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)

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)

Nemi ships

What Do you mean with Nazi German Army ???? The correct name is "Deutsche Wehrmacht" or German Wehrmacht!Even the Allies did not regard the "Wehrmacht" as a National Socialist organization!This whole article seems very biased and Anti-German! It is meanwhile a tradition to blame the Germans for everything happened in WW2. There is no evidence that the Germans have done it! If the Italians maintain, the Germans had the act committed, then they have to bring the evidences: Which german military unit put the fire. Who is responsible for this instruction. What was the name of the commander of this unit. Where are relevant witnesses for it? Otherwise it is only "hearsay"!! In our juridical system the plaintiff has to prove the debt of the accused and not the accused its innocence. "In dubio pro reo" as the Romans said! Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. And last but not least, why should the Germans burn down the ships? These ships where a prestige object of her "friend" Mussolini. The recovery of the ships was a large propaganda success for the Duce and its fascistic state. He used them to link Italia under his rule with the Roman Empire, and himself as a Successor of the Roman emperors. Therefore it would be more logically to assume, that these ships were set on fire(as a symbol of the hatred Neo Roman-fascistic Ideology) by the Italian Communist Resistance or by accident. Ask yourself why the Italian Goverment after the war never demanded a compensation for this so-called warcrime from Germany! So would like to see your evidence that proofs unquestionably the german debt!!!!

Regards Christos Chanos

It's all in the article. I suggest you read before you make comments like these. Also, defending nazis does not make you very respectable in my eyes.Rex 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article and there is no reliable source for your claim. But maybe i should trust you. The Dutchs have a lot of experience in commiting warcrimes*(Indonesian War of Independence) and not to forget the exploitation,slavery and torture of the native people in your former colonies. Oh and the Buuren in SA with her rascistic Apartheid! Arent they from dutch descent? Seems to me that the dutch have a lot in common with their german "Blutsbrüder"(bin ik van duytse blood)

It is really a shame to see that these "heroic" Dutch LIBERATED by the Allies, killed innocent Indonesian people because of their demand for freedom! And all this happened AFTER WW2!!! And today the Dutchs still complaining about the german occupation? They can thank god that the Germans doesnt treated them in the same way like they have treated(see below)the Indonesians. The Dutch tasted only a small dose of her own medicine! But for an hypocrite it is easier to blame the sins of others instead of dealing with his own sins...

• Estimates of Indonesian deaths in fighting range from 45,000 to 100,000 and civilian casualties exceeded 25,000 and may have been as high as 100,000. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.(Source Wikipedia)

Well it's a pity you find the sources unreliable. But hey, not all books were written by Hitler, so you must have that alot. I don't know if it's common in Germany to prove a lack of sources by referencing to the opposing editor's country's (war)crimes, but it isn't done on wikipedia. It just would be fair to German editors like yourself. They would lose every single discussion. Learn to discus like a regular human being or consider yourself banned from my talkpage.Rex 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The user chose to continue his/her nazi rant. He/She may consider her/himself banned until further notice.Rex 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The 2 comments you deleted were made by me and another editor. Calling people nazis when you don't paticularily like something is terrible. Kingjeff 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If they try to revision history it's fair. Sad you don 't understand.Rex 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments have nothing to do about revisionist history. Kingjeff 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I hereby conclude you're an illiterate. Rex 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this all you have to say? Kingjeff 04:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What else is there to say? If you refuse to see/accepts what's there then there isn't much I can do for you. Rex 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Troubled

Hi. I'm The goings-on on this talk page were recently brought to my attention, and I find them deeply troubling. (I also find Cheiron's apparently tangential ruminations on the history of the Dutch troubling as well, so don't think this is just focusing on you, admittedly.)

Could you explain to me how this is a Nazi rant or revisionist history? I have difficulty immediately seeing the problems in this edit, which you reverted as a "Nazi rant". I'm also curious how you figure you're banning anyone.

I admit ignorance of this specific dispute (I understand there's a general dispute over how and when to use "Nazi" when referring to WWII Germany), but I am troubled by your conduct here. I would appreciate some sort of explanation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the matters on the talkpage that are troubling, it's the individual posting. I do not like it when people come to this talkpage and make ridiculous statements/accusations. There is an article, and I found sources that say Germans burned those ships, if he thinks that's not true then he should come up with sources that say so, not offend my herritage for some reason. He is a textbook post war revisionist German. He probably believes his grandparents, who "never did a thing" and never met anyone (apart from the few on tv) who admitted they had an active part in WW2. He thinks Germany was held hostage by nazis, and that all but a few were good people. I'm not here to burst that bubble, I'm here to make sure he doesn't gets ideas like that on wikipedia. I banned him from my talkpage, very simple, I'll remove his comments if he continues to post here, and if neccesary request admins to block his acces to this page. Simple. Rex 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm an admin, and I'm here to tell you that not only would I not enable you to remove good-faith comments, but I'd sanction you for doing so. Fair warning.

I notice you didn't answer my question. How is the diff I linked a revisionist rant? It can become very easy to ignore good points because they're spoken by someone who annoys you. In this case, while Nazi Germany should certainly be Nazi Germany (or Third Reich, I guess, definitely not "Deusches Reich year to year"), it is typical to refer to Nazi Germany's military as the Wehrmacht, even in modern English-language contexts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, "...I’d sanction you"? For removing a comment on ones usertalk? Ah okay, that’s an effective way to encourage Rex to communicate. Some helpful block rationale suggestions: "its convention to block people for that" or "Policy says you cant remove a comment" or "you cant have your own talkpage rules" or "I wanna share the experience with others". I’m slightly "troubled" with that particular part of your communication here as well. --Van helsing 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it in quite those term, but I agree that removing comments from your own talk page is not a blockable offense. However, labeling people ("You are a [blank] so I won't listen to you any more") is uncivil and not a good way to discuss an issue. It would be better to either discuss the content only, or to ignore the person, than to dismiss them with perjorative labels.

Getting back to AMiB's original question, I would suggest that for a person with Rex's world view, someone who pops up [6] to object to the term "Nazi army" but not "German army," who denies that the German army could have done something without citing the specific unit and commander who gave the order, and who believes that the deed was done by Italian communists (on the basis of no sources whatsover) instead of the retreating German army (on the basis of valid but poor sources) sounds very much like someone who is specifically interested in a version of German history that denies or minimizes responsibility for a lot of things that you or I might take for granted. Of course, it would be far better to simply remove the comment with a neutral edit summary like "Removed after reading" than to apply a perjorative label. Thatcher131 10:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me get it straight here, I was always under the impression that it's allowed to remove comments from your talkpage, do tell me if this is not the case. Rex 11:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, AMib, if you believe that those were Good faith comments then I propose you read them again. Because if thats good faith ....Rex 11:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An ANI report

Hi Rex. Just to let you know that an ANI discussion concerning you has started. Please have a look at it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied. Rex 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:History of German

Template:History of German 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. 52 Pickup 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure go ahead. I made that as a test version, which later got implemented in the original. I don't think it was ever used.Rex 15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges as noted here at the ANI. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:48, 10 July 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:

The reason is totally unclear. If I understand this admin correctly I've just been blocked for 2 weeks (?!) because(s) he feels I was wrong in calling a user, who admits having a wrong editing attitude, a vandal?

Decline reason:

It is obvious from the extensive reasons outlined on ANI why you have been blocked. — Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:37, 10 July 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.

Charachter

Dutch-born van der Smut lost his genitals in an unfortunate smelting (or "schmelting", as he pronounces it) accident in the 1970s and has since been known as "Goldmember". He replaced his lost equipment with a gold key that activates the Preparation H tractor beam. He teamed up with Dr. Evil in 2002 to kill Austin Powers and conquer the Earth.

In the end, though, Goldmember is defeated as he attempts to activate the tractor beam with the key (still attached to himself). Austin and Dr. Evil, now working together, reverse the polarity in the system and electrocute him. Goldmember falls to the deck of the submarine, but shortly gets up and attempts to escape, but is arrested by Foxxy Cleopatra.

Goldmember has a nasty habit of peeling pieces of his own skin off and eating them. He can also dislocate his legs with relative ease (presumably due to his lack of genitals). He runs his own nightclub in the 70's (Studio 69) and is the driving force behind Preparation H, the tractor beam that sucks things to Earth. Often, he talks to his armpits in a ritual-like fashion, usually whispering proper sources of certain phrases for copyright purposes. For example, after saying "And that's the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it," quietly comments to the side "KC and the Sunshine Band." His peculiar habits even succeed in creeping out Dr Evil.

Inaccuracies

Though Johann is described as being Dutch, there were however a number of inaccuracies in Myers' portrayal, as well as some contradictions.

Dutch accent

Myers' imitation of the Dutch accent was not accurate; in almost all cases it is in fact closer to a German accent (perhaps a reference to Gert Frobe, a German actor, who had to be dubbed over in Goldfinger due to his heavy German accent, or merely for comical effect) rather than a Dutch one. A clear example is when Goldmember tries to say "father", but pronounces it as "fahza", which leads Dr. Evil to believe he is saying "farger". In Dutch however, the word for "father" is "vader" and is pronounced "vadɛr", rather than "fæʃa". When concerning English pronunciation, Dutch speakers struggle with the "th" or "thorn" sound, often turning it into either "t" or "d" , making "with" and "wit" sound virtually the same. German speakers however, tend to pronounce "th" as z making "the" sound like "ze". Goldmember often displays the latter rather than first pronunciation.

He also pronounces "weird" as "veird", the replacement of the "w" by "v" being a classical example to create a German accent. Dutch speakers would pronounce "weird" as "ʋirt", thus heavily voicing the "d" turning it into a hard "t". Strangely however when concerning Mike Myers commentary on the character, which can be found on the DVD version, he impersonates a Dutchman who inspired the accent of Goldmember, when doing this he did speak with an actual Dutch accent.

Name

Goldmembers real name is "Johann van der Smut", though the surname is indeed Dutch, his first name isn't. Johann (with two times an "n") is a German variant of the Dutch name "Johan" (compare English: "John") which has only one "n".

Relation to Dr Evil

At a certain point Dr Evil remarks: "Yeah Goldmember, I don't speak freaky deaky Dutch", but he also mentions being raised by Belgians in Bruges. However, Belgium is a trilingual country, and Bruges is (like the majority of Belgium’s population) Dutch-speaking. Meaning that Dr. Evil should be able, in theory, to speak Dutch.