User talk:Rex Germanus/archive1

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Welcome

Hi Rex Germanus/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

1. Write from a neutral point of view
2. Be bold in editing pages
3. Use wikiquette.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

...

Dutch grammar

See Talk:Dutch grammar#Gender of nouns. Ucucha (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hello there. User:KittenKlub has requested mediation in the matter of the removal of material and user talk page messages concerning Image:OORLOG_BEWERKT_5.JPG. As a matter of course, I'm now reviewing this case and would appreciate your input on the page indicated above.

If you'd like to email me privately, feel free to do so. Thanks, Rob Church ^Talk 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I've been attending to other things. Let's get this mediation back on track before this dispute escalates further, shall we? I'd be grateful if you could complete the...well, it's a sort of questionnaire thing, at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 12 2005 image deletion. I'm attempting to find out the current issue, and what the involved parties want done about it. Thanks in advance. Rob Church ^Talk 07:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

mediation request

just thought and I don't really want to get involved - have you considered that

"As a rule, visitors are allowed to copy published material, such as books and magazines"

could mean to copy for personal, private use and not be a permission to publish freely in an alternative arena such as Wikipedia. Just a thought Kevinalewis 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course, but it didn't say that. Sandertje 11:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've posed a couple more questions on the mediation request's talk page, if you'd be so kind. They should allow me to determine whether leaving the issue alone would be more productive than flogging, what you claim, is a dead horse; also, they will tell me whether there's some underlying dispute here. Rob Church ^Talk 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Star

Well, thank you! I'm more active on nl.wiki (you are not, as far as I know?), but I like to stop by here occasionally and contribute a bit. See you around! Groeten, Sixtus 19:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No, not as much as I want to I try, but the English version needs more work. Well, keep up the good work ;-)

Sandertje 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Link

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sandertje 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Germanic languages

I'm just curious here, but how is saying 'some can even give another a view in the linguistic past' different from saying that these languages are more conservative languages and therefore more closely resemble older forms than do more 'modern' (for lack of a better term) languages? We might be splitting hairs here, but I thought that my wording was more accurate.--Hraefen 20:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, you said that they were closer to Proto Germanic, which isn't true per se.To start with, Proto Germanic wasn't North,East or West Germanic it was just Germanic.In the text you wrote it mentioned both Frisian (a west germanic language) and Norwegian ( a North Germanic language).

From what we know now is that probably the East Germanic languages (like Gothic, but they're all extinct) are somewhat closer than the other 2 branches. But this isn't really pro0ven yet.

But when the text says that Icelandic can give Norwegian a view in the past (just like Danish and Swedish btw, but Norwegian is a bit closer to Icelandic and Old Norse) than that's true.Icelandic is the closest living language to Old Norse.

English' Germanic side is now outnumbered by romance loans. Old English however wasn't, and Old English was very close (almost the same) to Old Frisian, which doesn't differ much from Modern Frisian.

And Btw, 'Godt nytår' :-)

Sandertje 11.19, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

hen/hun

While I agree with you that the hen/hun confusion concerning indirect and direct objects occurs in Flanders as well as in the Netherlands, it is the erroneous use of hun as *subject* that I meant when I put "in the Netherlands" and indeed, being Flemish myself, I have never seen "hun" used as a subject by a Flemish person.

Unsigned message by User:Paul Willocx 1/2 january.

---

This is strange because I hear it many times, especially with 'youngsters'.

Sandertje 11.19, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are Dutch yourself... how much contact with Flemish "youngsters" do you really have? I don't mean to insinuate that Flemish people would speak better Dutch, or that they would make less mistakes, but that particular error is one that seems typically Dutch to me. Paul Willocx 12:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have Flemish/Belgian relatives.Of course I know different mistakes are made more often in Flanders or the Netherlands.But I don't see why that should be written in the primary article and why only the Netherlands should be the only one while I know for sure the mistake in question is made everywhere.

Sandertje 13.04, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Paul Willocx 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but prefer the article to be objective and sorry but just because some Flemish people think they hear a certain mistake when speaking or hearing Dutch people then that's not really objective.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

When it you find reliable proof, I'll be the first to alter the article. :-)

[User:Sandertje|Sandertje]] 13.11, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

The images were on WP:PUI because they were claimed by another user not to be public domain images. The images also had no source that I could see for verification of what their license might be. -Nv8200p talk 17:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-Sandertje 18:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, problem.Then I'll just put them back on.

Insular Germanic

Hi, is there any special reason you created Insular Germanic as an exact duplicate of Anglo-Frisian languages? Shouldn't such a situation better be handled by a simple redirect? Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to be a redirect, only I don't know how to do that.

Sandertje 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it for you. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much!

Sandertje 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Next time, to create a redirect, just type the following in the edit box of the page you want to become a redirect:

#redirect [[Anglo-Frisian languages]]

(replacing "Anglo-Frisian languages" with the name of the article you want to redirect to. Angr/talk 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Sandertje 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be cooperative, even when it deals with the Netherlands

Hi Sandertje,

"Stay off the article" is rather rude: Wiki is meant to be edited, and no topic is owned by anyone. The length of the article is not my opinion only: it is reported as potentially too long automatically when edited.

In particular, I think a description of all the events between the first and second World War is more detail than is needed when dealing with this specific battle. I suggest moving that text into an article dealing with the general history of the Netherlands.

More generally, all the details tend to obscure the general course of events. For instance, the current article describes the capture of the bridges near Rotterdam on the first day, but doesn't mention the significance of this event: that it would allow the German troops to bypass the Water Line defenses.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Other details about local incidents are more appropriate for a book than an encyclopedia format. What does the Germans buying chocolate have to do with the progress of the battle? Encylopedic style typically provides a high-level overview of an incident, with references to sources for those who want more specific information.

I attempted to include the deleted text in the talk page for the article, but it was lost somehow. I apologize for any inconvenience you had in retrieving it from the preceding version.

I also noticed the picture in the information box no longer exists. If you did supply it, would you please fix that link?

Kind regards,

StephenMacmanus 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed cooperative, I've been here for quite some time.When ingaging in such a act, straight out of the blue, people discuss before taking action in your case cutting away half the article.

Sandertje 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch an SOV language?

Hi Sander, could you explain this change? I don't believe it's correct. Or can you give an example? Alex1 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misread a certain line, it's been fixed.

Sandertje 10:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Avercamp scenewin.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Avercamp scenewin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

An Image tage for Image:SCENEONICE.jpg

The description page for this image has a note from you asking for help in determining what image tag to apply. The upload was in Oct, 2005 (!!) but better late than never. Where did the image come from?

Regards, Dethomas 02:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's online promotional material from a Dutch public museum.Free of copyright.Since the painting in question is Dutch national herritage owned by the state.

Sandertje 10:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As you likely know, all we need here is a tag on the image description page, and a fair use rationale for non-free images. So it's a matter of finding the right tag and adding it to the description at Image:SCENEONICE.jpg.

I'm not familiar with Dutch copyright law, but work products of government agencies seem to release easily to the public domain. If we can find something to back up the assertion of no copyright, we could use a variation on the {{PD}} tag. Since we're dealing with an image of a painting, it seems that using the {{PD-art}} tag is the simplest thing to do.

Failing that, perhaps one of the these tags would apply to a image produced by a Dutch national entity. From Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses:

• {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} - The image is copyrighted, but is free to use for any purpose.
• {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} - For example, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed. Note that non-commercial or educational use restrictions are not allowed as provisions in this tag.

Or you could just opt for fair use, and apply one of these tags from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair use...

• {{Fair use in}} - For a copyrighted work that is contended to be fair use in Article. But review rationale for fair use and fair use before applying this tag

In any event, as the uploader it is your burden to apply an appropriate tag to the image in question. Without an image description page carrying source and license terms, the image will eventually be deleted. In the meantime, it will be omitted from public distributions of WikiPedia content. See meta:Wikimedia and Mandriva for an example, though fair use claims will be dropped from this static copy.

Tact

I don't understand what you're trying to say at this section of my talk page.

The content of my comment in this section of your talk page is the {{tl:Image_source}} content from the {{no source|month=mm|day=dd|year=yyy}} template. If anything, the wording of that template is too gentle, though I found the graphic annoying the first time I saw it. Or perhaps you're annoyed that your October 2005 request for help with tagging Image:SCENEONICE.jpg went unanswered until now. Or perhaps neither, in which case I'm clueless. Dethomas 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know where you are?

Sandertje 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your latest revert at Dutch language leaves me no choice

You violate Wikipedia:No Original Research blatantly and repeatedly even after several warnings by several editors. I will take the necessary steps to get your behavior curtailed. Andries 21:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see that you have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia so this is not something I like to do. Andries 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't play the angel. I have already requested a mediation, this is going to be solved one way or another.

Sandertje 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandertje. Thanks for requesting mediation. I accept your request. Hope that this issue is resolved ASAP! Ronline ✉ 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Great

Sandertje 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tilde

Sander, didn't you know that you can sign your name with the date by typing ~~~~ (four tildes). 212.64.22.246 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do, why?

Sandertje 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Because your sign is a bit odd. Sometimes typos can be discerned. I thought it is unlikely to happen if you know how to sign your name and the date with the tildes. 212.64.22.246 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN

Beste Sandertje,

Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tree of Indo-European Languages, namely Longobardic [sic]

Filing Langobardic under East Germanic languages is obsolete. Instead, it is nowadays considered to be closely related (maybe a branch) of Old Bavarian. It even takes part in the High German sound shift. See Lombardic language and the discussion page.

British Empire

From the article in question

• Netherlands from 1689 to 1702, with the King of England, Scotland and Ireland also serving as Stadtholder of most of the provinces of the Netherlands. The actual situation was slightly more complex with the Dutch provinces Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht entering into personal union in 1672, Gelderland and Overijssel in 1675 and Drenthe in 1696. Only 2 Dutch provinces never entered into the personal union: Friesland and Groningen. (unsigned comment by User:Jooler

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

The King of England was Stadholder first, just because he was king of England as well this doesn't mean the Dutch republic belonged to England.

21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dutch and Afrikaans =

Hello Sandertje, what do you want me to do? Meursault2004 16:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you took part in a discussion on Dutch talk, after debating and a mediation,we're now at the arbitrary comminsion, because of that I needed to inform you of this (as you took part in the discussion) feel free to take part in the ArbCom discussion.

Sander 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(Resolved warning removed by User:AvB)

My warning towards you didn't concern this warning directed at me.It was about incivel (seems to be the word of the day) behaviour on your part. Sander 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 05:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with AvB

As said before, I am available to talk this over with you, e.g. on IRC or on the phone. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've accepted my invitation. That's good. Let's try to clear the air. I've blanked the revised warning as a start. I'm AvB1066 on freenode.sterling.net (where #wikipedia and #wikimedia are hosted). Do you prefer a specific time? Or just open a chat with me, I'm logged in. I'm here for the next couple of hours. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your current IRC nickname? (I have about 15 minutes left tonight, tomorrow after 11:00 would also be OK with me) AvB ÷ talk 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how "fluent" you are in IRC, but just in case you don't know, here's how to open a personal chat - enter:

/query AvB1066

I can't reach you if I don't know your nick. I tried using Sander but got no response (it seemed to be someone from Norway anuway). I'll be online from around 11:15 AvB ÷ talk 09:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem. Could you join channel #AvB? AvB ÷ talk 09:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have MSN? <unGoogle addy> AvB ÷ talk 10:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do. I have added you. Sander 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The conversation you started closed before I had a chance to respond. But my msn is always on, please feel free to contact me if my status is either free or busy (If I don't respond immediately, please keep the conversation open; if I don't respond in minutes, I'm not there. I sometimes forget to change my status). I tried to start a conversation with you but your settings don't allow that. AvB ÷ talk 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the feeling. Saturday is alright with me; I have no fixed obligations then, so you can pick a time. Or just try to raise me on MSN earlier. AvB ÷ talk 21:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why removing Netherlands from the list of countries with significant number of German native speakers?

According to the census 2.37 % of the population are Germans. Guess most of them constitute as German native speaker, don't they? --Lucius1976 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that census. But apart from that there are no german communities in the Netherlands.

Sander 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for once it is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherlands. But I am certain that figures are based on cbs. But i can't find it there anymore. I can only find the number of EU nationals overall. It may be true that there are no communties of Germans there, but that only means that they tend to not form any there :-). Maybe they prefer to fit in more smoothly. --Lucius1976 21:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I think they mean a little pockets of German communities, speaking German as a first language in foreign countries. That's not the case here, ;-) Sander 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. in List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers a first language is: "For the purposes of this article, a 'first language' is a language a person was raised with, while a 'second language' is a language of instruction or everyday communication. Thus a person may have more than one first language." By the way, what is a pocket? Even a house or room could be a pocket were another language is spoken. --Lucius1976 21:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When I say pockets I'm thinking of the German community in East Belgium,France or the ones in eastern Europe, with an own culture... you don't get that here. Sander 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment at AN.

I've made a comment about the sitution at Dutch language through the admin noticeboard. I urge you to reconsider your staunch resistance to NPOV wording and consensus among your peers. That and your quite aggressive tone towards other editors.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisme???

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Sander, als er iemand beweert dat Schots een aparte taal is noem ik dat geen vandalisme, en het reverten van deze edit met een samenvatting die dat suggereert vind ik op zijn minst lomp. Caesarion 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Vergelijk de aanpassingen nog maar eens, ik was niet degene die beweerde dat Schots geen aparte taal is, hij of zij deed dit.Ik zie dit in het zelfde licht als mensen die in artikelen blijven zetten dat bijvoorbeeld het Nederlands een Duits dialect is, zeker zonder een enkele verklaring... dat noem ik vandalisme. Sander 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Holy Roman Empire

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi! I just wanted to alert you to this case that has been brought forward by User:MagicMonkey. If you'll agree to the mediation, could you respond on that page please? Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Sander 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

IndoEuropeanTreeA.PNG

I've vectorized IndoEuropeanTreeA.PNG as IndoEuropeanTreeA.svg, and listed the original as redundant. The only change I've made is to change the signifier for the extant languages from a red underline to a pink box, as it made it look unfortunately like a screenshot from a document with a lot of misspellings.

Wereon 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sander 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Passive voice in Gothic language

Hi Sander, you made an edit to the effect that Dutch preserves something of the Gothic passive voice. However, the passive voice in Gothic is apparently a synthetic category that is really quite unlike anything in the later languages ([1]):

ik gibada	"I am given"
thu gibaza	"you are given"
ita gibada	"it is given"
weis/jus/ija gibanda	"we/you/they are given"

Are you sure that's what you wanted to say, this category being preserved in Dutch? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems quite strange to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, I wasn't quite sure about the meaning here.

In Dutch sentences like the ones below do have the same effect and meaning like Gothic sentences; "am ... to". But I got the suspicion that what is meant here is that the "am (verb) to" is supposed to be in one form/word? In that case, Dutch does not have that feature anymore (old Dutch/Frankish had it though)

ik ben genoodzaakt

"I am forced to"

I'm not sure why you choose an example with a subsequent infinitive complement ("to...") here - the point as I see it is really just about the passive as such. Of course, modern Dutch has a passive, and as such a translation equivalent of corresponding Gothic forms, but then so do all the other modern Germanic languages. But these are all analytic passive constructions, using auxiliaries, and their development is relatively recent. The point about Gothic is that it has an old, inherited, synthetic passive form, like Latin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand it.Next time I'll look a little closer to the particular terms being used.For me as a Dutchman, linguistics in other languages are harder as they all use the same Latin terms, in Dutch nearly every linguistic term is of Germanic origin.Times as these makes one want to change it ;-) Sander 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch-German split

Hi Sandertje; although of course the split from High German was much earlier, Dutch as a standard language could not earlier split from Low German than the 16th century, because before that, there simply was no standard language :o). And on the level of dialects the perfect dialect continuum was of course only broken in the 19th century. Aren't you too simplisticly equating the concept "West Germanic dialects spoken in present Germany" with the concept "German that really is High German because it uses High German as a standard language"? Greetings, --MWAK 07:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_language&diff=49429666&oldid=49423527

Yes I know what you mean, but you forgot the saxon/frankish difference in Low German, even in the 6th century a difference could be seen between low Frankish/old Dutch and saxon variants in the east.(thus allowing that piece of language to be indentified as Dutch)

>>The Dutch standard language, contrary to popular belief in some countries, is not a dialect of German, for the simple reason it is indeed a standard language and thus not a dialect of another standard language.<<

What I (and others could) read here, is "Dutch is a dialect of German, but because it also is a national language, it is considered a separate language." Dutch didn't splitt of from Low German, with the arival of the statenbijbel ... dutch had splitt of much earlier, which is logical as if that wasn't the case how could the statenbijbel be readable to them? But I know what aiming at ... Dutch spoken in the (far) east was quite close to hanseatic (early middle) low German.I in fact have an example:

Mijnes geringen erachtens, so is alhier van den Heren Staten niet veel hulps ende troost voor ons te erwarten.Derhalve geve ik U.L zu bedenken of es niet de meininghe solde sijn das wir ons zelven met de hulp ende bijstand der aangrensenden Provincieën versien deden. (Regent of Guelders, 1571)

But one should note the following... this is not Dutch influenced by Low German, but Low German influenced by Dutch. (Frankish, and later Low Frankish had a noticable influence on present day north-west Germany because of the Saxon wars waged by the Frankish kings)

Therefore Dutch did not split of from (Low) German in the 16th century.In fact Dutch and Low German split somewhere in the 6th century when Old Low Franconian was attested.The earliest form of Low German, Old Saxon, is first attested in the 9th century but is likely to be spoken around that same time.At that same time, High German(ic) dialects were developing with the high germanic consonant shift.

Hope to hear from you soon (ps. I didn't know you were interested in linguistics) Sander 11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in many things ;o). Your standpoint is of course the traditional one, still taken by most Dutch linguists in the middle of the 20th century. There are however some severe conceptual difficulties with it. Yes, Franconian must have reached its separate identity quite early, possibly even in the 5th century. And so we could say it "split off". But this suggests it became a separate language. And that's only relatively true because there was still a dialect continuum. Its seperateness was no different from that of Saxon, Swabian and Bavarian, and probably even less than that of Frisian. Then Franconian itself split because of the consonant shift. And again this could induce us to speak of two seperate languages, High Franconian and Low Franconian. But again this would be a very relative truth as a dialect continuum would remain. Only the knowledge that in the future Low Franconian would give rise to a standard language could tempt us to think it had some very special status within the whole of West Germanic dialects, setting it apart from the rest of them. But we must resist that temptation for it is an unjustified projection of the present situation into the past. If we then ask ourselves when the dialects did split of their own accord, the surprising answer is that they never did. The real split only came by the development of standard languages. And the many Germanic standards in the Middle Ages were still so close and influenced each other so strongly, that it is quite conceivable they would have merged within a single whole or that the hanseatic standard of Low Germanic would have become the unifying language of the entire north, including the Netherlands. But it wasn't to be, not for any linguistic necessity but because of political contingency. In the 16th century the elite of Antwerp, the wealthiest Germanic city of its age, could no longer be expected to speak the tongue of its poorer brothers, but wasn't powerful enough to impose its standard on them. At the same time the Lutheran Bible began to undermine the Low Saxon ("Low German") standard and in time would utterly destroy it. Now one could truly speak of "Dutch" and "German". Germania divisa, at least on the level of standard languages: only in the 19th century the state border, having nothing to do with the dialectal subdivisions, would become a language border, when mass education would tear the continental West Germanic dialects apart.

So obviously, only because there is a national Dutch standard language, there is any reason to make a division between Dutch and German standard languages. Depending on your definition of "language" it could also be justified to consider Low Franconian a separate language and one could very well call it "Dutch", but then one shouldn't make the category mistake to put it in contradistinction against the present German standard language. The correct categorisation would to the contrary be to set it on the same level as Low Saxon, Middle Saxon, High Franconian, Swabian and Bavarian, all equally languages under the same definition — but not on this level forming together a "German" as against "Dutch". If for some historical accident a Dutch standard would never have developed, our provinces would have used some eastern standard, be it "Low German" or "High German", and nobody could have found in the intrinsic qualities of the Low Franconian dialects any ground to consider them more separate from the whole of "German" dialects than Swabian or Bavarian. Confusing these two levels of conceptualisation is a mistake Dutch linguists still often make. And I fear the reason these otherwise intelligent creatures falter is the usual suspect: a laudable but misguided desire to emphasize their national identity to protect it from that of a larger neighbour ;o).--MWAK 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What say you, Sandertje? Shall we make the section into something like this?:

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

"Dutch cannot unequivocally be called a German dialect, on whatever level of analysis we choose to consider the matter. The Dutch standard language can by definition not be the dialect of another standard language, Standard German. The dialect group from which Dutch is largely derived, Low Franconian, belongs to the whole of continental West Germanic dialects. This whole is sometimes imprecisely indicated with the word "German", but it might as well be called "Dutch". Indeed the Low Franconian dialects are morphologically closer to the original form of Western Germanic than the High German from which standard German is derived. No intrinsic quality of whole of the component dialects favours one standard over the other: both were rivals and historical contingency decided the range of their use. The state border does not reflect dialectal subdivisions. Only now that the dialect continuum of continental West Germanic has been broken by the 19th century introduction of mass education, the respective ranges have been fixed; in the 18th century standard Dutch was still used as the normal written standard in the Lower Rhine, the county of Bentheim and East Frisia, now all part of Germany."

Could this please you?

--MWAK 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I freaking love it!!! :-) Sander 09:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands

The only contribution of you to this wikipedia seems to be adding Dutch history infoboxes to all kind of articles. Don't you think you could contribute with a little bit more actual information? 84.187.110.107 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd done a little research, you'd see I do a bit more than adding infoboxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sandertje Sander 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, what is your problem with a shared ancestry of Dutch and Germans? Do you hate Germans that much that you want to invent your own history? I see no point in your revisions. You edit articles about the Prussian people, and lament that the article makes it look like the Dutch people of the 11th century (!) were Germans. As if there were a distinction between them in this age. It's sad somehow, as you seem to be obsessed with that.

kind regards |-( 84.187.110.107 15:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, you might think every speaker of a Germanic tongue was German in the 11th century, but I don't. Sander 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) -- Sander, just as me you know exactly, that it was not "just any speaker of a German(ic) tongue" but Duits. Doesn't matter if nederduits or hoogduits. It's time you face your history. xD regards 84.187.110.107 15:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you reeally believe that, then you really have to strat feeding that layman brain of yours. Sander 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your infobox messes up the display of Franks, for me anyway, but I don't have a weird browser or odd settings, so I expect it's general. Indeed, checking with IE, the formatting is even more screwed up. There is no vitally important link between "Geschiedenis der Nederlanden", the topic of your infobox and of the History of the Netherlands article, and Franks that justifies putting the infobox there if it breaks the article.

Then we have the infobox itself. It's POV, and so is History of the Netherlands). History of the Netherlands in English can mean either "Geschiedenis der Nederland" or "Geschiedenis der Nederlanden". To conflate these two terms, as in your infobox/timeline, and the article, is hardly accurate. Lastly, if your infobox is so important, why does it only appear in Franks and Holy Roman Empire ? Leaving aside the issues of POV, I am not happy with the formatting of Franks since you added the infobox. I don't think it belongs there, so I am certainly not going to try and fix it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it messes up the display, find another place for it.It will be however, included. Btw, "Geschiedenis der Nederland" is not possible in the Dutch language, it should be Geschiedenis des Nederlands or Nederlandse Geschiedenis Sander 16:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I be surprised that you didn't address the substantive point regarding the multiple meanings of "Netherlands" ? Disappointed more than surprised as it happens, and unimpressed by your new infobox I'm sorry to say. Whatever definitional problems the previous one had, it was similar to related boxes in style, even if it was rather too wide. (See Template:History of France Template:History of Germany and so on.) The current version is wider still, and bears no resemblence to related infoboxes in style, and the way you have added shows little concern for article layout. Cynics might think that you were more interested in advancing a point of view than creating quality articles.

Where it looks reasonable, however dubious its inclusion, I left it, but in the cases where it is clearly added in the wrong place, or unnecesary, I removed it. Franks is a reasonable way to add it. Burgundian Netherlands was the wrong way. Seventeen Provinces is wrong too, because it should not be the first infobox on the page, the map should appear beside the "see map" section, and the other box should be before yours, although it too fails miserably on the stylistic and standards front. If you look at Franks, the nonstandard appearance of your infobox should be pretty obvious. You should be able to determine if it messes up the display yourself. Previewing changes is, after all, part of the editing process. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The point seems like such a non-issue, making a difference between Netherlands and the Low Countries ... most of the subjects intertwine the further you go back the more history of Europe becomes intwined/mixed... just like at the Franks. I based the current infobox on the Millitary history of Indonesia model. Sander 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch fight against the water: first impressions

To start on a negative note, the title is not so good. "Fight against the water" is too vivid (fight) and too dull (water). "History of Sea Defences in the Netherlands" is dry enough (pun intended) for an encyclopedia (admittedly, a lot of the works are on rivers, but I wouldn't worry too much about that). I don't know if there is any standard Dutch term for this that could be translated.

Apart from that, it seems very interesting, but it is rather long. Even if ruthless editing can pare it down a bit, perhaps the list of works could be spun off into a new article ? Given the subject, it would be a pity to concentrate only on the modern Netherlands. Comparable works in Flanders, East Friesland, and those carried out by Dutch engineers in England would add a broader perspective. It's a pity that I know nothing about those things ... but I'll happily have a go at editing. If you have Dutch-language sources or further reading, it might be worth adding them. There are some relevant books in English, although I haven't actually read any of them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for refining the first bits btw,

The title isn't really optional for me as well... The Standerd Dutch terms are; "Het gevecht met de zee" or "Het gevecht met het water" which could be translated as "Fight against (the) water/sea" or "Struggle with (the) water". Sander 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no rant club

at the "German language" article you change:

"the Low Franconian varieties are not considered a part of the German language, in fact the Dutch language is dated older than the German language."

Which is yet utterly wrong as there are Low Franconian dialects which are still considered dialects of the German language. Namely Ripuarian and other Rhinish dialects. And as there are no "oldest" languages. But not enough, you begin to change it to some "chief member of the low franconian group"

here: Sandertje wrote: "the Low Franconian varieties are not considered a part of the German language, in fact the Dutch language [b](chief member of the Low Franconian group) is dated older than the High German language."[/b]

-- Who do you think needs your irrelevant nonsense here?

-(( 84.187.110.107 15

32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Still dialects of the German language? So Dutch was a dialect of the German language?! Hahahaha, how amusing.No Low Franconian dialect or language is a dialect of German. Franconian German is not a part of Dutch or the low franconian languages/dialects.Dutch is at the moment dated older than German that's a fact, just like chief member (ie most speakers) is correct. Sander 15:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh, sandertje. Like the examples provided, there are low franconian dialects of German. Ripuarian and Bergische (East-Rhinish) dialects. "languages dated older" remains linguistical nonsense. And you say you study Germanic languages. You should care a little bit more about other low german dialects. My own dialect is Low Franconian and you want to tell me I don't speak a dialect of German? Pah :(

Sad regards 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Yes I'd like to tell you that. Sander 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch flag with hourglass

Hello Sander, I noticed you uploaded a Dutch flag (with hourglass) but the flag has the wrong ratio, cf. flag of the Netherlands.

Best regards, Ilse@ 13:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's really annoying for you or anything, feel free to adjust it. Sander 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Military Tactics

Just read it after watching new pages. Couldn't let it pass without complimenting you on a great article. --Blowdart 21:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you, but it isn't finished by a long run! Sander 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many capitals

I changed the name of Roman Military Tactics, with capital initial letters to Roman military tactics. The former form is incorrect according to standard Wikipedia conventions codified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Similar ly with the section headings. Michael Hardy 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. Sander 10:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Military Tactics

I have to remind You not to use fair use computer screen shots in not appropriate articles, as the licence says:

for identification and critical commentary on

• the computer or video game in question or
• the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question

only. Thanks. feydey 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be great if You can get the permission to use the screen captures. Good luck. Please notice me, whatever their feedback is. feydey 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nice work with getting the permission; so with all the screeshots You uploaded: You need to change the summary to remove Activision and add SEGA and add a second license and rationale: {{Fair use in|Roman military tactics}} Rationale: see User_talk:Feydey#The_liscence_Rome_Total_war.

(see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Tagging fair use image files) also write in the Roman military tactics page with the first (only once) screenshot this: Images used from the Rome: Total War computer game by kind permission of the Creative Assembly. The Creative Assembly and SEGA do not endorse this page and can not be held responsible for the content held within it.

This is my view. Questions? feydey 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

nope Sander 12:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch linguistic influence on military terms

Hi Sander(tje),

very nice article. It would be good though if you added your sources, so that other people including myself can convince themselves that your truth is also the truth :).

Nice trick with the new messages. I fell for it and was then quite surprised to not end up where I expected. --MarSch 14:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

hehehe, alright, will add sources. Sander 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!

Charlemagne at List of French monarchs

Hello Sandertje, I see you mention Charlemagne as king of the Netherlands on the List of French monarchs page. This seems a bit of a stretch to me: there was not to be a kingdom of the Netherlands for another 1000 years. If there was to be a king Charles/Karel now, I can't believe he would be numbered Charles II. Besides, would you consider Charlemagne to have been king of Italy then as well? There may be some anachronism in calling him king of Germany, however it is a longstanding anachronism. I do think it might make sense to remove the paragraph entirely if you prefer that to just removing the Netherlands part, as such a list is hardly the place to analyse the details of Charlemagne's heritage. Renke 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no kingdom of Germany either, just the holy roman empire of which the Netherlands were a part untill 1648.So yes he was king of Italy, or at least the northern part of italy, as well.You can remove the paragraph if you like. Sander 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer to moving the section on the Netherlands

Sander This was in no way to diminish the importance of the Netherlands, or their part in Carolingian, or Frankish, or Dutch, history. The move was solely because where it was left the article with about a 7" gap between sections. If you feel this in any way diminishs the article, I will post the proposed move on teh talk page - the article looked terrible as it was, and I moved that long section - because there is so much history involved - to the end, where it is still there, very relevant, very viewable, but not leaving a 7" gap in the midst of the article. Is this acceptable?old windy bear 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[2] made on May 7 2006 (UTC) to Wilhelmus====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Your last edit comment didn't help you.

William M. Connolley 18:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE!!!