User talk:Caranorn

Vianden

Thanks very much for your comments and help. As for Yolande, there seem to be many varying legends and stories. Perhaps it is better to keep to basics for the time being. I might do a separate page on her later. On Perveys, etc., I certainly accept your authoritative reference and will make no further changes but Perveys does seem to be a variant in both English and German. It is going to take me some time to develop the article on Vianden. There is a lot more to add. I look forward to more comments in the days ahead. And by the way, while we're in touch, I'm a little bit concerned about the "Cities of Luxembourg" including Hollerich and so on. The French ville and German Stadt are not really equivalent to the English city. In many cases I believe town would be more appropriate. Similarly, I have my doubts as to whether Mamer can be considered a town. I would prefer village. Any comments? Ipigott 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipigott (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Luxembourg

I see that you've made a lot of good contributions since joining the English Wikipedia only yesterday, and hope that you will be willing to continue such serling service. Recently, I set up WikiProject Luxembourg to help to coordinate efforts to improve the quality and quantity of articles on Luxembourg, with the intention of bringing them up to the standard of other European countries. The help that could be lent by a Luxembourger could be very useful, if only to add to the pages on one's local region or area of expertise. If you would like to join the WikiProject, all you have to do is add your name on the WikiProject's page, under 'Members'. I hope that you'll be able to help, and to continue to contribute so productively to Wikipedia. Bastin 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at the WikiProject Luxembourg yesterday. I don't feel up to contributing quite yet but plan to look over some of those pages whenever I can. I almost certainly won't be writing any new articles, except maybe a biography or two if I can find reliable and neutral material to base it on. Maybe I'll join the project at that point.--Caranorn 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do your best to put references, sources, and links to verify things you write in Wikipedia. Your work here is appreciated! Kukini 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

...and while I am here...

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Caranorn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, Please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hollerich

I notice that you added to the Hollerich article that it was a city. I am not aware of it having been made one, as the three laws that I know that granted communes city status (1843, 1906, 1907) did not confer any title upon Hollerich. Was there another law that I haven't noticed? Bastin 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed after 1900 and before 1920, I will have to check to find the exact date. It had a particular statute (Hollerich and what is now the Gare quarter had city status, Gasperich and Cessange (my village/quarter) did not, so essentially the city status extended only to the urban part of the Hollerich commune. Or maybe if I can find my old school history books.--Caranorn 15:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Until recently, there was a big gap in the online archives of Mémorial; there were no versions between about 1900 and 1935 when I first came across them. Fortunately, they're now being filled in (up to 1908 now), so one will be able to access all legislation in that era online. Bastin 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I only checked on the internet yesterday and found nothing so far. The magazine (Ons Stad, edited by the city of Luxembourg) had an article about Hollerich a few years ago and I'm trying to track that down now, I've also been told there might be a book on that topic in my mother's collection... The national library also has one or two that seem promising. I've never used the Memorial much, I recall when I last tried to search for laws in it it seemed a mess. Anyhow, I still haven't found a date, but I am 99% certain (I was 100% certain yesterday, the fact that I haven't found anything yet makes me doubt) that Hollerich was a city (with the modern quarters of Hollerich, Bonnevoie and Gare, while Cessange, Gasperich and Merl retained their rural status).--Caranorn 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After my recent absence, I have found a sudden spurt in the online archives of Mémorial. The law was passed on 7 April 1914, and I have amended the article appropriately. The way that the law is phrased does raise the question of whether 'Hollerich-Bonnevoie' is still a city. I suppose that I won't be able to answer that until the archives for 1920 (when Hollerich was merged with the City) are brought online. Bastin 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Exile Government

In the book I mentioned already Steve Kayser wrote an article about the Luxembourgish authorities against the Nazi Regime. I haven't read it so far but maybe there is some info in it. Otherwise my brother-in-law has a copy of Haag and Krier's book on the Grand Duche's exile. Unfortunately Koch-Kent's book is not in the Swiss university catalogue, surprinsingly though I found a copie of the first edition of Koltz's work on the forteress. I was pretty amazed. So I'll see what I can find. Spanish Inquisition 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I looked into my sources and they a are devided between two extremes: The chapter in the book from the exhibition about WWII written by Steve Kayser is very, let's say, down to official facts and putting the exile government more into an international perspective. No criticism here, Bech was a really nice chap. Then I have the november 2005 edition of Forum with especially the article by Roemen which can still be downloaded from forum's website. It's about the "putsch" of 1946 and the heavy cristicism and accusations from the resistance towards Joseph Bech. Picture turns from white to black really. The author also mentions the work of Koch-Kent and how he was silenced. The book by Krier and Haag only treats the first year in exile so it's very detailed and maybe too detailed for this project. Something that puzzles me is what the authors syed in their introduction about Koch-Kent. They claim "it was all something very personal revenge by someone who was a bit disappointed by the exile government" (I ommitted the sarcasm buttoms here!). I knew Kayser, Haag and Krier personnally when I was a student at the Athénée de Luxembourg. I was quite surprised by the positions of Kayser and Krier, not so much by Haag. So, how shall we treat this subject? It might depend on how much space we want to give for it, maybe it will turn into an article on it's own. But I definitly think we should treat both sides of the medal including the accousations by Koch-Kent and the resistance. cheers Spanish Inquisition 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had not noticed your reply before. I will try to come back to it tommorrow.--Caranorn 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Parti national indépendant

I agree that the literal translation of the name would be 'Independent National Party'. However, for whatever reason, that is not how the name is usually rendered in English. Google finds no relevant hits for '"Independent National Party", Luxembourg'. However, one can find many for '"National Independence Party", Luxembourg'; excluding Wikipedia, there's one on the first page, one on the second, another on the third, and more further down. I also recall seeing it in an English translation of a Luxembourgian history book, but I can't remember which one (probably Calmes, but I can't be certain, and I don't have it any more). I will still defer to you the decision, though (except the spelling of 'independent' ;) ). Bastin 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Just saw your message elsweare that you made some pictures. I was just reaing the publication on the excavation of 1992 on the Bocka nd Méchelskierch and I'd like to write something about it. Fort that I would need a pic of the Méchelskierch where I could draw the different stages of construction into. For that a plane, non-artistic view from the Fëschmaart would be very helpfull and welcome. Amen Spanish Inquisition 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

coats of arms of communes/municipalities

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Is it possible to modify the Luxembourg Town boxes to include a coat of arms? I just started work on these and I think this would be the right place to add them (above or to the left of the map preferably). I've added a first coat of arms to the Remich page, it's emplacement and size is only provisory. I will probably also add the blazonning in addition to the pictures to all other relevant pages. I plan to do the same for at least some Belgian communes/municipalities (see Durbuy and Arlon).--Caranorn 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea; I considered doing that in the first place, but I never got around to it. It may take a few days, because I intend to make some rather sweeping changes to the template (including some more esoteric functions that will allow changes to statistics to be made more easily). Bastin 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the Luxembourgish site already has a full set of coats of arms. But they seem to be indirectly copied (directly from a website, that website in turn seems to have copied them from the Armorial I planned to use, and the Armorial seems to be copyrighted). So I won't be uploading anymore Luxembourgish public coats of arms (but I will still do the Belgian ones), though I will be drawing the whole lot anyhow.--Caranorn 16:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. To solve that problem, I've created a separate template for the new model, so it can be introduced on an article-by-article basis. It's at Template:Infobox Luxembourg commune, and you can see the result at Remich. As promised, the mechanism is rather esoteric, but it's straightforward if one knows just a couple of principles. The images could always be enlarged if the size of the map is a problem (that depends on screen resolution, I suppose). Bastin 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I find the correct number to identify the municipality? I assume that's what | LAU2 = 08007 stands for. The rest does indeed seem straightforward.--Caranorn 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I've now created a list here. Bastin 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning pics: The coats of arms from any municipality in Luxembourg can be used as long as they are not used for commercial purposes, fraude or whatever anything nasty, see the text on www.legilux.lu [1].That seems to be no problem for lux. and german Wiki [2]. So as far as I understood this hole discussion, we can ues the things represented on the coat of arms but the question is weather we can use the data file that is available online. For that purpose I can propose myself for helping to make such files if required.Spanish Inquisition 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the information (blasoning) can be used as long as there is no misrepresentation (I, we, wikipedia, whoever else pretend it is theirs...). But the images I believe are covered by standard droits d'auteurs, that is we cannot just copy a drawn coat of arms without the authorisation of it's author. Just for example this is the copyright notice of the Armorial Communal du grand-Duché de Luxembourg:

(c) J.A. Fisch, Luxembourg 1989

Tous droites de reproduction, même fragmentaire, sous quelque forme que ce soit, y compris photographies, photocopies, microfilms, bandes magnétiques, disques ou autres, réservés pur tous pays.

So if I'm correct in my interpretation that the images currently on the commons and used on the Luxembourgish page were indeed scanned from this book, then continued use on wikipedia would be violating that copyright... Whether anyone would ever bother to proscute over this matter is of course doubtful, still I don't like to take the risk. On my user page you can see the coats of arms I've drawn the past week (just a few for Luxembourg because I'm not sure we shouldn't use the others anyhow and don't want to waste time redrawing the lot under those circumstances). Oh and I've had to correct at least one Belgian coat of Arms that was both mis-blasonned and mis-drawn (luckily I found another source to confirm that). So just copying is not a good idea either.--Caranorn 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First, please comment on my message I posted upstears about exile government. It's a bit more important to me top me than this whole image thing ;-)

This is contradictive in itself. On one hand Mr Fisch claims that he owns the copyright on the image (=graphical interpreation of the heraldic description) of the coat of arms. So what do the authorities do when they use their coat? Pay credits to Mr Fisch? For a picture that existed already long before he was born? What you are confusing here is copyright and patent. Fischer has the copyright, not the patent. He did not invent the coat of arms of let's say Walferdange as being a red fox holding an arrow etc (unlike e.g. the corporate designer for a computer game invents coats of arms for different races). And now compare both images here: from the dutch heraldic site who uses Fisch's images and fron the official website of the municipality They are very different in the details. And what Fisch holds a copyright of is his own design. Not for all possible graphical representations of the heraldic information. That would be a patent. So as long as you draw your coats in a different design than the images copyrighted, you are safe. If they get too close or equal to Fisch's interpretation then you can get trouble. But comparing your design of the lion with the one by Fischer they are completely different. So just go ahead. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We actually agree on this, so there must have been some confusion. The problem I see is that the whole set of coats of arms already exists on Wikimedia commons (and is used on some wikipedia sites, including the Luxembourgish one). I had already started drawing my own versions when I noticed this. At that point I decided to stop what I was doing (or rather devote all my time to the Belgian coats of arms) until I knew what would happen to those old images which I fear are in copyright violation (if they are not there is no need for me to redraw them). I think right now I will try to complete the Belgian coats of arms (unfortunatelly the bnl does not have the most recent armorials...).--Caranorn 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to start my own project on the coats of arms of the municipalities of Luxembourg. I had a look at the French heraldic project page and found out that they have all the necessary visual material there, so I started making clean versions that can be used under GFDL. You can have a look at the first ones here. Let me know what I should do with your versions thatare already there. Can I replace them since the design will be a bit different? cheers Spanish Inquisition 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments. I just uploaded new versions and started putting them into the german articles. The only comment I didn't quite understand was in #14 about the fish. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 17:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So many details to take care of. But it's interesting I have to admit and I try to take care of this for the future coats still there might be details to correct. About the fish "en pal" I found an explanation here. According to this general description they should only be vertical which is exactly what you see on the coat from the luxembourgish articles. The fish there do not have a specific shape (except "stretched like dead" is a shape) just a vertical position (I'll have to fix that then). I have a few additional questions on several coats:

• ettelbruck: the two winged staffs are they the same as those used as symbol for pharmacists (with a snake)? And what are these strange things on both sides of them? I guess it's a bunch of cereal but I'm not shure. On the website of ettelbruck I saw that the river below the bridge is golden(?) and on the lux. wiki it's blue (weird).
• kopstal: what's that plant?
• mertzig: the wings of the eagle must have this exact position pointing down? The same would be the case for dalheim where I drew them more pointing horizontal or upwards. Also the head of the dalheim eagle in my version is looking in the wrong direction. Is this important?
• niederanven: I recognize the type of plant even less. I it just a tree trunc or a specific tree?
• schieren: again the plant.
• can I draw grapes and vine the way I want?

Ok, as you see my botanical knowledge is completely useless :-) The next set might take a little longer. It's a lot of details. Thanks again Spanish Inquisition 07:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New coats online to be checked by the master of heraldry :-) Spanish Inquisition 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey again. Thanks for the critics. By the way you missed an error: The coat for Luxembourg City misses one silver stripe. It's corrected for the new version. Concerning point 5) on the coat of Bettborn. I checked with the versions I have from the dutch site which have a terrible resolution I'm afraid. Now, when I consider the widths of the fasces for Bettborn, Contern and Boulaide I see that they are +/- 19%, 30% and 12% resp. of the total height of the coat. So in that logic, if there is any, I should reduce the width of the fasce in Boulaide and not increase the one for Bettborn. I have some more questions concerning future coats, most of them are due to the bad resolution of my inspirations:

• kautenbach: aren't those brochet too?
• niederanven: is that a rose and are there any specifications on the helmet? The staf and tree trunc are golden?
• rumelange any specifications on the guy, what is he holding in his left hand?
• rambrouch: what's that strange thing hanging in the top middle? It's not important for drawing but I'm just curious.
• sandweiler: is that plane a boeing or an airbus? just kidding.
• troisvierges: any specifications on the three virgins or can I just draw three men in drag :-)? I hope their biological virginity does not have to presented in the picture? If not specified otherwise I'll take the definition of an French/Latin teacher from the Athénée: "Une vierge est une femme non-marriée." I suppose that wheel is specified as a wheel from a locomotive?
• tuntange: the middle towers need to have roofs?
• wahl: gold claws and toungue?
• walferdange: the middle tower has 6 crenelations and the two adjacent have only 4 crenelations, is that right? And without maconory?
• weilerlatour: just a simple tower without anything on top?
• weiswampach: color of claws the same as toungue?

Cheers Spanish Inquisition 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Inquisition has struck again! I hope the number of errors decrease from set to set. So the problem with the fasces and devices on the coat of Bettborn, Boulaide and Contern seems to be quite tricky. Have a look at the new versions, I hope we can agree on the actula design. The miner on Rumelange looks a bit Portugease but I think that's not really contradictive to Luxembourg econonmical history isn't it? More questions on some details for future coats:

• Sanem: what kind are the 4 golden flowers?
• Schieren: What plant is this?

Thanks. Spanish Inquisition 17:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Last set of coats online. The small crosses on Putscheid and on others actuially did have a pointy ending, but it seems that it wasn't clear enough. Hope, it's better now. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Indented" Polish flag

You reversed my amend on this in Battle of Normandy. Perhaps you can help: my intention was merely to add a border to define the Polish flag. Without it, the white half disappears into the background and, IMO, the slight indentation that occurred with the border parameter is a lesser evil. What do you think? Do you have a better option, apart from using the border universally. Folks at 137 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats

No matter what your intentions were, comments like these:

"First time I'll say this. Ulritz check whether you can take legal steps against Rex. By that I mean filing a complaint against anonymous person for diffamation. I know that's what I'd be doing if I was accused of a crime as Rex is doing. Rex maybe you are not realising it, but what you are doing is a very, very serious issue and even behind a pseudonymn you are not safe from legal prosecution. So far you've provided no links to any articles/talk where Ulritz is supposed to have denied German warcrimes in WWII. Accusing someone else of a crime without providing any proof constitutes a crime by itself.--Caranorn 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)"

... are not tolerated on wikipedia. Apart from being incivil, doing so causes a number of serious problems:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our articles.

• It causes bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the Wikipedia community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently and with an assumption of mutual good faith.

• Wikipedia has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.

• A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels.

Please refrain from making them in the future. You comment has meanwhile been removed. Rex 08:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Rex 12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated apology

I would like to apologies for the removal of your comment without any explanation why towards you (bad wikiquette off my part). Though I largely concur with your feelings about the related dispute, and the fact that Wikipedia is better of without it, I didn’t think your comment would be helpful in resolving the issue. Not necessarily because of taking sides in a dispute, but indeed because of the legal part in it. Again sorry, I should have informed you. --Van helsing 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on Luxembourgish blasons

I read that you plan to write about the history of Luxembourgish blasons. I had the idea myself and it's great to see that we could again have some team work here. Unfortunately I only have the infos from this Dutch site. Now I can try putting the info in my own words as far as available so that there is no conflict with copyright. So maybe you can contribute the missing parts? I'd suggest to make a list with the picture, date it was fixed, heraldic description (that would be mainly youre job I guess), and the origins. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier

Hi Caranorn. Recently I reverted a rather large edit by an anonymous one-time editor on the Leonard Peltier page. The fact that I did this without giving what you felt was a proper explanation seems to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle, and for that I apologize. I am absolutely not looking to pick fights here in Wiki-world so I would like to take the opportunity to address your concerns and explain to you the reasons why I reverted the edits, and to be honest, my intention to revert/re-edit them again in the near future.

My interest in the article on Peltier is basically tangential. My real interest actually lies in editing the article on Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. The fact that the life stories of these two activists became intertwined, and tragically it seems, is what has led me to my occasional edits on Peltier.

When I read the edits by 64.149.46.84[3] it was very apparent from the beginning that this editor was attempting to insert their own POV of the Peltier saga. The use of words throughout the edits such as “compelling… calculated… unsurprisingly... chilling… presumably… relentlessly” clearly are intended to lead the reader in a certain direction. Some additions are pejorative in nature; “... it came to light that Darlene Nichols had developed a sexual relationship with Robert Ecoffey, an individual believed by many to be … in part responsible for the war-like conditions present on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations…” (Ok, even I’ll admit that sex and violence sells.) 64.149.46.84 deleted information to further promote their view. “…five hundred FBI agents and their families…” became “…five hundred FBI agents…”, “…a settlement, which involved DeMain writing a statement that he did not think that Peltier himself had shot Aquash.” was edited to read “… he and DeMain reached an out-of-court settlement.” These are just a few examples of the edits that I found troublesome.

Having said all that, there are two positive things about the work by 64.149.46.84 that I would like to point out. The first is that their work is very well written, biased to be sure, but with a good grasp of the King’s English. The second is the edit to the reply by Peltier to Darlene “Kamook” Nichol’s testimony. Fleshing out a quote is rarely a bad thing, particularly when it helps to remove any doubt as to what the person being quoted was actually trying to say. I say this as the editor who inserted the brief quote from Peltier in the first place.

I could go through the whole list of edits and express my concerns with each of them but that would be, at best, tedious, and I think I may have already crossed that line anyway. It is just that I firmly believe that any unbiased editor would come to the conclusion that the edits made by 64.149.46.84 were, almost in their entirety, done with the deliberate intent to persuade and influence the reader on controversial subject. One edit though did make a smile cross my face. It was when our anonymous one-time editor concluded one of his edits with the phrase, “…it is hard to accept statements made by an ‘unnamed delegation’.”

Anyway, as I make further edits to the Peltier article I will do my best to ensure that I add a bit of an explanation. That’s a fair request. Sláinte, Cafe Irlandais 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

my recent uploads

Hey again

Thanks for the comments. The only thing I hade were the older file versions from the French blason project, so I must confess I am completely ignorant about the details and it could be possible that some errorshave sneeked in. So I would suggest that you try to do a bit of research (if you have time of course) and tell me what I changes I should make to the files. Have a nice WE Spanish Inquisition 10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

I'm not all that familiar with it...it just seems to be a frequently vandalized article. I just took a shot at recovering the material that's been deleted over the past few days. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was on the fence about that one, but I'm ok with it being reverted. It looked like someone was writing a middle school report on slavery or something. Sloppy writing, unencyclopedic, no attempt to cite any sources. I'm wondering if the article needs to be semiprotected. Between well-meaning people adding unhelpful text and outright vandalism, the article is not being improved. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see how [..]"

Edit summaries like this one "I don't see how you can at such an early point in history speak of Dutch" and a following revert aren't neccesary, if you'd simply taken a look at the Dutch language or Old Dutch articles you'd have seen that it was the case and you wouldn't have to revert. Rex 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1) The dutch language link provides no references for Old Dutch.

2) The Old Dutch article provides conflicting references.

3) Considering how heavily both articles are edited by you I can't trust them without said references.

4) Oddly enough anyone I know who has/is studying linguistics seem to contradict the notion of a separate dutch language (versus a number of frankish dialects) at such an early time.--Caranorn 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't trust me? Says someone who sided with Ulritz a German nationalist ... That aside, there are plently of references in on Old Dutch, so your friend (not that it would help you anyway as its OR) ought to read a few of them before he or she comments on the subject. Rex 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to Caranorn

I am getting very, very tired of your behaviour. I don't really care you have some urge to watch my edits and to pretend that you're some kind of unbiased supervisor, but I do care about the fact that you disrupt my attempt to make wikipedia more clear and accurate. A simple example:

The pennsylvania Dutch article. I replace unsourced information with sourced information. Then some guy, who thinks I'm on some anti German crusade because of some obvious name changing actions of myself, reverts me (note that he has been now warned by the admins). In other words, he removes unreferenced information and replaces it with bias (see lines above) information. Almost naturally you choose his side (deja vu?) and do this, you insert the old false information. Now the article says:

"The word "Dutch" in general is left over from an archaic sense of the English word, which once referred to all people speaking a West Germanic language on the European mainland. In the context of Pennsylvania Dutch, the word `Dutch' is a corruption of the German ethnonym Deutsch, which means German. Dutch is the West Germanic language of the Low Countries.[1]"

To me this is the same as "The words George W Bush originally refered to two-arsed frogs from the African sahara, but in this context refers to the president of the United states[1]

Catch my drift? I'd very much like it, and see it as a sign of good will if you'd remove the unsourced information. Thanks in advance.Rex 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Part II

Hi Caranorn. Even though I still think the information you added to the Pennsylvania Dutch article is surpluss and unneccesary I've let it go. This is the latests edit of Matthead, your latest protégé. I find this edit to be totally unacceptable. His behaviour disgusts me. I'd like you to do two things (as he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to me). 1 revert this unnecasary edit, which he only did to revert me (if you look closely you'll even see his edit summary contradicts the actuall information given in the article). 2 talk to him, and explain to him this behaviour is unacceptable. I don't want to, but will go through the whole RFC, Mediation and Arbcom procedure if he keeps purposely obstructing my wikipedia work.Rex 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's still tomorrow, but the edit in question isn't that hard. Given the fact that you already claimed to see the contradiction in his edit summary. Sorry to bugg you like this, but strangely it's beginning to irritate me ...Rex 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgers and language

Apologies; I only went by my own limited experience of Luxembourg. I speak some German, but my French is good (well, for a Briton), and was quite capable of communicating with just about everyone in French, without resorting to either English (that often) or my primitive German. Having said that, it may be have been due to geography (the Stad is more Francophone than the Moselle) or merely that I never tried to engage in German in the first instance. If you feel that the edit did not misrepresent the linguistic situation, you can revert. Nonetheless, I still have some reservations about stating unequivocally that German is preferred to French. Would you agree that "Amongst those for whom Luxembourgish is the mother tongue, German, which is closely related to Luxembourgish, is spoken at a more fluent level than French" would be better? Bastin 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion in the Netherlands

Dear Caranorn,

you have remouved reference 43 and added the following comment: "I was going to insert a precise date based on that source, to my astonishment I found the reference did not cover religion, hence removal and fact tag".

Statistics Netherlands (called Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek in Dutch) is one of the most reliable sources of information about many topics of the Dutch society. Table 3.7 in page 43 from the Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 2006 shows the "Religious denomination and church attendance" of Dutch population based on social research with scientific methodology. Table 3.7 covers religion! I had added the reference in English rather than in Dutch since it is abailable showing the same data.

Can you explain me your action?

Best regards, Daniel Gironés. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.6.12.22 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

It's rather simple, the english language reference (2006) linked to does not include that supposed data. Either there is a difference between the dutch and english versions of said file, in which case the dutch one should be inserted, or said statistics are not based on that year's publications. I accordingly deleted the incorrect reference and replaced it with a fact tag.--Caranorn 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Dutch version is more accurate, but the English version shows what I posted: 11% go every week, 4% two or three times per month, 4% at least once a month, which means that 19% go once a month or more. In editing, the information should be easy to understand for the reader. Besides, I said "Recently", and in scientific research the references should be given by the date of publication, not when they did the resarch. I think I am very accurate in what I say, and always accept corrections, but you have a strange way of doing it...

No bad feelings. Best regards, Daniel Gironés.

Well, to start with, before my edit the text started with "Now days, a study conducted...". It was I who replaced that with recently, my original intent was to give a specific date (as you correctly point out the date of publication). The reference in question was Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 2006, page 43. And now I've actually found that data in the file, after searching for church attendance. I had previously looked under the headings and not found anything, then I searched for the term religion (not thinking to try religious) and only found a single entry on an unrelated subject. So it was indeed a mistake of mine, I will reinsert the reference.--Caranorn 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, I even missed the page number you included in the reference, so it's entirely my fault. I've now reinserted your reference (and kept Rex's as well). I've somewhat rewritten the article entry itself to be more complete.--Caranorn 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you. Greetings, Daniel.

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Please take care about three revert rule. Other user's edits cannot be claimed as a vandalism because you disagree with them. You should discuss it on the talk page, but beware of revert war. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: No, it was not misunderstanding, anyone can change caption of the image if he feels it's better. I just wanted to calm down the situation, because that topic is tagged as controversial, two other editors are trying to change caption now to fulfil NPOV as I saw in the history. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols

Actually, I suspect that you have not read the talk page. Please do so. You will see that I critiqued the word 'forgery' yesterday, and that Jkelly aggreed that hoax is the best option. This has been discussed several times before. Ludvikus is a very eccentric editor who seems to be obsessed the details of different editions, which he documents on pages devoted to each edition. Yes, the word plagiarism only applies to a portion of the text. Paul B 13:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I picked up these remarks while following Ludvikis edit trail. I know nothing about the protocols of Zion, apart from what taught at school, but I do know a lot about history of philosophy, which I taught at university. This individual is causing untold havoc on the Philosophy page. I'm trying to see if other people have been having similar problems. Dbuckner 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mongo in West Africa

http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf 212.97.173.119 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

German WWII photographs

According to Wikipedia :-) German copyright term is 70 years from death of the author, there is basically no way that the picture is not still under copyright - in fact it's even possible that the photographer is still alive! One escape might be to show that the picture is an official government production. We can't really use the argument that it's "too hard" to find the copyright holder, because if we allow it, the legions of lazy uploaders will use that excuse on every undocumented image found with a 1-minute search on Google Images (you laugh, but look at latest images for a couple days). I note that the German article on Peiper remains unillustrated, several proposed images having been turned down. It would be a great service to track down the status of German WWII images, they are a perennial difficulty. Stan 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know about the 50-year thing - nor does commons, oddly enough. In any case, I don't see how we're free to make a special exception for German photos with unknown copyright holders; since I'm not the only one who works on image sorting, you would need to write it up so that editors present and future will know about the special exception, which means changing the image policy in a very visible and public way. Feel free to try, but it would be less work to travel to Germany and knock on doors looking for the photographer. :-) Stan 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre

Thanks a lot for the nice review job! --Lebob-BE 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Very late responds

From what I read, Paul111 just wants to remove information. But if it is sources, and he cant prove it wrong than he cant remove it right?213.125.116.112 10:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemish people

I warned user 81.240.56.15 about the civility of edit summaries.Paul111 11:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburg

Hallo, Could you please provide a (working) link to the policy your removal of links from headlines is based on. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi - thanks for the message, I'll bear it in mind. just for clarification - 3RR refers to the removal of the same material 4 times - so I would have been fine but I thought it best to get others involved. Regards --Fredrick day 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre

Hi, Caranorn. I was expanding per WP:LEAD; the intro should be an overview of the rest of the article and it currently isn't. While my edit did make much use of text from below, maybe you would consider helping me to fix it rather than reverting entirely. Although you are obviously an experienced editor, I think your reversion here rather than copyediting is unnecessarily confrontational. My changes weren't vandalism, they were intended to improve the article, and I thought they did. If you have a big problem with that, I think the good faith course of action is to leave me a talk note or mention it at the talk page there. Cheers, Kaisershatner 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Let's say no harm done. The main thing that bothered me was the revert, I can see your view of the edits. I will try to do better. Kaisershatner 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian flag

As you took an interest, I'm posting this on your page. I don't think there's a problem with the Canadian flag used on WWII articles (please confirm my reading). According to Canadian Red Ensign, the 1921 ensign (which is the one widely used, including in the Battle of Normandy article) was used until 1957. Even then, the changes were minor - the Irish harp slightly modified and the maple leaves red instead of green. Unless the Canadian Red Ensign article is wrong, we don't have a problem. So don't release a bot!! Folks at 137 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick work! I'll do some changes as I find them, unless someone can do a bot. I had to look twice to spot the differences & at 20px size, it isn't obvious, but ... Folks at 137 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any idea on French copyright rules?

Hello Caranorn

I see plenty of photos of the French forces in WW2 credited to the "ECPA". Do you know if these are free to use as long as credit is given, or if there is a copyright limit in France? The ECPA (now ECPAD) seems to be the government audio-visual recording unit. Thanks for any help. W. B. Wilson 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Caranorn, thanks much for the comments. I also found the Wiki page on international copyright protection. W. B. Wilson 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I Corps (France)

Thank you for the nice comments and the edits. I still want to make some kind of map for I Corps' role in France during 1940 campaign, maybe show where the corps was at different points in time. I will consult GUF to check the OOB data. W. B. Wilson 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Checked the OOB against GUF. The only thing I changed was for the Corsica landing, GUF showed 4^e RSM versus the 1^er RSM. Cheers. W. B. Wilson 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Lion

What's the latest news on the Flag of Luxembourg? —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Free Belgian Forces

Caranorn, I've created a Free Belgian Forces article that was requested by the WWII Task Force. I recall reading that Luxembourg may have contributed to these forces. If you have any information regarding this, I request you please contribute to the article. Merci/Danke from the demi-Belge W. B. Wilson 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. W. B. Wilson 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Powers

I certainly invite you to add information to the Nuetral Powers article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Powers. I especially liked the information you included in points 1-4. As for the other courtries that you suguested, I will add a section at the end of the information I currently have and will list them until I have more information to add to it. I was wondering if I might include the information you mentioned in 1-4 in the article Nuetral Powers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Powers

German 9th Parachute Division

You should always check under "country unit" as until the end of last year that was the agreed standard. The new starndard was pushed throught by Americans, but it is wrong for the British Army because the British Army is not the army of the United Kingdom but The Crown's army, (comes from the UK still having a constitution that predates the modern understanding of the word State) --Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Allies

No problem, thank you for a reasoned and sensible response. I was also very disappointed by the way the mediation was handled, as well as by the final outcome. I do think there are some substantive points to be made re the "Allies" intro however- I will redraft the intro paragraph this evening and put it on the talk page for discussion/rejigging. Hope you feel better soon, Badgerpatrol 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

France 40 mailing list

Yes, that was me on the list. The Danish site is good for basic information, even found the Italian general Magli who was on Corsica, although I had to dig a bit on the internet to find the year of his death. W. B. Wilson 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourgian general strike of 1942

Moien, a Merci for the edits! The article is starting to take shape... I've had a look at more of your work: well done! Scotchorama 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for also reverting my edit on Luxembourg: I somehow went stupid and blind for a minute and didn't see the previous paragraph! Scotchorama 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourgish Coat of Arms

Hey there again,

I put back the liscenses on all my images of CoAs of Luxembourg. Let's see if the two weirdos show up again.

Cheers and thanks for your support on the matter Spanish Inquisition 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not ask the experts?

No, I don't mean User:Cornischong on Luxembourgish Wiki ;-) Maybe one should contact the Commission Héraldique on the subject of licenses and how this all fits into Wiki and what is allowed and what isn't. I'm pretty sure they should know about all this and could at least tell us which paragraphs in Lux. legislation are relevant. Basically I cannot believe there would be a restraint for dictionaries as all the CoAs are present in the newly published Luxemburger Wörterbuch. Til then, what do you suggest should we put as a template under my pics?

Cheers, have a nice 1st May Spanish Inquisition 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Query

Thanks for the support at Axis powers. Can you take a look at talk:World War I casualties? It just occurred to me that you may be able to answer a question I have posted there. Regards, Grant | Talk 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Army atrocities (WWII)

I don't get it, what was wrong with this link? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hollerich railway station

According to CFL, the name is definitely 'Gare de Hollerich', and it's located on rue de la Déportation. Certainly, it is the station that lies along the border between Hollerich and Gasperich, so it might be known by the name of the latter neighbourhood.

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that 'Zwickau' is the marshalling yard (triage), between Bonnevoie, Gasperich, and Howald, although I wouldn't say that I would know for sure. If I'm not once again mistaken, the railway line that passes the yard (i.e. on the way to Bettembourg) then also defines the border between Gasperich and Bonnevoie-Sud, but that's just from my own comparison of geography, rather than a more reliable source. Bastin 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

France in infobox

I see you've re-added France. Can you discuss on the WW2 talk page which "France" you're referring to (3FR, Free French, Provisional) and why they merit being a major power? Oberiko 14:05, 7 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 13:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Normandy

Can you explain to me the exact criteria for inclusion? And is it consistent across the board at all WWII articles? Srnec 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

YO Hey how big is luxumborg

i herd u can ddrive through it in two hours?(oh yea my horriblke american grammer and spelling, at least im honest with me self)(ForeverDEAD 05:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Battle of Normandy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. User:Krator (t c) 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your last edit to Holocaust, that was careless of me. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoenlohe edit

I was the one who added the passant guardant. I noticed you changed the animal in your re-edit to a Lion. Not sure if you mean it to be a lion or a leopard. Thanks - keith ElfleinKR (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Husky OOB

Hi. I have placed your comment plus a response on the article's talk page. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Why you remember me the 3RR while I'm not the only user who has reverted three times? And why Gennarous is free to insult me continuously without be blocked? I don't understand this. --Esimal (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Please, look at this. --Esimal (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please

Please make clear the recent episodes and the involvement of the various Christian users who attack me. Please open a RFC for Gennarous and go back to my old dispute with The Evil Spartan in order to discover what kind of hypocrite he is (the behaviour he conducted was more or less the same as that of Gennarous). --Esimal (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How to call a citizen of Luxembourg in English?

I guess that you certainly have a relevant opinion on this question. --Lebob-BE (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Husky

Hello. I have seen you have made a few comments on the talk page, so I thought I would ask you first. Do you know if any SS units (any type of formation) took part in the battle?Dapi89 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Russia in Luxembourg

Hi Caranorn, I noticed that you live in Luxembourg, and I was wondering if you may be in the position to help with a request. I am working on a list article Diplomatic missions of Russia and in desperate need of photos. Would you be in the position to be able to help with photos of the Russian embassy (Chateau de Beggen, L-1719 Luxembourg) and the Russian consulate (Rue Cyprien Merjai, 116, L-2145 Luxembourg). Any help you can give would be appreciated. Regards, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gemstone IV

What I had put into this article is completely true, based on my own experiences and the experiences of others. It is not a "petty war" against Simutronics. Looking at your talk page, I see you have quite a history of indiscriminately and disruptively editing the posts of others, much like RGTraynor, the other pompous windbag who chose to revert my edits.