Hello! My e-mail address is kjspahis@yahoo.co.uk.
I suggest that you may add yourself to the lists of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Greece and meta:Multilingual Wikipedians#Greek. User:Etz Haim 09:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==False accusations of vandalism by REX == Why does REX feel he can yell 'vandalism" when faced with an edit which he doesn't happen personally to agree with, but has been made with good intent and a large amount of justification? This seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of cooperation and respect for others' views which Wikipedia expects. See England 25/3/05 --User:Aroberts 14:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) REX, I've reminded Aroberts of the 3RR, and you might like to be careful there yourself. It's a somewhat untested issue whether an edit that's at variance with clear consensus (as Aroberts' edits appear to be) constitutes "simple vandalism". If Aroberts restores the edit again, I'd hope you'd leave reverting to someone else, just to be safe. -- User:John Fader (User talk:John Fader | Special:Contributions/John Fader) 15:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Hi John, thank you for your advice. I was aware of the 3RR, but it is nice to know that you are being supported. User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Mention of political motivation behind the creation of katharevousa == REX, the history paragraph in article should mention that the whole turn to the katharevousa dialect was politically motivated and not something spontenious, as if the Byzantine culture had been kept intact after 400 years of occupation, and one fine morning Kolokotronis came around and thought'd be nice to display these family hairlooms once more... know what i'm saying? :) Are you gonna make those edits or should I make them myself? User:Project2501a 19:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Need Help== The article vanavsos is up for deletion. Can you please help in this regard. Second, I am having difficulty with [http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Classical_definition_of_republic Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic] and am having trouble on Talk:Republic because they won't allow an external link. It was deleted off of Wikipedia, and I believe it needs to come back on. A serious mistake in deleting this article. Thanks for your time.User:WHEELER 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Arbitration Committee case opening == Hi, I see you are back on. And I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works. The Arbitration Committee has accepted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- User:GruntUser talk:Grunt European Union 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC) Can I get your help in this regard?User:WHEELER 14:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I guess on the "Evidence" page, please explain the importance of Classical studies and the need that Old terms don't have the same meaning today. And that for Classical studies, meanings must be preserved for classical culture. There is a seperation and a need for dual articles, one on modern meanings and one for classical meanings and the two should not be mixed. And that I am not a bad guy but am a stickler for the defense of old meanings against being rewritten for the modern age.User:WHEELER 15:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The Arbitration Committee does not judge content - just the behaviour of disputants when dealing with this content. -- User:GruntUser talk:Grunt European Union 15:28, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) ::Thanks for your message. I don't speak Greek but I do read a little but the message was still a little difficult. Thanks for your time and effort.User:WHEELER 18:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) == English (people)≠Cornish (people)? == I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.
Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the Talk:English (people) of the English (people) article and it began with ''if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person'', what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. User:REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall. I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons. * Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names. * The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English). *Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between ''Anglia'' and ''Cornubia''. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site [http://www.walkingtree.com/ Mercators Atlas by walking tree press]. I am happy to provide further examples if required? *Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a ''de jure'' status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England. *I present the following link to support my points.[http://www.BBC.co.uk/history/state/nations/ Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site] So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen. User:Bretagne 44 22/3/05 So, what does all this have to do with the English (people)? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English language etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Prince Bishop and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? User:REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you. Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000. 1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. User:Bretagne 44 23/3/05 If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the English (people), which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the English (people) is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. User:REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above. You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation" Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. User:Bretagne 44 23/3/05 This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. User:REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. User:Bretagne 44 24/3/05 I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the English (people) is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by ''I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate''? User:REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornwall ethnicity. User:Bretagne 44 24/3/05 : I agree with Bretagne 44, that's why there's a sign on the bank of the Tamar outside Plymouth which says "Welcome to England" To sum up: *Good idea! Let's ask for a third opinion. *In my opinion, how a group sees itself ''is'' the minimum requirement for the existence of an ethnic group (a nation). You may want to check the respective pages to see why. *In the English (people) the Cornish are only mentioned: #''Others, notably the Cornish and the Cumbrians have Celtic roots, a minority in Cornwall going so far as to say they are not English but Cornish.'' #''The only other language traditionally spoken is Cornish, a Celtic language originating in Cornwall that almost became extinct.'' #''The English (along with the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish) found their old identities undermined somewhat in favour of 'Britishness'.'' *I can't help feeling that Wikipedia is being used to promote nationalism and (possibly misleading) propaganda in favour of Cornish Separatism, not in references 1 and 2 above, but in reference 3. Cornwall has not yet separated from England like Wales did in 1955 (before that Wales did not exist as a country but as an English region See Acts of Union 1536-1543). So mentioning Cornwall above like that is like ''implying'' that Cornwall in no longer part of England, which is not true. Given that Cornwall was and still is part of England, Cornish identity should have been undermined in favour of Englishness even before the Union with Scotland, so to mention it in my opinion above is not necessary. Personally, I find reference 3 above very POV as there has been Wikipedia:No original research. In my opinion it has to be removed or at least changed as that sounds like something from the manifesto not from the BNP, but from the [http://www.englishindependenceparty.com English Independence Party] or the [http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk English Democrats Party]. *About Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as far as I know, they only monitor the behaviour of editors (such as offencive language on Talk Pages, edit wars etc) not the issues. But, there is no harm in asking. User:REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall? I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why? How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity". Are we reaching a deal here REX? User:Bretagne 44 25/3/05 There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. User:REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. User:Bretagne 44 26/3/05 == Revert war on England == Hi Rex. I have protected England from editing due to persistent reversion going on there. I encourage you to discuss the topic on Talk:England. - User:Mark 15:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Hi Mark! Thank you for intervening. Tell me, how did you know that persistent reversion was going on there? User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I have something absurd like 800 pages on my watchlist, basically every page I've edited since clearing out my watchlist (which was quite a while ago). So I pick up a lot of vandalism and reversions just by looking at my watchlist. - User:Mark 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Northumbria== Why are you putting Northumbria in wherever you find North East England? It is not the official name, and to the extent it has a geographical or historical meaning, it also includes much of Yorkshire. --User:Henrygb 15:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I am putting Northumbria wherever North East England is because today it is a common name for the region especially since Northumbrian culture as it is called is to be promoted more actively throughout the region. Are you sure that that name includes much of Yorkshire? As far as I know it is only used for the NE. Also, why did you remove the table I added to the article? That certainly wasn't my POV. There were encyclopaedic facts on the region. User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Northumbria can mean many things: anywhere in England north of the Humber; the Humber to the River Forth (so SE Scotland as well); the River Tees to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick; the River Tyne to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick (i.e. the old Northumberland) and perhaps plus Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland (e.g. the area of [http://ww3.northumbria.police.uk/northumbria/main.asp Northumbria Police]). Many people in County Durham would reject the idea of being in Northumbria. But if you think Middlesbrough or Redcar (ex-Yorkshire) are in Northumbria then it would be quite difficult to say Whitby was not, and I would say Hull as well. As for the box - it was about North East England and belongs on the North East England page. I added two extra links to North East England near the top of the Northumbria page, but the two are not equivalent. --User:Henrygb 22:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian) == I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.
Rex (Latin for "Monarch") is the name of several things. * The Rex parade is a Carnival Krewe in New Orleans. * Rex (band) is a Dream pop alternative rock band. * Rex (chair) is furniture designed by Slovene Niko Kralj. * Rex (company) is an Italy company that makes electronics, mechanics. * SS Rex was an Italy luxury ship, sunk by allies bombers at Slovenian coast in 1944 * The Rex series of Personal Digital Assistants, including the REX 5000 and REX 6000. * The Cornish Rex and the Devon Rex, cat breeds. * Rex was the original name of the Rexx programming language * rex (airline) (Regional Express) is a low-cost carrier that services the Eastern states of Australia. * Metal Gear REX from Metal Gear Solid. * REX WRX (short for WRX)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Rex:
REX
REX
Rex
Rex,_King_of_Carnival
Rex,_NC
Rex,_North_Carolina
Rex071404
Rex071404
Rex071404/archive1
Rex071404/archive2
Rex071404/archive3
Rex071404/archive4
Rex071404/dialog.with.Neutrality
Rex071404/lvt
Rex071404/Neutrality.Abuse.of.Admin.Role.log
Rex071404/sigtest
Rex071404/temp3
Rex071404/woflfpeace
Rex071404/woflfpeace
Rex84
Rexall
Rexall-Sundown
Rexall_Drug_Stores
Rexall_Place
RexatronX
Rexburg
Rexburg,_ID
Rexburg,_Idaho
Rexcat3
Rexcat3
Rexdale,_Ontario
Rexel
Rexella_Van_Impe
Rexford
Rexford,_Kansas
Rexford,_KS
Rexford,_Montana
Rexford,_MT
Rexford_Guy_Tugwell
Rexford_Guy_Tugwell
Rexford_Tugwell
RexGeet
Rexha,_Hava
Rexhep_Meidani
Rexhep_Mejdani
Rexism
Rexist
RexJudicata
RexJudicata
RexMundi
Rexnfx77
RexNL
RexNL
RexNL/monobook.js
RexNL/myskin.css
Rexrexilius
Rexty
Rexworth
Rexworth
REXX
REXX
Rexx
Rexxar
Rexxar
REXX_programming_language
Rexx_programming_language
Rex_(airline)
REX_5000
REX_6000
REX_6000
Rex_84
Rex_Allen
Rex_Allen
Rex_Applegate
Rex_Baker
Rex_Barnes
Rex_Borsky
Rex_Brown
Rex_Buckland
Rex_Carver
Rex_Cat
Rex_cat
Rex_cats
Rex_Cawley
Rex_Chapman
Rex_Deus
Rex_Dyer
Rex_E._Lee
Rex_Gentium
Rex_Gildo
Rex_Grossman
Rex_Harrison
Rex_Hunt
Rex_Ingram
Rex_Ingram_(actor)
Rex_Ingram_(director)
Rex_J._Walheim
Rex_King
Rex_King-Clark
Rex_Krewe
Rex_L._Baker
Rex_Lease
Rex_Miller
Rex_miller
Rex_Milligan
Rex_Morgan
Rex_Morgan,_M.D.
Rex_Murphy
Rex_Navarette
Rex_Navarette
Rex_Navarrete
Rex_Navarrete
Rex_Nemorensis
Rex_Parade
Rex_parade
Rex_parade
Rex_raju
Rex_Reamer
Rex_Records
Rex_Sacrorum
Rex_sacrorum
Rex_Shard
Rex_Stewart
Rex_Stop_Watching_My_User_Contrib_List
Rex_Stout
Rex_T._Stout
Rex_Talking_Machine_Corporation
Rex_the_Runt
Rex_the_runt
Rex_Todhunter_Stout
Rex_Walheim
Rex_Warner
Rex_Whistler
Rex_Williams
REX
Hello! My e-mail address is kjspahis@yahoo.co.uk.
REX
I suggest that you may add yourself to the lists of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Greece and meta:Multilingual Wikipedians#Greek. User:Etz Haim 09:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==False accusations of vandalism by REX == Why does REX feel he can yell 'vandalism" when faced with an edit which he doesn't happen personally to agree with, but has been made with good intent and a large amount of justification? This seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of cooperation and respect for others' views which Wikipedia expects. See England 25/3/05 --User:Aroberts 14:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) REX, I've reminded Aroberts of the 3RR, and you might like to be careful there yourself. It's a somewhat untested issue whether an edit that's at variance with clear consensus (as Aroberts' edits appear to be) constitutes "simple vandalism". If Aroberts restores the edit again, I'd hope you'd leave reverting to someone else, just to be safe. -- User:John Fader (User talk:John Fader | Special:Contributions/John Fader) 15:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Hi John, thank you for your advice. I was aware of the 3RR, but it is nice to know that you are being supported. User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Mention of political motivation behind the creation of katharevousa == REX, the history paragraph in article should mention that the whole turn to the katharevousa dialect was politically motivated and not something spontenious, as if the Byzantine culture had been kept intact after 400 years of occupation, and one fine morning Kolokotronis came around and thought'd be nice to display these family hairlooms once more... know what i'm saying? :) Are you gonna make those edits or should I make them myself? User:Project2501a 19:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Need Help== The article vanavsos is up for deletion. Can you please help in this regard. Second, I am having difficulty with [http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Classical_definition_of_republic Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic] and am having trouble on Talk:Republic because they won't allow an external link. It was deleted off of Wikipedia, and I believe it needs to come back on. A serious mistake in deleting this article. Thanks for your time.User:WHEELER 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Arbitration Committee case opening == Hi, I see you are back on. And I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works. The Arbitration Committee has accepted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- User:GruntUser talk:Grunt European Union 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC) Can I get your help in this regard?User:WHEELER 14:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I guess on the "Evidence" page, please explain the importance of Classical studies and the need that Old terms don't have the same meaning today. And that for Classical studies, meanings must be preserved for classical culture. There is a seperation and a need for dual articles, one on modern meanings and one for classical meanings and the two should not be mixed. And that I am not a bad guy but am a stickler for the defense of old meanings against being rewritten for the modern age.User:WHEELER 15:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The Arbitration Committee does not judge content - just the behaviour of disputants when dealing with this content. -- User:GruntUser talk:Grunt European Union 15:28, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) ::Thanks for your message. I don't speak Greek but I do read a little but the message was still a little difficult. Thanks for your time and effort.User:WHEELER 18:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) == English (people)≠Cornish (people)? == I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.
Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the Talk:English (people) of the English (people) article and it began with ''if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person'', what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. User:REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall. I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons. * Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names. * The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English). *Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between ''Anglia'' and ''Cornubia''. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site [http://www.walkingtree.com/ Mercators Atlas by walking tree press]. I am happy to provide further examples if required? *Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a ''de jure'' status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England. *I present the following link to support my points.[http://www.BBC.co.uk/history/state/nations/ Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site] So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen. User:Bretagne 44 22/3/05 So, what does all this have to do with the English (people)? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English language etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Prince Bishop and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? User:REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you. Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000. 1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. User:Bretagne 44 23/3/05 If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the English (people), which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the English (people) is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. User:REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above. You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation" Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. User:Bretagne 44 23/3/05 This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. User:REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. User:Bretagne 44 24/3/05 I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the English (people) is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by ''I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate''? User:REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornwall ethnicity. User:Bretagne 44 24/3/05 : I agree with Bretagne 44, that's why there's a sign on the bank of the Tamar outside Plymouth which says "Welcome to England" To sum up: *Good idea! Let's ask for a third opinion. *In my opinion, how a group sees itself ''is'' the minimum requirement for the existence of an ethnic group (a nation). You may want to check the respective pages to see why. *In the English (people) the Cornish are only mentioned: #''Others, notably the Cornish and the Cumbrians have Celtic roots, a minority in Cornwall going so far as to say they are not English but Cornish.'' #''The only other language traditionally spoken is Cornish, a Celtic language originating in Cornwall that almost became extinct.'' #''The English (along with the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish) found their old identities undermined somewhat in favour of 'Britishness'.'' *I can't help feeling that Wikipedia is being used to promote nationalism and (possibly misleading) propaganda in favour of Cornish Separatism, not in references 1 and 2 above, but in reference 3. Cornwall has not yet separated from England like Wales did in 1955 (before that Wales did not exist as a country but as an English region See Acts of Union 1536-1543). So mentioning Cornwall above like that is like ''implying'' that Cornwall in no longer part of England, which is not true. Given that Cornwall was and still is part of England, Cornish identity should have been undermined in favour of Englishness even before the Union with Scotland, so to mention it in my opinion above is not necessary. Personally, I find reference 3 above very POV as there has been Wikipedia:No original research. In my opinion it has to be removed or at least changed as that sounds like something from the manifesto not from the BNP, but from the [http://www.englishindependenceparty.com English Independence Party] or the [http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk English Democrats Party]. *About Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as far as I know, they only monitor the behaviour of editors (such as offencive language on Talk Pages, edit wars etc) not the issues. But, there is no harm in asking. User:REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall? I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why? How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity". Are we reaching a deal here REX? User:Bretagne 44 25/3/05 There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. User:REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. User:Bretagne 44 26/3/05 == Revert war on England == Hi Rex. I have protected England from editing due to persistent reversion going on there. I encourage you to discuss the topic on Talk:England. - User:Mark 15:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Hi Mark! Thank you for intervening. Tell me, how did you know that persistent reversion was going on there? User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I have something absurd like 800 pages on my watchlist, basically every page I've edited since clearing out my watchlist (which was quite a while ago). So I pick up a lot of vandalism and reversions just by looking at my watchlist. - User:Mark 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Northumbria== Why are you putting Northumbria in wherever you find North East England? It is not the official name, and to the extent it has a geographical or historical meaning, it also includes much of Yorkshire. --User:Henrygb 15:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I am putting Northumbria wherever North East England is because today it is a common name for the region especially since Northumbrian culture as it is called is to be promoted more actively throughout the region. Are you sure that that name includes much of Yorkshire? As far as I know it is only used for the NE. Also, why did you remove the table I added to the article? That certainly wasn't my POV. There were encyclopaedic facts on the region. User:REX 20:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Northumbria can mean many things: anywhere in England north of the Humber; the Humber to the River Forth (so SE Scotland as well); the River Tees to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick; the River Tyne to the Tweed, perhaps plus Berwick (i.e. the old Northumberland) and perhaps plus Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland (e.g. the area of [http://ww3.northumbria.police.uk/northumbria/main.asp Northumbria Police]). Many people in County Durham would reject the idea of being in Northumbria. But if you think Middlesbrough or Redcar (ex-Yorkshire) are in Northumbria then it would be quite difficult to say Whitby was not, and I would say Hull as well. As for the box - it was about North East England and belongs on the North East England page. I added two extra links to North East England near the top of the Northumbria page, but the two are not equivalent. --User:Henrygb 22:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian) == I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.
Rex
Rex (Latin for "Monarch") is the name of several things. * The Rex parade is a Carnival Krewe in New Orleans. * Rex (band) is a Dream pop alternative rock band. * Rex (chair) is furniture designed by Slovene Niko Kralj. * Rex (company) is an Italy company that makes electronics, mechanics. * SS Rex was an Italy luxury ship, sunk by allies bombers at Slovenian coast in 1944 * The Rex series of Personal Digital Assistants, including the REX 5000 and REX 6000. * The Cornish Rex and the Devon Rex, cat breeds. * Rex was the original name of the Rexx programming language * rex (airline) (Regional Express) is a low-cost carrier that services the Eastern states of Australia. * Metal Gear REX from Metal Gear Solid. * REX WRX (short for WRX)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Rex:
REX
REX
Rex
Rex,_King_of_Carnival
Rex,_NC
Rex,_North_Carolina
Rex071404
Rex071404
Rex071404/archive1
Rex071404/archive2
Rex071404/archive3
Rex071404/archive4
Rex071404/dialog.with.Neutrality
Rex071404/lvt
Rex071404/Neutrality.Abuse.of.Admin.Role.log
Rex071404/sigtest
Rex071404/temp3
Rex071404/woflfpeace
Rex071404/woflfpeace
Rex84
Rexall
Rexall-Sundown
Rexall_Drug_Stores
Rexall_Place
RexatronX
Rexburg
Rexburg,_ID
Rexburg,_Idaho
Rexcat3
Rexcat3
Rexdale,_Ontario
Rexel
Rexella_Van_Impe
Rexford
Rexford,_Kansas
Rexford,_KS
Rexford,_Montana
Rexford,_MT
Rexford_Guy_Tugwell
Rexford_Guy_Tugwell
Rexford_Tugwell
RexGeet
Rexha,_Hava
Rexhep_Meidani
Rexhep_Mejdani
Rexism
Rexist
RexJudicata
RexJudicata
RexMundi
Rexnfx77
RexNL
RexNL
RexNL/monobook.js
RexNL/myskin.css
Rexrexilius
Rexty
Rexworth
Rexworth
REXX
REXX
Rexx
Rexxar
Rexxar
REXX_programming_language
Rexx_programming_language
Rex_(airline)
REX_5000
REX_6000
REX_6000
Rex_84
Rex_Allen
Rex_Allen
Rex_Applegate
Rex_Baker
Rex_Barnes
Rex_Borsky
Rex_Brown
Rex_Buckland
Rex_Carver
Rex_Cat
Rex_cat
Rex_cats
Rex_Cawley
Rex_Chapman
Rex_Deus
Rex_Dyer
Rex_E._Lee
Rex_Gentium
Rex_Gildo
Rex_Grossman
Rex_Harrison
Rex_Hunt
Rex_Ingram
Rex_Ingram_(actor)
Rex_Ingram_(director)
Rex_J._Walheim
Rex_King
Rex_King-Clark
Rex_Krewe
Rex_L._Baker
Rex_Lease
Rex_Miller
Rex_miller
Rex_Milligan
Rex_Morgan
Rex_Morgan,_M.D.
Rex_Murphy
Rex_Navarette
Rex_Navarette
Rex_Navarrete
Rex_Navarrete
Rex_Nemorensis
Rex_Parade
Rex_parade
Rex_parade
Rex_raju
Rex_Reamer
Rex_Records
Rex_Sacrorum
Rex_sacrorum
Rex_Shard
Rex_Stewart
Rex_Stop_Watching_My_User_Contrib_List
Rex_Stout
Rex_T._Stout
Rex_Talking_Machine_Corporation
Rex_the_Runt
Rex_the_runt
Rex_Todhunter_Stout
Rex_Walheim
Rex_Warner
Rex_Whistler
Rex_Williams
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
