you. Rama 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France + Germany =/= Europe[edit]

With the exception of Italy, all of the Carolingian Empire was part of East or West Francia at the time of the Treaty of Mersen in 870. Burgundy separated itself eventually. Thus, there's only four kingdoms which grew out of the Carolingian Empire. Three of them remained united in the Empire (East Francia, Italy, Burgundy). East Francia is called Germany and West Francia is called France after the end of the Carolingians. Let's try to illustrate how certain nations, like the Netherlands or Andorra or the Czech Republic, can be excluded from the direct Carolingian inheritance:

The Netherlands became independent only through the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, when they were separated from France and Germany (or the Empire, since the two had been de facto politically merged at this time and some of the Low Countries owed allegiance only to the emperor directly). Before this, they were not independent and cannot be considered as "equals" of France or Germany. Both of which were sovereign kingdoms/nations.
Andorra remained part of France legally until a treaty of 1278 put it under the joint-suzerainty of the bishop of Urgel and the count of Foix, who was a French vassal. It was really still a "part" of "France" until its sovereignty became shared between the king of France and the bishop in 1607. Either way, it was not an independent nation until at least the High Middle Ages, but more probably the modern era.
The Czech Republic is really one half of the old Czechoslovakia, which was new. It did however attempt to ressurect (as the German Empire did) a previous kingdom: that of Bohemia (which included Moravia). Bohemia became an imperial fief early on, but after the Treaty of Mersen. It became a kingdom, the equal of Germany within the empire, only at a later date, but most of its territory was never an integral part of Charlemagne's empire. Srnec 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really on the brink of crying here.Believe me, if there is one country or region in Europe today that can claim Frankish heritage it's the Netherlands, also as in low countries.

But there is one important thing you forget. You think too big.Because please explain to me why a fief around Brandenburg, has more "frankish foundations" than an area in the low countries, where Charlemagne was born?

Rex 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking about mere Frankish heritage. Of course the Netherlands have Frankish heritage. We're talking about the formation of states and the Netherlands, as a state, have less direct connection with any Frankish state. You make the error of thinking that "Netherlands = area in the Low Countries", but one is a modern state and the other is a geographical expression. The Netherlands cover an area in the Low Countries, but they are more than that and not the same thing. Try to make this distinction between geography and history. Srnec 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing history and geography, I suggest you read a bit on the Low Countries.If we are talking about the formation of states I only see the formation of East, West and Middle Francia. What do you see? Rex 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Middle Francia being divided and parcelled out between East and West Francia and never really reemerging. Srnec 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to see a West and East Francië today? Rex 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of West Francia changed to France over time and East Francia was united politically to the Holy Roman Empire (in the fifteenth/sixteenth century) and then dismantled in 1806 only to be resurrected in 1871, dismantled again in 1945, and resurrected again in 1990 as Germany. Both nations have lost some territories and gained others and gone through political revolutions: but the territories were lost from something and the revolutionaries tried to change something. It is that something which is the nation of which we speak (France or Germany, West or East Francia). Srnec 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006[edit]

The July 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. THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!