User talk:Reximus55

Principia Moderni II


Ok I got the map ready. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:36, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Re:An Apology
Rex, how old are you? For me, you are too young to understand about other's religions and faith. There is no any religion on this world that spread the messages to kill each other. Religion is just all about the man and the invisible supreme power, supreme truth that either just a single one or live in many manifestation. Religion is about human viewing this life, the death and the situation after the death (afterlife).

Egoism inside the human making they believe that their faith is the superior than another and that not only happening on Islam, but also on Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and even the moral religion such as Confucianism. The fanatic Muslims are worse, as worse as yourself, Rex, who being a fanatic Christian. Fanaticism is only about a hate, a religious chauvinism. Even how wrong the Muslim terrorists are, being the fanatic yourself is nothing help. If you hate the terrorists, you should behaved in the opposite way, being the good example that a Christian like you speaking nicely and politely, respecting the people of other faith.

If you are proud for being a Christian, I understand, you are born that way. But, you must be a good Christian that love your neighbours (lit. other people), regardless their religion, faith and political views. If you want to live in peace, you must starting it by yourself.

Assalamualaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Have a nice day and welcome back, Rex. :)

FirstStooge (talk) 00:08, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

6-2-5 Upheaval
US can't "win" that war. China intervenes in any way, shape, or form and it becomes impossible, nukes or not. Nor is Truman going to nuke anything. Most it would accomplish is a front line further north, with a much more angry PRC.

But, since that's your PoD...

MacArthur would not win by such a margin. Heck, the use of the nukes he so advocated would cause a backlash against him, and others, that wanted it. At best, he'd barely win. More realistically, he'd lose the nomination and either Taft or Warren would win the nomination - probably Warren.

USSR and Mongolia would not even consider such moves. Not even remotely.

Would take more than one nuke at that point for the RoC to beat the PRC.

France would not allow that. And, really, the lack of the PRC would not prevent communists in Vietnam - that group was more nationalistic than anything, and was unquestionably the principal group in the area. They'd still get power. Be more nationalistic than communist, but they still get power.

The Doctrine is fine, and more or less.

Lordganon (talk) 13:34, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

RWR, Answers
With ASB, there is two general concepts that make it that way: ASB content, and an ASB PoD.

Quite frankly, not only is the content ASB, but so is but so is the overall idea.

Simply put, there is quite literally no way that that is possible in a scenario even remotely close to otl. And even if things are nowhere near otl, it would still be difficult at best.

Nor is that at all an accurate "image" of either man. The actions you give to Gompers quite literally make no sense, and fly directly opposite to everything he not only stood for, but actually did. The man was more or less the opposite of Debs in politics and attitude, for pete's sake. Something long established before Pullman, too.

Moreover, you mistake unions with socialism. They are not, and have never been, the same thing. Not even remotely. Heck, most people in the movement supported the Republican Party, even.

Neither Roosevelt or Bryan would support them. The idea that they would is, quite honestly, ludicrous.

You need to remember that at that time, the Democrats were more conservative, and the Republicans more moderate. If the Socialists managed to get any more support than otl at all, it comes from the Republicans. Democrats still win.

And, for that matter, the Dems would really not nominate Clark. Despite his support at the convention, he was really not liked that well.

But, overall? Even with all of the "changes" you made Debs still doesn't become President. Simply put, it is impossible to makes changes for someone to go from 6% of the votes to winning. Debs did not get even a third the votes that Taft in third place did. Did not reach a million votes, or win a single county nationally either - not even in the two states he did best in, getting about 16% of the vote in both, did he get a county.

Overall, it's about the equivalent of the timeline that had Breckinridge win the 1860 election by somehow getting Northerners to vote for him - it's just not possible.

Thus, ASB.

Yes, the concept can very much so be "ASB." If it's not possible, then it is ASB, simply put.

You're mistaken about what the "biased" part of the tag means. It means that the timeline is intentionally biased in favor of one group/individual or another. Has not one thing to do with the personal opinions of the author(s),

Given what I know of your background, not at all surprised that you hate LBJ or FDR, and I can guess at your reasonswhy, along with where you heard them from - but I can tell you right now that the vast majority of them would either be false, or not at all explained right in order to make them sound bad.

Rex, you really need to find neutral sources on these things and read those.

Though, I have to say that that opinion of Lincoln is a bit odd, even with your background. Care to elaborate?

Also, since I know you live in the US... what region? Curious to see how right my suspicions are, lol.

Socialism and Communism, despite the preaching of many in the USA today, are in fact not the same thing, and are indeed not even close to being such. For that matter, almost everyone that is called "socialist" is not even close to being one. That's especially the case with the President, as an fyi.

Rest assured, your fear is unfounded - the USA has never, will never, and is not, anywhere remotely close to becoming Communist, or even "Socialist."

Now, as for the history questions...

Currently, I am stuck in what could best be described as "immigration hell." Which basically means that unless I want to do something illegal - think what the stereotypical "illegal" would do in the US - I cannot do anything until my paperwork clears. Very maddening, I assure you. Surprised I'm still sane, lol.

Once that clears - lawyer assures me it should by Christmas clear up - we'll see.

Overall, though, History graduates are employed in many different locations. Out of the people I know who took history in some form at university, having it as either their major or minor, the results are varied.

Two are working on Masters in History and working varied part time jobs - graduate soon.

One is an executive for an expanding restaurant chain, and looking at master's programs.

One got an after-degree in education and is now teaching.

Two of them are Bartenders, and were prior to getting their degrees.

One just got his Masters in History, and was recently a supervisor at an Archival project for an organization.

Another one went to Law School, and is now a practicing Lawyer and Writer.

One works at the Alberta legislature in some sort of role (something akin to a general assistant, not sure past that what she does)

Another has been doing Archaeological stuff, is due to enter a masters in some sort of fancy environment program soonish, though was only a history minor.

One is an officer in the RCN, did his degree as part of that.

And the last is a Construction Manager/Project Supervisor/Safety Officer for a Construction Company in the far north. Was prior/during his degree too, family business.

Myself, I worked in a large independent toy and hobby store while finishing my degree. Have a line on a spot in graduate school when my stuff gets further along. Going to try to get into Museum work.

Past all that, History majors are in many places. Universities, Teaching, Museums, Government, Historical Sites, occasionally Libraries (whole different degree for that one mostly, actually) are not unusual. But the skills you pick up doing a history degree, like being analytic in your thinking, researching skills, able to think neutrally, etc. are useful in many fields. It's actually not unusual for manages or executives to have degrees in history or related fields.

Would so better with helping you with regards to history if you had questions. General advice is a bit harder.

As for your signature, got me. Imp or Scraw would be the best place to go for that.

Lordganon (talk) 21:16, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

...Says right on my profile that I'm Canadian, lol.

The concept that a conservative in Canada is the same as a liberal in the USA is not even remotely true. In both countries, the two are about the same.

Sorry Rex, but you don't go from that small of a vote to winning, no matter what "endorsements" you may get.

Debs was, in fact, already a socialist when he went to prison. He just went further in that direction while there. Gompers, not even remotely close to that. And, for that matter, his reputation is exactly why he had nothing to do with socialists, in addition to his political beliefs.

Most TL's about election aren't actually biased. You just change one small(ish) thing about it, to change the result. Things such as a different VP choice could be all you need in some cases. An example of this would be Step in a Different Direction, where McCain chooses someone besides Palin for his VP selection in 2008, and ekes out a narrow win over Obama as a result. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.

That being said, there are election TLs that are biased. Some disturbingly so, for that matter. The Breckinridge one I told you about the other day is a very good example of this.

Still curious as to where you're from in the US.

I did not ask for your political viewpoint. Not that it was hard to guess by your past statements, of course. But, suffice to say, Rex, that there is at best very little truth to all of that. You have a lot of learning to do, overall.

Kennedy did actually have a goal of getting the CRA passed.

And, though you are obviously unaware of it, you are at least a little racist. Kind of obvious, truthfully. Think of it this way: If you feel a need to say something like "A bit racist sounding, but oh well, it true" with regard to something, let alone use the term "Aryan" - a made-up word, more or less, even - then that means you are, in fact, at least somewhat racist. Very much the same goes for the slavery-Bible line.

Lincoln... Quite frankly, none of that is true.

Lincoln was not from the "radical" part of the Republican Party - not even close. He actually advocated it remain because he knew that at least for the time being, it was needed. Nor was the Republican Party at all dedicated to that. And if you read that proclamation, you'd find that it's actually a confiscation of property from rebels - spoils of war, more or less - not freeing anyone. It's a common misconception - the freeing part, overall, came later.

The War itself was actually about, in many ways, whether or not they had the right to leave the Union. The result leaves the answer obvious - they did not have the right. Even in the South a significant minority agreed with this at the time, actually.

What it actually says is that no state may be formed from within the borders of an existing state without that state's governing body voting in favor of it. You can see this, historically, with Maine becoming a state in its own right, after having previously been part of Massachusetts, and the California Legislature almost voting on such a concept with regards to Northern California just prior to Pearl Harbor.

In the case of West Virginia, a significant percentage of the Virginia Legislature did not go along with secession, and formed a rump Legislature in what is today West Virginia. This body, legally recognized as the government of Virginia, voted to allow the formation of a state out of Virginian territory, name up for debate at the time. Very legal, overall, according to the Constitution. And, according to the Supreme Court in an 1870 decision, for that matter, as well.

Simply no truth to your fourth point.

As for the fifth, that proved quite true - the Civil War re-energized the nation.

Using the term "war hawks" with regards to conservatives is a very new development. As in the last few decades, for that matter. Prior to that, it had been for war supporters in general. And you miss all the wars that "conservative" presidents got the US into with that statement, too ;)

It was actually JFK that got the US into Vietnam, not LBJ.

Kudos for knowing that the recession wasn't Carter's fault, though. Most people do not know that.

There is very few timelines out there with regards to elections being the PoD where they are actually ASB - and the ones that are such should in theory all be marked that way, though I'm sure that there are ones out there that we do not know about. Those election-based TL's that are ASB have something happening and drastically favoring one group or another so that they win - and that is, quite frankly, the base definition of bias.

Overall, don't want to hear anything about politics from you again, Rex. Not until you've grown up some, mind.

Lordganon (talk) 10:17, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

About where I figured.

Any election that can possibly be said to be ASB is also biased - thus, they go in the "ASB-Biased" category.

Lordganon (talk) 13:05, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

ASB-Elections = Not Happening. It's already covered by Biased.

Southwest. Too "libertarian" - not that that word is used in anything remotely like its actual definition in the US - for the "south," while just enough to indicate that "west" is likely, but too many remarks about race to be the "north." Though, I was expecting Texas purely because of population in that area, not Arizona. Area of Arizona, of course, not at all surprising.

Lordganon (talk) 14:23, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

If Bryan wins in that year, then your whole concept doesn't happen.

Doesn't change anything, Rex.

Lordganon (talk) 13:28, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

Why this wiki?
I don't remember why.

I'm retired with little to do but sit at my computer all day.

I'm like the English professor in the Men's Room:

I don't write on the walls, I just correct the spelling and grammar.

To read more about me go to qrz.com and enter my call sign K1ATV.

And, I'm number two :)

I'm not an expert but I play one - on HAM TV.

30 years on and off HAM TV in Arizona.

EoGuy (talk) 23:35, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Finland
Virtually all of the earlier issues still apply, Rex, with the added problem that you tried to change the content on the NU article.

To be clear: The Finland article needs to match the NU article, not the other way around.

Lordganon (talk) 11:49, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate
Greetings. Recently, you have uploaded a file on this site that is a duplicate of another. Please keep in mind that many of the files used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have also been uploaded to this site — with all of them having been uploaded under the same file names used on those sites (making it quite easy to locate any files you may need). If you are using the "Visual" mode for editing and uploading, please be advised that you will be required to use underscores instead of spaces when searching for a file (e.g., "Flag_of_Canada.svg" and not "Flag of Canada"). In the event that the file you acquire has not already been uploaded onto this site, than we highly recommended that you upload the standard file used on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons as a courtesy to current and future users.

The following uploads have have been removed from this site, and have been replaced with the following correct files:


 * File:French Coat of Arms (1898).png → File:Francecoatofarms1898-2.png

Please try not to let this happen again. Please do not re-upload this file. Disciplinary actions will be taken if duplications continue. Thank you. -- 00:32, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Grammar fixing
Rex, rather only fixing around the grammar on the wiki pages, why don't you check around the vandalism or the illegal editing on its too. Your last editing on my United States page almost making an anonymous edit on it unnoticed by me. Be careful for the next time, Rex.

FirstStooge (talk) 03:57, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

An anon can edit any page they like.

Anyway, thanks for your grammar fixing. Keep your good work. ^^

FirstStooge (talk) 05:48, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

TSPTF Nomination
Rex, maybe we had a quarelling a long time ago. But, you proved that you are worthy to be nominated as a Constable with your wonderful works on categorizing and undoing the vandalism and spams.

FirstStooge (talk) 11:23, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

HI! This is just for the achievment... YOLO.

Metalshadow455 (talk) 03:15, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Third duplicate
You have recently uploaded your third duplicate onto the site.


 * File:Finnish National Coalition Party logo.png → File:National Coalition Party.svg

You have been warned about this multiple times. I remember you attempted to remove my previous message back in April, but I did some digging and I didn't realize you had removed one of my messages back in 2013. For not only ignoring these messages but willingly removing them, you will be blocked for two weeks. If you continue to duplicate following this suspension, you may be blocked longer. -- 15:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Your Seal
In regards to color, I don't see much of a difference between the shades of red. The only difference I see between your file and the one I uploaded is that yours has a white background (while the other is transparent). Since your argument was about the red, I take it the background isn't an issue with you.

Secondly, you shouldn't have re-uploaded that file. This is a big no no! What you should've done was bring it up with me for a discussion. I will be deleting this file once again. If you re-upload it or anything of the sort you will be suspended once again. Please try not to let this happen again. -- 00:57, June 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your argument. But as I mentioned before, the color differences between your file and the Wikipedia file are minuscule. I sympathize with files with noticeable color differences, but this particular example is just not that noticeable to me.


 * As for your willingness to "put [my] unfairly harsh ban behind [you]", let me reiterate that I gave you three warnings in the span of a full year, with you willingly ignoring and removing the first two from your talk page.


 * I stand by my decision that these two files are similar enough that having two separate files are not required. While I never argued this was a duplicate as with previous discussions with you, you did state you partially acquire this file from Wikipedia, and your only grievance to have two files is solely because of coloring (which are barely noticeable). I will request once more that you use the file provided. -- 02:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Your Blog
On your most recent blog you have been somewhat slanderous, and by making it so that no one can comment, no one can actually state the truth. First of all the Progressives aren't anti-TSPTF, as their current leader is a LT in the TSPTF. If we're the opposite of the Conservatives (Anti-Reform Party) we should be listed as Reform Party.

I would appreciate it if you could change that. As for the rest of the bias, since this is after all a persuasive brochure, run wild. Mscoree (talk) 12:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I will gladly run for the position of PresidencyALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 17:11, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to run for President of the Wiki. As the person who started the government sim back up again, I'd like to try to throw my hat in the ring and run for President. Bfoxius (talk)

Second Age of Imperialism (Map Game)
Reximus, I'm goanna to play as Sweden, OK.

Eric von Schweetz, You Young and Sweet Boy!

Sofala
You may reconquest Sofala at your Leisure. Regards

My answers
FirstStooge (talk) 10:08, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I only said that the Progressive Party is in an alliance with the Centrist Party. I never stated that both parties already in a formal coalition, didn't I? "Alliance" is should not be simply interpreted as a coalition that bonded by formal agreement. As long as two or more parties had positive relations with each other that made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests, even simply as friendship or by nominating same presidential ticket, it is still considered as an "alliance." Nominating the same ticket is means the Centrist and the Progressives are in an alliance, while not in a formal coalition.
 * 2) Please give me a proof that the Communist Party has a more radical goals than the other parties.
 * 3) Most of Centrist Party members are formerly being the part of Progressive Party. In much further correction, I realized that the Centrists are not a puppet of Progressives, but instead a little sibling that trying to depend on itself, partly free from its older brother (Progressives), although they still sharing a same ticket for presidential election.
 * 4) Your claim that the Centrists as the ideological successor of the Independents is simply non-sense. As the original member of Non-Aligned Movement, I felt the Centrists has nothing in common with the Independents. The Centrist Party is simply claiming its in order to strengthen its image as the party that choose no side and can being "catch-all" party. On other side, all of goals of Independent Party are match with the Communist ones. You can compare its by yourself if you want.