You might have ignored it, but the book report shows two pages in that great FTC of yours have pending issues. Check and fix them! igordebraga≠ 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse me - I haven't dealt with Wikibooks before. Can you tell me what you mean by issues (/where to find them) and how to fix them? It is a coding issue? Brigade Piron (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Click "Show" in the last part of the talk page (above the grading schale) and it'll show the articles in the topic, plus any problems they might have (it denounces one article has a [[Template:Page needed|[page needed]]] and another a [[Template:Fact|[citation needed]]]), and you'd better edit to fix... igordebraga≠ 16:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits to the African pages, particularly the campaign boxes and personalities, they're pretty much a closed book to me ((Like Belgian spellings). Do you have any material for North Africa during World War I? I'm not sure if there is enough on the page to add to the Campaign page yet.Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem, your additions to this area are amazing! I'll see what I can do. I would, however, suggest a name change for North Africa during World War I which currently suggests a non-military topic area. How about "North African theatre in World War I"? I'll see what I can do!Brigade Piron (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea, particularly "theatre" without a capital "t". There is quite a lot of writing on the linked pages about matters which I'd never heard of. I hope we can get it some attention from the punters. I was equally amazed at your jack-in-the-box infobox modifications, I had no idea you could do that, it's been a godsend. I only began dabbling to use the OH sources I've had sitting on the shelf for three years, when I saw that the pages were short of B1 and B2. I can't summon the will to assess other people's writing so when I put things in for a B, I look for articles to which I can add citations. As usual, the process got a bit out of hand.Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to revert you on this, but placing it on the right looks all wrong to me, though I see where you are coming from re the nav box. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Bafilo I doubt that there's enough material to make this page B class but there could be enough if it was combined with the other operations in the north (at least as far as my sources are concerned). Would you mind having a look at it to see if it could be changed (moved?) to something like Northern operations.... or perhaps suppressing the page and adding the material to Battle of Chra? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Keith. Yes, I think I'd definitely agree with you that it doesn't need a whole page. I think the merger you suggested would be very sufficient! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 I've got Chra set up here so I can incorporate it but I have the German OH on loan so I'm using it to add details to the German side of operations in the France and Belgium articles before it goes back.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind casting an eye over Siege of Namur (1914) especially for the German artillery and Belgian fortification details please, I'm seriously short of sources on them compared to the German side (for once). ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Keith. No problem, I'll give it a look. I do worry, though, about the sheer amount of background though - it's excellently written (though I'm not so sure about the Tactical/Strategic developments idea) but I'm not sure it's really needed in an article like Siege of Namur - Liège perhaps... Actually, would you consider merging some of it into Belgium in World War I? Brigade Piron (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You're not the first person to have reservations but I've found that it's a good way of defusing controversy caused by ignorance of the last 30 year's worth of scholarship. I had a fret about it last year when I did some of the "other engagements" for the Somme, since it was repetitious but OZ R etc wanted it in for people who hadn't read any of the other articles. The background is a horizontal article which runs through associated articles like a thread but since I did the hub page first and pasted sections into the associated articles it could probably stand some pruning. Strategic-Tactical are just terms for general and local - we need to remember that events elsewhere were connected, such as the Eastern Front and the Mediterranean and put something in to avoid Anglo-centric bias or Western Front myopia - the needs of the Eastern Front had quite an effect on German operations in Belgium and northern France (and vice-versa).
PS there's an essay by W. Philpott Britain, France and the Belgian Army which gives a good exposition of Leopold's strategy after the Yser (a sort of proto-de Gaulle)Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron, just writing to let you know I've created the article in question. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That's good! Personally, I think there's rather too much Wikilawyering at AFC. Either something is GA or FA standard, or they refuse to accept it! Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't change the established WP:era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content ([1]). Best. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chilembwe uprising you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian(talk) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Did a drive-by ce of the Chilembwe page, which looked much improved and quite a monument to the efforts he and his associates made. Congratulations.Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Cliftonian and Keith, thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Great job! I'm sure it will pass GA. It should also be nominated for DYK; would you like to do it, or would you like me to? Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Will do. As the author, I'd like to give you the honour/job of choosing a hook though (the part that goes ...that blah blah blah?). Oreo Priesttalk 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That was my concern too, which is why I was hoping to pawn it off on you! No matter though, I'll think of one. Oreo Priesttalk 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's done! You may want to watch the nomination page, but be warned that these usually don't move very quickly. Also, if you have a stroke of inspiration for an alternate hook, don't hesitate to add it as an ALT. Oreo Priesttalk 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's in the queue now: T:DYK/Q. Look at that page periodically if you want advance notice of when it will be on the main page. Oreo Priesttalk 00:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, do you (hopefully) have access to any of the usual Tintin sources (those books written by the Tintin literary critics found in the bibliography of any of our "completed" Tintin articles)? Prhartcom (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I do have Harry Thompson, but I'm afraid not the others. I have JSTOR though, if that helps. Are you planning to continue the march through the non-GA titles? I would like to see The Shooting Star at GA, in particular, for my German occupation of Belgium during World War II series.Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for checking. I'm like you—I have that book and several others. My Tintin library is slowly getting bigger but I still don't have the more recent ones yet. We need to be better prepared to improve all of these articles to GA/FA. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes indeed, the plan is to march (slowly) through the non-GA Tintin books, characters, locations, adaptations, etc. (it may take the rest of our lives!). Midnightblueowl has done the lion's share of this good work and has established what a high-quality Tintin article must achieve. Feel free to nominate The Shooting Star yourself if you wish to do the work necessary (Tintin in Tibet is supposedly in GAR right now; thank-you for adding an image there!) and I or another will be happy to be the reviewer and help you get it there. Prhartcom (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I had not heard of JSTOR and just now investigated it; it looks great and has several Tintin articles in its database (such as Hergé and the Myth of the Superchild by Jean-Marie Apostolidès). Prhartcom (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep it in mind, and if I can be of help, please feel free to ask. I should say I have a pretty good range of books on Belgian history more generally for the aspects which affect the works - and Les Personnages de Tintin dans l'Histoire: les Événements qui ont inspire l'Œuvre de Hergé (which I'd forgotten about). Brigade Piron (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I had not heard of Les Personnages de Tintin; I just looked it up and wished I could read it now; I would use it as source material to improve List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Please do continue to improve the articles with your source material and your knowledge of Belgian history; that is exciting to hear. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Could we put it at the top of Background and early ideas? It may add balance to the page. Try it and see what you think. Prhartcom (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: I moved it today; I hope you like it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again; I'm so grateful you researched and added that picture to the article; I had a task to do so in the GA Review's To Do list and it is now checked off (You are welcome to click Edit in the top margin of the list and replace your name with three tildes). FYI: An improved Adaptations section has been completed but is still on the GA Review page here; I have updated it with the improvement you made today. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you be in favour of adding another? I think File:Drigung monastery10.jpg might work quite well, and is certainly relevant to the plot.Brigade Piron (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that looks great! Again for balance, perhaps at the top left of the Influences section? How do you research and find good free-use photos anyway? I truly do not know how. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Howdy. I've noticed you are frequently changing foreign-language article titles to italics. This is not correct - Wikipedia:Mos#Foreign_words is clear that proper nouns in foreign languages are usually not italicized. Likewise, the manual of style for text formatting says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words).". I prefer bringing this up directly with you to changing your edits all over Wikipedia with no explanation. Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk 03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Oreo. If you look at the MOS you've highlighted (I assume you mean Wikipedia:Foreign words btw) they both say that "Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized." Well, I personally this as slightly less black-and-white like WP:ITALICTITLE makes it. I'd certainly agree that Charleroi or Diksmuide should not be italicised, but it seems to me a world of difference between those and, say, the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven or Fédéralistes Démocrates Francophones which (yes) are proper nouns, but are also phrases... To me, there seems a world of difference between the two...Brigade Piron (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:ITALICTITLE merely states that the title should match its use in the prose. I suppose it was initially unclear that I was talking about both titles and the use in the prose. When it says "phrases", it means things like l'état, c'ést moi should be in italics instead of roman script, not that any foreign name that's more than one word long should be in italics. The defensive language 'not usually' is because sometimes proper nouns from foreign languages are to be italicized because they would have been anyways if they were in English; compare Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad to USS Nimitz (CVN-68). Oreo Priesttalk 14:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth taking to talk, but I'll quickly try and convince you :) A quick search for "Alliance" shows names like "Canadian Alliance" and "SDP–Liberal Alliance". Those would be Canadian's or Liberal's if it requires an apostrophe. I don't know how the grammar works (they could all be wrong), but it seems like a common pattern at least. I guess it could be an alliance for Christian peoples (not "of" as I said originally). --h2g2bob (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi h2g2bob, no that's fine, I understand where you're coming from. Both are alternative forms of the same thing => Christian and Christian's both serve to create a genitive here (i.e. "of the Christian"). Of course, both are correct but they've chosen the apostrophized version ("Christian" here describes "Peoples", not the "Alliance"). So what you have is "Alliance of the Christian People" (the plural of "People" is extremely rare, cf. People's Republic of China, but certainly theoretically possible). Therefore the options available are either "Christian People's Alliance" or "Christian Peoples' Alliance". Either way, it's a [sic]. Otherwise you've just got a simple noun to describe another noun, similar to "Germany People" or "France Flag"! Brigade Piron (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I added one image of the memorial but there is also this "The place where Miss Cavell was shot" which you might be interested in. Nedrutland (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
On 17 May 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jean-Luc Dehaene, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Therfe is no need for an edit war. If you think information is incorrect, please flag it do not erase it. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I left a message at your talk page at the same time. I certainly do not want an edit war, but much of the information you have reinserted is from an old, flawed version which has (hopefully) been superceded by new, better-sourced text covering the same areas.Brigade Piron (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
whether the sourced info is flawed is a group decision to be handled on the talk page, not your personal unilateral decision. You're misreading the text-- it did NOT say 60,000 blacks were killed; it said 60,000 survived and went to POW camps. That shows very careless reading on your part. Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please be civil. The text was reinserted after a section about massacres of colonial POWs, and is cited by a book with the word "massacre" in the title. Plus, it does beg the question of what happened to the 60,000 others - who were certainly not released, according the texts I read for the rewrite... Brigade Piron (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Civility means following the rules -- as in using the talk page instead of heavy handed erasures based on compete misreadings: the text said "Survived" and you read it as "killed" and then erased it all. You erased without reading the following sentence: "About 60,000 black soldiers survived, and were treated like the other colonial POWs, but not as well as the French men." How do I know you did not read it--you just said so above (you said "Plus, it does beg the question of what happened to the 60,000 others - who were certainly not released,") Please restore your erasures so we can talk. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've read it now, and I find it excellent. It was only a bit lacking in hypertext, which I've fixed. I think it could pass A-class. Last thing, a picture in gender relations; something a bit different than the n-th photo of a woman getting her head shaved or flirting with germans. A slice of war-time daily life, perhaps.
You're welcome to ask me about anything. Cheers, walkvictor falktalk 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Would you be willing to do the review for it? It would be great if someone with background knowledge could do it! Brigade Piron (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I've done a more thorough copyediting [2], mostly minor and some changes of turns of phrase. Check them out, and see if you are happy with them. I'm going to give it B-class, and I think you should nominate for GA. If you do I'll be happy to participate in the review. Cheers, walkvictor falktalk 15:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Brigade Piron. You have new messages at Victor falk's talk page. Message added 13:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French prisoners of war in World War II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Victor falk -- Victor falk (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, in the article Belgian prisoners of war in World War II, the statement 225,000 men, approximately 30% of the strength of the Belgian army in 1940, were deported to concentration camps in Germany. is made. Should this not read deported to prisoner of war camps -- the phrase "concentration camp" in the context of the Second World War usually refers to KZ-Lage such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd got rid of that earlier but thanks for letting me know. It's changed now. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it - preferably UKEng, if possible! Brigade Piron (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
By 1944 the Germans were increasingly forced to share power, as day-to-day administration was more and more delegated to Belgian civil authorities and organisations.: If the Germans were delegating power, how could they have been "forced"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Because they no longer had the (military) power to control the territory without their help.Brigade Piron (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then we want "and" instead of "as", because "as" implies that they were forced to share power because they delegated it away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
In 1941, while still incarcerated, he married Mary Lilian Baels, undermining his popularity.: why?
The reader shouldn't have to click through to find out if it can be summed up succinctly. Can we get a short explanation? It just comes out of nowhere. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so is it Oxford spelling, then (-ize), or should I change it to regular BrEng (-ise)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Regular British (-ise) please! My computer has an automatic US correct, which is really irritating so sorry that this should arise...Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I know how you feel—I'm Canadian! Every way I spell is "wrong". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If it helps, there are ways to set your computer to spell check for the country you prefer. For example, I set my MS Word to British English. Check the web for ways to do this. Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to help. :( Brigade Piron (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? I used the following techniques [3][4] and soon I was seeing the spellcheck recommend spellings like "favourite" and "traveller" and it even recommended I change the phrase "Isn't that right?" to "Eh?" (Just kidding on that last one; I'll go away now). Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you see I'm still a dinosaur and use Internet Exploder. Probably time I changed though. Will keep this in mind when my "labour" automatically "corrects" itself...Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
recruited only from very specific demographics: such as? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Students, factory workers, etc. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It's best if you throw that in, then. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
In its own article, Eupen-Malmedy doesn't have an accent over the e. Should it have one in this article? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it ever has an accent actually. Besides, WP:Belgium follows naming conventions of the majority language of the region - which is German in this case. Thanks for spotting this (and for the rest of the review, naturally!) Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, according to Malmedy, both are OK. Probably better to keep the accent if it is more archaic? Brigade Piron (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you double-check if "Eupen-Malmédy" is acceptable? If you keep it, and somebody notices it's not used in the article it links to, they might remove it on you. Aslo, it's possible it's acceptable in "Malmédy" but not in "Eupen-Malmédy" (people really split hairs over the spelling of names). If it is acceptable, that should be added to the Eupen-Malmedy article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
1 I could put a <!--- message ---> next to it? Brigade Piron (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, those articles are not referenced inline, so the required task for quality content import here is not just translation, but basically fact-checking and rewriting from scratch. If I add those articles to my to do list on my user page, given the current rate I progress through this list, I may be able to do this before 2025, but could be a bit over that schedule :> You could try to ask for help at WT:POLAND, there's a tiny chance that one of our other five or so active members may be able to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron! I see that you have opened a GA review page for Michel Foucault. Just to notify you that there is a talk page section entitled "Why I'd quickfail this as a GA" that you may find relevant. Cheers, and keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Madalibi. Thank you for that. I don't think it's a necessary case for quick fail, but it does highlight some important concerns. Thanks for letting me know! Brigade Piron (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! I didn't mean that the article should be quick-failed, and I should have said so. It's just that there are relevant points in there that should probably be addressed at some point. As far as I can tell, the GA nominator has not meaningfully contributed to the article, so I don't know if he or she will be able to solve these problems. This being said, I think the article as it is now would make a great GA (or even FA) under Biography of Michel Foucault. All right, have fun with the review! Madalibi (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Léon Pétillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luluabourg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is considered impolite to change the section heading "Notes" to "References" or vice-versa once it has been established in an article? --Bejnar (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't done with that intention. "Citations", "references", "footnotes" are, to my mind, interchangeable; notes are different in my opinion because of the difference between {{notelist}} and {{Reflist}}. But please ignore. Brigade Piron (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brigade. Generally, it's best not to move an article while it's the subject of WP:AFD, as it complicates the closing procedure. Additionally, John Snodgrass (the British diplomat) was often referred to as J.M.O. Snodgrass. This may have been to avoid confusion with John H. Snodgrass, the American consul general to Moscow in the early 20th century. Pburka (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, apologies. Full-name titles is a pet hate of mine - in English, people tend to take the first of a series of names as their "given name" (but not always), but it can be very different in French and German. Having a full series of names just makes it more complicated and, in my mind, is not a helpful disamig or alternative to bracketed description. If he is known as J. M. O., then that should be used, in my opinion, rather like A. J. P. Taylor. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Brigade Piron. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. Message added 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
or is it Khra? I incorporated the bit about Bafilo so should I do something about deleting the Bafilo page? I assume there's a procedure.Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't know I'm afraid. The section, I believe, is WP:AFD.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I got a link from Hawkeye but the instructions are @'*/#~' useless as usual.Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the battle is still on the 2nd Aisne page. I thought I'd written the separate article about six months ago! You might as well revert my revert until I get round to it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
All is well, thanks. I agree that it's important, but I'm not really a big chocolate person, so I didn't have too much to add off the top of my head. I think you got a good start.
On the other hand, I just yesterday bought a book on Belgian food, which I intend to eventually use to improve Belgian cuisine from its current inadequate state. Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Oreo! I've got a couple too and I agree that Belgian cuisine is pretty poor at the moment. Would you be up for a collaborative re-write, perhaps with rather more prose? Brigade Piron (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed this now; I'm not in the habit of watching other peoples' talk pages. I'm certainly willing to give it a shot, though I don't think I've ever properly collaborated before, so I can't guarantee that I'll be as productive as you. And yes, the article certainly needs more prose and more direction.
What I came here to say, actually, was that I've added a bunch of photos to the gallery, but as mentioned above, I'm not really a big chocolate person, so I feel quite uninspired about what to add, and I've added no pictures of chocolate at all. Perhaps you'd like to address this? Oreo Priesttalk 12:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
North African operations during World War I got round to adding the version from the sandbox. Would you mind looking at it for suggestions? There's lots to do to get it fit for a B class review but I think what's there is reasonably OK. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Be a bit careful about using modern countries that didn't exist at the time but I don't think that's too much of an issue here (Sudan=Anglo-Egyptian Sudan etc.). I must admit, I'm still not a fan of the title. Could "Military operations in North Africa during World War I" be a bit better? I can see why "North African Theatre..." was dropped, but the current title still doesn't seem great! Good work though! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think your title is better and the details need improvement. Can you work your infobox magic or was that torpedoed last time?Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! TBH, I think it's better off without an infobox - it's only really a series of conflicts united by geography, not really a one-off thing after all? Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I suppose it's questionable but without a page like this, there's a part of the world affected by the war without a home. The region may only be in the miscellaneous file but time and geography seem reasonable criteria - the locals managed quite a come-back against the French and Italian invaders while they were busy in Europe, which must have had some reciprocal effects.Keith-264 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to the caption of this picture in Belgium in World War II, with the remark Rv. good intentioned edit - they are in Brussels, in the Marollen area I think. The church is possibly Chapel Church. Well, a spent a lot of time looking around which church in Brussels it might be; none looked like this. A strong clue is the café left which serves beer brom Concordia, a brewery in Geraardsbergen, so the action was likely more West of Brussels. At last I found this is Enghien, with the help of Google Streetview (what else?): [5] The street here is the Brusselsestraat (N7). The café left still exists, now it's called "Rembrandt". The church is the Saint Nicholas. The building right is also still recognizable.
Kind regards Henxter (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Congo Crisis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Congo Crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron. I've finished my initial GA review of the article and I've put it on hold for now—I think overall the article is a very good summary of the subject but there are a few minor issues regarding specific details, and some regarding prose and grammar. I've posted some notes on the review page that I hope will be helpful. Good luck and thanks again for working on this important article. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out—I'm interested in the subject and I don't mind lending a hand. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk) 09:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cliftonian! And please don't think I'm ignoring your review, my internet connection is fairly terrible at the moment (should all be resolved by next week) so I'm getting there! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry at all—consider the circumstances under which I am editing at the moment... ;) —Cliftonian(talk) 09:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair point! I hope you and your family are OK! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Mrs Cliftonian and the as-yet unborn Cliftonian Jr. are both OK, thanks :) —Cliftonian(talk) 10:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The article Congo Crisis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Congo Crisis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The article Congo Crisis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Congo Crisis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Belgium in the long nineteenth century you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Epaulettes (stamp) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Epaulettes (stamp) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Epaulettes (stamp) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, would you please assist again on Tintin in Tibet ... Please toss out and rewrite the caption of one of the files in the article? Curly Turkey suggests that the file "File:Western Cwm - 14th May 2011.jpg" needs a better one ... please go to the article talk page and search for the phrase "There's a caption:" to read his suggestion. Thanks; I am working on his other suggestions. Prhartcom (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I think I did it; feel free to check my work. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As I began filling the details in the Race to the Sea pages, I noticed that Flirey seems an anomaly. I assume it's there for reasons of chronology. Do you think it would be better in another campaign box, like the Battle of the Frontiers? Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Keith. Sorry if I'm being a bit dim, but what is "Flirey"? Will be able to help (hopefully) when I know! Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry! Personally, even if it wasn't an integral part of the campaign, I think the chronology is more important than anything else. As such, most of it seems to late for Frontiers. I think it's fine where it is! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
How about an "Other operations" subsection?Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, that would probably be bordering on WP:OR. Honestly, it's fine as-is! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Come off it! It has nothing to do with the RttS. I bet there were other operations beyond Verdun too.Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Epaulettes (stamp) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Epaulettes (stamp) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tu m'as reverté sur la question de Liège ou Liége, sur base de la graphie d'avant 1946 (usage local) alors que dès 1878, l'académie française préconise "Liège". Par ailleurs, quel intérêt pour le lecteur anglophone (déjà peu sensibilisé à l'accentuation) d'entrer dans ces débats? La graphie actuelle correcte me parait en l'espèce la meilleure voie à suivre. Nous ne sommes pas sur la version anglaise de l'article fr:WP consacré à l'étymologie de Liège qui elle, mériterait cette précision dans le détail.
Autre chose: la date du premier convoi: il est erroné de reprendre le convoi Todt comme étant le premier convoi de la déportation des juifs de Belgique dans un article intitulé "The holocaust in Belgium". Par ailleurs, la caserne dossin n'ayant été opérationnelle qu'au 27 juillet 42, il est douteux que le convoi Todt ait été constitué au départ de celle-ci le 22.
Bien à toi,
--Madelgarius (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour Madelgarius,
Ce n'est pas à nous de formuler le date du premier convoi d'après WP:OR. Il faut néanmoins dire que la déportation (soit de l'OT, soit du SIPO-SD) fait partie des événements qu'on appelle "The Holocaust" ainsi que ce qu'on lis dans la citation employée. Quant à Liége/Liège, tu as peut-être raison ;)
Bonjour, mais toute la littérature mentionne le Convoi I au 4 août 42 à moins que le Twentieth convoy soit le XXIème (ce qui serait à proprement parler un WP:OR). Par ailleurs, tu ne reviens pas sur le fait qu'il serait parti de la caserne Dossin, ce qui semble anachronique. J'ai déjà pas mal lu sur la question de l'Holocauste en Belgique, je n'ai jamais rien lu de tel. En toute hypothèse, sauf si tu disposes de sources de premier plan pour l'affirmer, cette info est erronée. Tu veux connaître le fond de ma pensée? Ton revert n'était pas justifié ;-) Je ne t'en tiendrai cependant pas rigueur pour te connaitre un peu, cela dit, je reste tout à ton écoute pour la source qui reprendrait un premier convoi le 22. Bien à toi, --Madelgarius (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour,
J'ai re-lu la citation et tu as raison! Voir ici (p.393) pour une date de 2 août (le 22 juillet était la première "aktion"...). J'espère que ça ne te dérangeras pas? Mon problem n'était guère avec ton changement, mais que tu n'a pas mis un source pour le supporter. Mais l'erreur était évidemment ma faute cette fois et merci de m'avoir prévenu ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
L'important est d'avoir pu échanger sereinement à propos de ceci. A bientôt au détour de WP ;-) Bye. --Madelgarius (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this correct? I wouldn't know where to look. Thanks, Oreo Priesttalk 08:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's dodgy, but it's not my province either. That said, I agree it's suspect and it is unsourced after all. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1#Comments from Neelix
I've seen it in lots of places—it's a relatively uncommon usage but nevertheless acceptable in a military context. See British-officered, Belgian-officered, white-officered for some examples. Cheers, hope you're well. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron, I hope you're well. I have Southern Rhodesia in World War II at GAN now if you're interested in having a look. Cheers and have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian(talk) 20:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cliftonian. Really excellent work on the article! I'm afraid I'm not going to be about much on Wiki for the next month or so, so please forgive me for not taking on the review, otherwise I'd jump at it like a shot! I'll have a look for some spelling/grammar stuff in the next day or two, but there doesn't seem much that still needs doing! All best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all. Any help at all would be very much appreciated. Keep well and take care! —Cliftonian(talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, with regard to my own article Eurafrika, I would be glad to have a Belgian expert looking over it. Regards Serten (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK for German occupation of Belgium during World War I
I was working based on this, just for the record. Stamboliyski (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you might well be right, actually. "Nyasa" I think might be an ethnic group within it - it is, however, the adjectival form (per The Nyasa Times). Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
How's things? I've had a good rest from long Flanders articles and am working on my 1st Ypres edit, which should be ready in a couple of days, manflu excepting. Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent Keith, nice to have you back! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It has been nine months since you and I posted on the talk page of this article. I just noticed two new images (from a Canadian demonstration) have been edited into the article) have been added. Perhaps images from the world wide movement against the war could be a quick way of broadening coverage. I think it would be better to have only one image from the same demonstration, but removing one of the images should wait until new images from the anti-war movement outside the U.S. can be added. It occurs to me that you would have better access to images from European protests than I. Do you think you could dig some up?
I have a few images I made on the Thai-Cambodia border of a demonstration, but that was during a different war—the Vietnam-Kampuchea war. As I type this, a new wave of demonstrations is sweeping the U.S.; still, 50 years after the Selma to Montgomery marches. —Neonorange (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. I added this (N'lands) and this (Sweden) to the article already. Fear that finding more pictures will not be easy! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the the other governments-in-exile during World War II they are the same. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mr Hall!
Yes. If we go for British English - which would be the obvious choice in the cases identified (all based in London after all) - then all should be "government in exile" (unhypenated). I've never found out how to do bulk requested moves, but if you can enlighten me, I'd be delighted to get it all straightened out! Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should add that the mainpage, Government in exile, is also not hyphenated. Basically, "government in exile" is not a noun (i.e. you won't find it in the Oxford English dictionary) and consequently is just a sequence of words. You wouldn't expect "government in London" (often a synonym used in history books) to be hyphenated, would you? There is no difference. I'd also add that Encyclopedia Britannica, the BBC and Oxford University-published papers all use this convention.
I suggest you have a look here. Basically, "if the adjectives come after the noun, then they don’t need a hyphen" cf. "hot-water bottle" and "bottle of hot water". So it IS "in-exile government", but "government in exile".
All deeply, deeply exciting, I know ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Brigade Piron, good to be chatting with you again. You may be right, deleting a footnote that points the reader to an image in another Wikipedia article to prevent the image from being used in both articles, calling it "unencyclopedic" to do so. But why exactly is it unencyclopedic? Can you point to a guideline or essay? I would simply like to learn why it is unencyclopedic (or restore the footnote if this deletion is found to be unhelpful). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Apart from decaying easily (if the picture is moved or deleted from the wiki), potentially being a breach of fair use, and inelegant - it's also just not the kind of thing one expects to read in an encyclopedia! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
To be helpful to the reader, can you think of another solution? When I first read the passage describing the image, I wanted to be able to look at it, and it turned out that was possible; it was one click away. Perhaps a much shorter footnote stating, "See Ideology of Tintin."? Prhartcom (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I think you could make a case for including it in the article under fair use. It's extensively discussed and described anyway as-is, so it could also allow for some of the (rather repetitive) description to be removed! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I only just noticed now that you remove the image from La Libre Parole with the edit comment " Libre parole is a French 19th century magazine - its relevance to Hergé, WWII or Belgium is pretty distant..." You do realize that the image was placed beside sourced text talking about the significance of La Libre Parole in Brussels, don't you? It contributes to the background and provides an image from a publication the source says contributed to the standard stereotypes of the age (they didn't pop up overnight). I think it's a much better image than the one that's there now, which is virtually illegible noise. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 15:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The picture in question dates to 1893, the article deals with 1941/2. That's 50 full years of gap. There's no such thing as "a standard stereotype of the age" - I really suggest that you read Brown's For the Soul of France if you think this is the case. Suffice to say that Libre Parole is the core of the French 19th century tradition of anti-Semitism based on opposition to the 3rd Republic and very distinct from the Post-WWI German type.
This aside, I think you'll find that Frey is a rather dodgy source here. I'd be very interested to know how "stock antisemitic imagery in the 1930s and 1940s, [was]... promoted by ... Édouard Drumont whose antisemitic Paris-based newspaper La Libre Parole was influential in Brussels" while Drumont himself had died back in 1917... The newspaper in question also actually folded in 1924 to be replaced by a number of very minor, shortlived pretenders.
Anecdotally too, as the writer of The Holocaust in Belgium and someone who works in the field of Belgian religious and political affiliation in the 1940s, I have never heard of the Libre Parole being read in Belgium in any context. Plenty of Belgian publications of a similar vein (and Je suis partout as well) of course. In my opinion, quoting that here grossly distorts its importance to the subject in question.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I need to be clear on this: are you saying Frey is "a dodgy source" because you "have never heard of the Libre Parole being read in Belgium in any context", or because you know him to be otherwise unreliable? Curly Turkey¡gobble! 21:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If I can present my argument briefly but I should emphasise that I know nothing of Frey.
Libre Parole was a popular anti-Semitic newspaper in late 19th century France focused on articulating concerns about the Third Republic not really relevant in Belgium.
By 1924, the original newspaper had folded anyway (following the death of Drumont himself). Of the successors, all were short-lived and none had a notable circulation anyway.
By the late 1930s, Je suis partout and other publications (aimed explicitly at a Belgian audience) had become popular in their own right.
I'd also point out that the tagline of the Libre Parole is "La France aux français" (France for the French). To argue a relevance to Belgium is problematic...
Personally, I suspect that Mr Frey comes at the subject from the perspective of French literature and is trying to tie it into subjects which he knows, ignoring the fact that in many, many ways, Belgian history and culture is different to France. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I should say, however, that I certainly do not think the current picture (the one I added) is wonderful. Perhaps, subject to your agreement, we could try to get a free use on a relevant anti-Semitic caricature from Belgium in the period? Perhaps this, this or this might be appropriate? The first two I think could work well with the context. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's bigger than that—if Frey is making false statements then we have to consider removing that source as unreliable. He explicitly states "Drumont's paper La Libre parole had been distributed in Brussels and so helped shape opinion there". He's placing it in the context of the tradition of Jewish caricature that permeated many aspects of the culture at the time; I think that's important, and that finding a strictly contemporary image is, I think, missing the point. The implication is that Hergé drew from a well established pool of stereotypes, and not simply the latest fashions in racism. If Frey's assertion about the influence of La Libre parole is simply incorrect, then that image would be less appropriate, but not because it happens to be old. And if Frey is simply making stuff up like this, then we have to question whether we can use th esource at all. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Another issue: we have a professional source stating that La Libre Parole was distributed in Brussels; your assertion to the contrary is: "I've never heard that." We need something stronger than that in order to show Frey's assertion is not valid. You understand, of course, that I'm not questioning you r good faith, right? Nor am I saying, "He's right and you're wrong." It's a sticky situation and it needs to be dalt with appropriately. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your concern, but it is impossible to prove a negative - much less to cite an example of someone doing so! Have you given any thought to any of the images suggested? As I suggested, I think we'd have good fair-usage rationale and it might be a suitable compromise solution? Regardless of whether Frey is right or wrong, I think including the 1890s picture is not as appropriate to the article that it could count as a free substitute. —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Proving a negative is difficult, but if it can be shown that Frey's methodology is otherwise shaky we could remove the source. Can you read it? It's on Google Books. As for the images: the middle one's alright, I suppose, but the other two I think are inadequate—I don't think the caricatures are nearly obvious enough to a 21st-century readership. The first looks merely like a stereotyped "sinister" type, and the registration's so bad in the third that you arely see the face at all, let alone recognize it as a caricature. It doesn't seem to relate to Hergé's caricature at all. Ideally we want something with a huge hook nose, bald, and fat. Bonus points for a cigar. File:1893 La-Libre-Parole-antisemitische-Karikatur.jpg really seems to hit nearly all the right buttons—and is well-drawn and easy to "read"—while throwing in the Jewish Conspiracy to boot (tying into the text, unless we remove Frey). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm in a position to do that (viz. Frey's methodology) and, even if I were, I'm not sure how it would sit with wiki guidelines. I think both of our views have been put fairly clearly. Perhaps it would be best to get a simple third-party decision from other users on the article page itself? —Brigade Piron (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it needs to be so formal. I think Prhartcom, Midnightblueowl and the other users who edit the page should be able to see the discussion and add their input. Rather than the discussion being between us. I should say that I have not been particularly involved in the article either. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Quoting BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. But let's cut the bullshit, it was your text and your ego can't take it being questioned. Some call it small penis symdrome. If you were not such a moron, you would have seen that you could quite easily have resolved the puzzle instead of stupidly claiming "that is what the source says". What is the point of using information that YOU don't understand what it is saying? You would easily have found out that they used 1-litre containers to scoop the mussels. This corresponds to about 750g as you can see in sources just as valid as the one "that says so" 1, 2. Cheers. And go ahead and report me, people like you just make me want to puke, exercising puny power through the revert button. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Feel better? Good. Unlike your, apparently, I don't invest my ego in website articles about European food; I daren't suggest that you perhaps might consider doing the same. You've spectacularly missed the point of WP:BRD which is about collaboration and harmony and frankly, since that's rather essential to the purposes of Wikipedia, I'm not quite sure what you're still doing here. If you can improve the article - you know, by actually using sources or content perhaps - then go right ahead. I, for one, would be delighted. If not, I suggest you go back to spray-painting public walls or mutilating insects as occupations better suited to your levels of maturity. Frankly, there's no point in you staying here. I wish you all the best. Kind regards, —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You are a fine one coming here talking of collaboration and harmony when your knee-jerk reaction is to revert a 100% valid edit, claiming that that is what the source says. I do happen to speak French as I do 7 other languages, but if I did not? What good would it be pointing to me that "that is what the source says" if I did not speak any French? What good it is to anybody else who does not speak the language? And what if the source made a mistake? Is it not your obligation as the editor who included the source to verify the information? Indirectly you admitted as much that you had no idea about why they were talking about litres of mussels. Yet, instead of looking into it, you summarily reverted my edit because it was questioning your work. Really, collaboration and harmony, I see. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm really trying hard to see your point of view here. I fully agree that liters might not be the obvious measurement, but then - hey - I'm only reporting what a WP:RS tells us. As you'll see here or indeed here, people genuinely do use it as a measuring unit for mussels. As I say, it's not the unit I'd have used if left to my own devices but - wonderfully - I'm not a guru whose word is law. I follow guidance and quote what reliable, published authorities say because verifiability is essential. And this policy of verifiability includes sources written in "foreign." Do you doubt the reliability or my interpretation of the source highlighted?
Above all, any of this would have been a reasonable objection you could have made at the start. You could simply have added an alternative source or, frankly, even have ignored it.
You could have explained your point of view on the talk page, per my suggestion, and explained politely why I am wrong. Or, you could have followed your chosen course of action and started talking about penis lengths. Which, I ask, shows more maturity? —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for correcting the title of the article Bataillon d'Infanterie légère d'Outre-Mer. I also wanted to draw your attention to the brief discussion here, to ensure you were aware of what I am concerned about now: ensuring the accuracy of the unit's original purpose. The one substantial, serious English-language source describes the origin differently to how I thought I'd recalled it. I have no hesitation to adjust the article text to reflect this, but wondered if you, with your substantial French-language abilities, could spend a bit of time looking into BILOM? I'm especially concerned that I may have stated in error that German nationals served in the unit, when in reality it may have been only French nationals and I misinterpreted the French.
I don't have access now to either of the two texts in French I cited (Le bataillon des réprouvés, le Bilom: Indochine 1949-1950; and La collaboration militaire française dans la Seconde guerre mondiale), only the English language book by Forbes (which has most of the full BILOM chapter (18) via Google). Again, my main concern is to clarify two fundamental facts about BILOM - what it was originally created for (colonial policing and occupation to free-up other combat troops to serve in Indochina, or it was always intended for overseas combat role) and the composition (were there German nationals held in France as war criminals who could/did serve, or was BILOM only Frenchmen who served in German units and French collaborationist organizations and were being held in France who were recruited)? Thank you again for your edit earlier, and I hope you can find time in the future to assist further. Cheers Azx2 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey just one other thing, the Bene book (from 2012) can be previewed to some degree via Google here, with BILOM chapter 11, available. Would you be able to review it and correct for any misinterpretation I made in noting the original intent of the unit? At your convenience, of course...thanks, BP - hope to hear back from you. Cheers Azx2 20:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
PS. Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to be my clerical help and read the Bene (2012) extracts in French and then tell me here via your TP if I got things wrong. By all means, please correct the article directly (like you did w/ the title) if the facts require it. I have no claim to ownership of the article and don't want to curate it - I was just interested in the topic and would be super-psyched to see other more experienced editors like yourself continue to improve it and strengthen the fundamentals. Azx2 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Circling back, this was the material i had encountered when first searching - it fed all my empty preconceptions about BILOM, which, as I mentioned before. They mention German POWs serving ni the unit, too.
"After WWII had ended, France became increasingly involved in a desperate struggle against nationalist and communist forces in the regions of modern Vietnam. It was the increasingly desperate nature of the bloody conflict in Indo-China so soon after the taxing efforts of the Second World War that led to the formation of one of the most obscure and little known units in the history of warfare - a unit of former Wehrmacht POWs culled from French prisons and POW camps to serve in Indo-China. Although not the only unit to consist of WWII POWs of German and French decent, it was the first and is most certainly the least known to serve France during the post-WWII years.
The first move to create this unit began on the 27th of May, 1948 when French Minister of Justice Andre Marie requested from the regional directors of the French prison system information on how many prisoners might be interested in serving in Indo-China to "make amends to the nation".
From the politicians to the military establishment the ripple effect was put in motion and soon after the decision was made to raise a demi-brigade of three battalions of political prisoners (i.e. former members of the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS, Kriegsmarine, French collaborationist organizations, etc, including both Germans and especially Frenchmen who had been volunteers in the German Armed Forces). On July 6th, 1948, the first battalion of this demi-brigade was formed and named "1re Bataillon d'Infanterie legere d'Outre-Mer", otherwise known as BILOM (short for "light infantry battalion for over-seas").
BILOM units weren't originally formed to go to Indo-China. They were intended to be stationed in various French colonies such as French-Guyana and French Polynesia. It was hoped that BILOM units would free up the French Foreign Legion, which was badly needed in Indo-China. BILOM units were originally designed for occupation and policing duties and therefore were structured as light infantry with no heavy weapons. BILOM units were not a part of the FFL as is sometimes misunderstood.
Only political prisoners were to be used to fill the ranks of this BILOM unit. Although the men chosen would be freed from the French prison and POW camp system there was no chance of amnesty. The men of the unit wouldn't be allowed to serve as officers, wouldn't be eligible for promotion, had no insignia, and they could carry no pennant or unit flag.
In August of 1948 less than 500 men had been accepted for service in this BILOM unit. The men were transported to Frejus in France and provided with rudimentary uniforms and equipment. Here they were trained and formed into a cohesive unit. In an ironic twist of fate, some of the men training the newly formed BILOM were themselves former members of the FFI!
Service for BILOM became a reality on December 11th, 1948 when the 1st Company of BILOM (1/BILOM) consisting of 4 officers, 20 NCO's, 148 men, and portions of BILOM HQ sailed from France to Indo-China onboard the SS Pasteur, arriving in Saigon on December 26th, 1948. From January 3rd, 1949 until March 17th, 1949, 1/BILOM fought exclusively in Cambodia. On March 18th, 1949 1/BILOM was transferred to Sud Annan near the region of Nha Trang. Throughout their service in Cambodia and at Sud Annan 1/BILOM took part in patrols, ambushes, search and destroy operations, sharp engagements, and heavy fighting, all the while taking numerous losses in combat against the Viet Minh.
The 2/BILOM arrived alongside 1/BILOM at Sud Annan on May 17th, 1949. Consisting of 2 officers, 6 NCO's, and 57 men, 2/BILOM had left France on the SS Compiegne and arrived in Saigon on May 8th. 29 more men of 2/BILOM arrived for service later in June. Of special note is the first military award for valor which was presented to men of BILOM in the form of the French croix de guerre on June 20th, 1949.
After many months of dedicated service to France under harsh and relatively unforgiving circumstances in southeast Asia, the former Axis POWs of WWII found themselves accepted into the regular units of the French forces in Indo-China as the newly designated 1 and 2 Companies of the "1re Compagnia de Marche du Sud Annam" otherwise known as 1/CMSA and 2/CMSA. The men of BILOM would go on to be integrated into other French units and would serve with France until their forces were finally pulled out from Indo-China, only to be replaced by American unit who themselves would go on fighting for many more years against the same determined enemy."
Hope we can collaborate at some point on improving the article. Thanks, Azx2 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I'm afraid it's not really an area I know much about (France, or indeed its army!) but I'm happy to help where I can. Good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
About : "*Creation of the flag and insignia of 2nd/4th Regiment Mounted Rifles in 2004 by Olivier Nolet de Brauwere (Belgian artist, heraldist who worked for l'État présent de la noblesse belge) and by Commandant Benoît Sibille."
Why do you want a domain public ? You want to see everybody sale it ? I don't sale it. It's done already. It's the regiment flag, not mine anymore. And nobody needs to sale it.
The Cdt is a friend. I should sale my words ? Don't be so juridical. The inbox is not a what for but the artist as the right to clame his name. That's what I do. It's my right.
I don't ask anything more and I will never ask anything more. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardesneiges (talk • contribs) 10:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Leopardesneiges. I assume you're new to Wikipedia and I'm really not trying to kill your enthusiasm. All pictures are the intellectual property (copyright) of their creator, unless that person is long dead or decides to release it. Wikipedia is run by a charity and can be sued like any other company and LAW is not something that can be brushed aside as unimportant. Please read this article on commons for instructions on getting legitimate permission.
In addition, and please don't take this the wrong way, your written English is not easy to understand. I removed the text above because, quite frankly, I had no idea what it referred to... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC).
Yes, my english is not good, I can't see it but I know it ... . I'm the intellecual owner of that pictures, theorically. I think I just have the right to show it, name it, and give my name. That's all. Those pictures dont' have to be modified. "Public domain" would mean that it can be modified by anybody. It's not a good idea, right ? But if the Belgian army wants to change it, it's not my business. I'm not the army. I draw that flag but it's not my flag, so ... . Should I fight the Belgian army if they change something on my pictures or sale somes "souvenirs" ? lolll ... . Finally, I think I choose a fine way to show the authors. Thank you. Sorry for my english.
Battle of Britain foreign pilots, and Merry Christmas
Hi Brigade Piron, how are you? I'm sorry but I'm rather confused by the claim that "After Poland and the Commonwealth contingents, Belgium provided the second-largest foreign contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain." I guess we are saying that ignoring Poland, NZ and Canada, Belgium had the second-largest contingent after Czechoslovakia? This seems a slightly awkward way to word this. Why not simply say that Belgium had the third-largest non-Commonwealth contingent and the fifth-largest foreign contingent overall? Or something like that. Seems more logical to me. Cheers, hope you're well and a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! :) —Cliftonian(talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cliftonian. Yes, I'm bemused about it too (please feel free to rephrase or delete). The section in the book I'm working from says "It is a little known fact that after the Commonwealth and Polish contingents the largest number of foreign pilots in the RAF during the Battle of Britain were Belgian...". Perhaps the source is wrong, but I don't like making that sort of call.
If you could have a look some other aspects of the same article though, it seems there are quite a few dodgy (and rather nationalistic) claims. The number of Irish pilots has halved from 15 to 10 in my research (down from about 40 a few months ago!) and the Ceylonese pilot has also evaporated, while Barbadan and Newfoundland pilots have popped up ex nihilo. I'm happy it's more accurate now (or, at very least, sourced), but I'm sure there are further inaccuracies lurking... Happy Christmas to you too! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I have looked up the source on Google books. Hmmm. Seems that the author either made a mistake or perhaps is erroneously referring to the Poles and Czechoslovakians together as the "Polish contingent" (alternatively it could be that he made reference to a "Polish-Czech contingent" or something similar and a prose editor changed it). I would usually say leave it as it is when you have a sourcing anomaly like this but in this case we are dealing with numbers of people and it can clearly be seen that as worded this just isn't right. I have reworded to "Belgium provided the largest contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain that did not come from Eastern Europe or the Commonwealth." Do you think this is okay?
I think there is never going to have a stable set of figures for this, partly because it is often hard to pigeon-hole people as being specifically from one country. Take for example Squadron Leader Caesar Hull—born in Rhodesia, schooled in South Africa, joined the RAF in Britain. Sources variously list him as either Rhodesian or South African; in his article I went with "Southern Rhodesian-born". There's a Battle of Britain pilot who was born in South Africa and a British citizen, but who is counted in this article as American as his parents came from there. Then you have that pilot who was basically British but who was born in Haifa and so occasionally shows up in lists as Palestinian or Israeli (for example at the end of the Battle of Britain film with Michael Caine). I think the approach we have at the moment is actually best—the figures don't line up exactly, but giving a couple estimates for each country gives a general idea of the contingents' size. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! The same is true for the Barbadan guy who is listed as British by the RAF, but considered a national hero in (and listed by the RAF memorial as from) Barbados by all accounts! Incidentally, I've reverted a couple of additions I think you made to the table which do not seem to be mentioned on the link cited - could it be that you mistook the reference you were using? Anyway, if we cite both "official" estimates given by RAF and the London memorial, I don't think anyone can complain! Cheers for re-doing the table formatting btw: looks much better! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems to have been a combination of me getting the two links mixed up in the Northern Rhodesian's case and the RAF list referring to "South Rodesia" and "North Rodesia"—quite shocking frankly. Evidently the RAF recruits semi-literates. I would say it makes me feel glad I volunteered in a foreign army instead but the Israelis are much worse on this kind of thing; you would not believe how often they spell their own names wrong. There was once when a package was sent to me care of "JP Asher, Flat 1" and the Israeli post office thought it was addressed to a Mr Asher Flat. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha! Still, making a mistake like that on a "Roll of Honour" does seem a bit bad even still! Incidentally, I've added a legacy section to the bottom - please feel free to add to it if you can think of anything. The BNP Polish spitfire thing was just something that stuck in my mind ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That was amusing, wasn't it. Silly people. I'm also reminded of that thing just a couple weeks ago, when Dave announced a plan to cut off immigrants' benefits after four years in the UK. A Czech minister tweeted a picture of Czechoslovakian RAF pilots with the caption "no benefits for them?" —Cliftonian(talk) 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Howdy; I hope all is well. You said this. Do they really eat that particular kind of not-Belgian-at-all waffle in the UK? The rest of Europe? Are you sure? Even if you are sure about the UK, I wouldn't want to phrase it 'Europe' for fear of it seeming more widespread in Europe compared to real waffles from Belgium than it really is. Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk 13:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Oreo! Well, I don't have a cite, but I believe a Belgian Waffle is basically what the rest of Europe (UK or, indeed, France and probably elsewhere) considers when the word "waffle" is mentioned. I agree it's potentially a bit problematic. Could the mention of place not be deleted from the first sentence altogether and mentioned more specifically elsewhere? That might address some of the frequent IP edits which try to Belgian-ise the dish! Happy Christmas by the way! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear, I took the liberty to add a category to your user page. I am member of the board of WM Belgium [6] and I would like, if it is ok, to have curated list of active wikipedians in Belgium who may be interested in our future activities. Feel free to revert of course. I have on my personal todo list a collaboration with the Musée National de la Résistance. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, though I fear I may not be so active in the coming year! Programme sounds good though! All the best & have a good Christmas! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Brigade Piron,
You cancelled two small contributions I recently put ont the page "Belgium in WW II".
This is just to let you know that I am interested by this aspect of Belgian History.
I am most willing to collaborate with you in this intersting and poorly developed field.
But let me tell you that I did not write that the Belgain government in exile in London was composed of four men only.
I did say that in the fall of 1940 only the first four members were in London.
Your statement on the SOE activities is alo a bit short and rather incomplete.
Please let me know if you are willing to discuss those points.
sincerely
Luc Michel--Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Luc-Michel,
Your enthusiasm is great and your knowledge on the subject appears really commendable. Plus, of course, thank you for not taking my revert the wrong way!
Concerning the revert in question, I'd really advise you to consider whether the article in question (intended as a short and basic guide to everything that happened in Belgium 1940-45) is necessarily the best place for a discussion of what is a relatively peripheral matter.
As you might have seen, I've worked through a dozen or so Belgian-WWII articles to get them to GA standard, but there're still plenty of gaps in the detailed coverage (particularly at Front de l'Indépendance and for similar articles). If you would be interested in creating an article for the "Socrates" network, as you seem to know about it, that would be brilliant! Incidentally (please do not think this intended to cause any offense!) I assume English is not your first language? If so, please consider using the Sandbox to test the content you want to add. All the best!—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I roll the edits on Attack on the twentieth convoy of the IP user (Probably sock of Banned User) because he continuously ignores others requests that he actually read an article before he assesses them. Albeit some of his edits are technically correct through blind luck, I find myself rolling him continuously. I appreciate the catch as I appear to be causing the same problem I am trying to prevent myself.--Molestash (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all, thanks for letting me know! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brabant Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article South Kasai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brabant Revolution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The article South Kasai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South Kasai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brabant Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hubert Pierlot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Hubert Pierlot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hubert Pierlot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Congolese Independence Speech for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This video is certainly not a copyright violation! The video has been uploaded to YouTube by the copyright holder!! It is a news reel produced by Pathé News, which operated until 1970. Their archive of 85,000 videos are now owned by British Pathé (same Wikipedia article), which has published the entire archive on YouTube. The video is also available on the British Pathé website.
This video is what Template:External media was created for. It is very valuable content relating to the subject of the article, especially in the section it was placed, and I believe the description was appropriate (the length is ok, see the first example). This edit needs to be undone. AHeneen (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't know. I've added it in. Thanks for the review! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Any reason for not using Template:External media? It is very relevant in the "The Speech" section and with the description and is used like the quote box template. AHeneen (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty, I'm really not sure it adds anything. For videos hosted on commons, it makes good sense to include it in-line. But here, I think a picture is more helpful - to my mind this is exactly what works best in the external links section. I know it's not a picture per se, but I think much of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images still applies. All the best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings BP, do you have a copy of this? German Atrocities, 1914 A HISTORY OF DENIAL John Horne and Alan Kramer. Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not heard of it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want a copy, send an email to [] Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.
So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priesttalk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I hate this kind of thing. I've had a look, and it seems clear that the book "Amputaties en Bewaringen" does, indeed, not exist. Considering the claim that "it is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity", I definitely think it should be deleted. If it is also true that much of the content is questionable, I think we have a real problem. In the meantime I've put a "hoax" tag on the page to warn unwary users... Can anyone from WP:Medicine provide expertise on this? Unfortunately it's really not my area... Well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron, it's always good to see our resident Belgian expert touching up the Tintin articles. In the Unicorn, which I have nominated for GA, the thrust I am going with here is that the ship's nationality is British, not French. Let me explain: While of course I know that the fictional ship was not originally British, Hergé's English publisher actually went to a great deal of trouble to make it appear so, even altering the French flag to a British one in the comics. As this is the English Wikipedia, I am beginning with the English Unicorn and it's characters, then working backwards to the French Unicorn as you can see further down in the article. I hope you agree with this approach. Therefore, may I ask you to please touch up the article again, restoring it back to this original way, in the manner you see fit? I wish to stress that I greatly appreciate your edits and input; as I have probably missed something and I know your touch always is an improvement; I have no doubt you will leave the article better than the way I left it last night. I am expanding the article further down the page a bit right now, but before saving my changes I will wait for you to do this edit first and give it your stamp of approval, then I will paste in my changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Okay, I waited about four hours and went ahead and applied the changes I was making that edit conflicted with yours, overruling some of your changes (but I appreciate and kept several others). As I said, I am very interested in your historical expertise and invite you to now have at it, improving it as best you can. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Update again: Oh! You should review it for GA! Go to its talk page and click the link if you dare. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I'm afraid I'm on a wikibreak (if not a total one) so taking on reviews and stuff isn't really possible. I wish you all the best for it though. Frankly, I must say I disagree with your stance on this issue. As the original, the French should be given a degree of primacy and, I think, putting "Royal Navy" in the first line like this is slightly misleading. However, for the GAR, I'd say the lack of any mention of the ship's role in the Spielberg film (particularly because of its importance) is a much more major problem. But good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No. As a former government in exile it gets an infobox. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Frankly reverting my edits constitutes vandalism. RoyalMate1 00:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Royalmate1, I can't understand anything (no matter how obvious it may be) if you don't put an edit summary since I'm sorry to say we probably don't have some kind of telepathic connection. But I'm afraid there is no law for governments in exile getting infoboxes - plainly because they aren't the "former countries" which the infoboxes were intended for. Shall we take it up on the talk page? Please actually look at Wikipedia:BRD by the way - reverting is not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the start of a constructive process... Your revert of my revert could, I'm afraid, be interpreted as attempting to start an edit war. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Have done my best ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, nice pics too. Ready for a B?Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I should think so. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, my Wikimojo seems to be returning too; hope your break is going well.Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, the page looks better for them. After the recent depressing experience with the Somme page, it's a relief to get back to a constructive relationship. Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What gives you the right to replace reliably sourced content with BS that you obviously haven't even read? M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Consensus. If you want to make a change to this fairly integral thing, make your points on the talk page first! I know I'm far from the only user to find your constant pushing of a certain line (without any attempt at discussion) rather exasperating. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do add the citation to the article. What date/year does the article you mention date to? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't suppose you could remind me which Main or See also links go at the top of the page and which don't, please? I think I've just buggered them up again. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, neither is very good for the top of a page - both are really intended for sections (especially the "main article" one). The see also template is generally superseded by a "see also" section at the bottom. Hope that helps :) —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It does, thanks. I thought the link at the top was a new wheeze but then I haven't added see also's as I thought they were obsolete....Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers —Cliftonian(talk) 13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look when I get a moment! Good luck with the review. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Keep well now. —Cliftonian(talk) 13:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your inclusion of a "Killed in action" template after the names of the Irish leaders of the Easter Rising, as they were executed by firing squad after the Rising itself, and not killed in action. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, Coolabahapple! It happens. Thanks for contributing on Tintin articles anyway and I hope to see you around in future. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Instead of REVERTING my contribution to Congo Crisis as you did and commenting that it's better as a "See also", it would have been more appropriate for you to take the easy next step to MOVE the contribution to the "See also" section, which by the way, was in need of an editor's attention.
Good luck on your exams. Froid (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! Thanks for bearing with me, I've made a bit of a tweak but I hope that's OK. Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Pour info, j'ai laissé un message ici concernant une récente publication à propos de Mary Lindell. Peut-être seras-tu intéressé de laisser une section "Controversy" suite à sa lecture? Bàt, --Madelgarius (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I thought that northern Europe consists of Iceland, the British Isles, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Northern Germany, Finland, the Baltic States and Northwest Russia, in most of which Moules-frites are unheard of. Wouldn't it be less ambiguous to list the countries here? -- Theoprakt (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I take your point, but to say they are popular only in France is a bit misleading and, likewise, to select a scientifically-chosen series of countries is impossible. There's a lot of overlap between Northern/Eastern/Western Europe (naturally) and I think there's reasonable grounds for ambiguity? Not everyone in Belgium eats moules-frites all of the time, remember! —Brigade Piron (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, it's been a while, I don't suppose you have any sources on them? I've been doing a few articles which are missing citations and references and stumbled on them but they're only mentioned in passing in the stuff I've got. Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure I can be of any help.—Brigade Piron (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.
Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.
Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ?
In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name
Looking forward to your kind guidance
Thanks and warm regards
Mahitgar (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mahitgar, thanks for bringing this up. I absolutely agree with you and have commented on the move discussion. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Brigade Piron. Isn't it just odd how things are. I am busy reading "The Dream of the Celt" (Vargas Llosa), which deals with the atrocities in the Congo Free State, from the time Leopold set his eys on it. Because there is a lot of overlap with other stuff that I am interested in, I was looking into this and that and kept seeing your user name. Today I had decided to drop you a note on the extensive work you have done here on Congo-related pages. I wonder how things would have turned out if I had written to you before you seeing my edit, which I now see from the edit history that it was something that you personally added. So it goes. But, notwithstanding, do accept my compliments on the work you have been doing. And keep it up. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I look forward to our paths crossing in future.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, likewise. I would like to share this source that I found yesterday. http://www.kaowarsom.be/documents/BIOGRAPHIE%20COLONIALE%20BELGE%20-%20BELGISCHE%20KOLONIALE%20BIOGRAFIE/TOME%20I/TOME%20I.pdf. Also note that you can change the URL, but you need to change in two places — see highlighted in bold italics "TOME%20I/TOME%20I.pdf" to TOME%20II/TOME%20II.pdf, etc. I am not sure how long the series is, I am battling with the internet, have downloaded I to IV. I specifically find value in the 'spelling mistakes'/ alternative spellings, which often serve to corroborate that things before to be distinct are in fact the same, just with different spelling. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll take a look.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read MOS:COMPASS the name was in British English spelling you changed it to American spelling, eg North East England. -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@PBS:, I know, I created the article! Actually, until your move just now, I was also the only contributor to it. It was just a redirect before, and I don't think that sets a precedent. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I corrected a French translation in one of the Netherlandish_Proverbs, can you explain why you put back a wrong translation?Н Француз (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree that the previous translation was "wrong", but please feel free to raise it on the page's talk if you feel that I was in error. All I would say is that a good metaphorical translation is always better than a bad literal one. Plus, the only source that I can find for any of the entries on Netherlandish Proverbs uses the version you removed - see here. Please don't think I'm trying to discourage further contributions though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat : "I corrected a French translation in one of the Netherlandish_Proverbs, can you explain why you put back a wrong translation?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Н Француз (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
With all respect, you made the English translation wrong while also making a dubious change to the French. A basic google search can find a number of sources in support of the original French text which you altered (here, for example) - your proposed translation seems clunky by contrast and I can't find anything to support it online. But perhaps you can enlighten us by providing a WP:RS? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
why did you remove the link to the gallery of the Belgian banknotes? This page shows all of the last two series of the Belgian franc banknotes - and the site is free of any advertising. In my opinion this site is a good complement to the Wikipedia article.
Regards, Luna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.197 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Luna, please don't take it personally. If you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, you'll see some clear criteria for other webpages we can link to and reference. I don't think the site you referenced meets these. We do need to be careful that we present the reader with reliable evidence.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I don't take it personally. I just wanted to help. I've found this site on the German Wikipedia. There a lot of articles about banknotes have a link to this website. So I think, this site should be clean and safe. But if you have concerns, I can understand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.197 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I like the change of name. I think I have now taken the article as far as I can without some help. Can I take up your offer by reviewing the article please. Martin a Donkey (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Well done Mwiki3101. I'm afraid that, to me at least, the material on collaboration is what lets down the article. I see your thought process, but an article under that title should discuss collaboration only in so far as it effected the resistance (focus is an important GA criteria). The main article (on the whole German occupation) is where both should be found with equal detail.
You're more than welcome to ask for a third opinion (of course), but my suggestion is that the entire section on collaboration ("working with the enemy") be moved to a new article with a title something like Collaboration in the German-occupied Channel Islands. That way the resistance article would become more focussed without Wikipedia losing any of the good material.
I understand where you are coming from, I have done it. OK ? The rest of the wording I have saved to my computer and will work on article No 2.
In terms of other comments, I think a short background section (providing context on the occupation, the structure of the German occupation and the kind of organisations (like the Geheime Feldpolizei) which were set on the resistance; that kind of thing.
Agreed, can do, I have done a prelude but need to pick up a different book for the german forces.
I think another section on the early history (and early emergence) of resistance might be useful.
Much harder as it was not organised and emerged organically
I don't want to sound too arogant, but take a look at the kind of structure I used in Belgian Resistance which might provide some ideas. It's certainly not perfect, but I think it covers all the bases which I think a user would be interested in.
I'll read that article again looking at the format this time.
Is this of any use? —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. A thought crossed my mind, are we trying to fit the article to the title rather than have a title that fits the article ? Trouble is I can't think of another title that I like..... "Resistance v Collaboration in the German-occupied Channel Islands" seems a bit too long a title but would fit the contents.
Lastly, can you also think of this article as one of a set. I was thinking last night about one entitled "Living in the German-occupied Channel Islands" to cover the evacuation, food, fuel, red cross cards and parcels and touch on resistance and collaboration etc etc and another about "Fortification of the German-occupied Channel Islands", which brings in Alderney, the OT, the Camps and slave workers, as well as the physical concrete. Both are areas that are not well covered, due to space, in the main article German occupation of the Channel IslandsMartin a Donkey (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Mwiki3101, I've had a look at the article in some detail and made some changes. I've reordered the structure to be more thematic. I think it is worth looking at the tone of the article which should be more encyclopedic and to-the-point, even if that means sacrificing some lyricalism.
Personally, I always think that it's best to avoid too many WP:CONTENTFORKs and so I'm not personally in favour of a general "Living in the Channel Islands under occupation" article, though I think it would make an important section in the main Occupation article.
It might be worth asking the help of an experienced editor like Diannaa to provide some advice on your current work.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
i have put in a couple of minor changes, but like what is there now. [User:Mwiki3101|Martin a Donkey]] (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note to offer my thanks for conducting the GA review of Tintin and Alph-Art! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, it's always a pleasure to work on competently-written articles! Let me know if you need any reviews done in future.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Be Safe! Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Just curious. My Family came to America from Antwerp in 1951...on an ocean liner. A close friend and his young family also came and they were close friends for dozens of years. The family name was "Piron". They all settled in Chicago where there was a large Belgian community. Anyway, have a wonderful and safe New Year. Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster7 - and to you too! Piron is quite a common name in Wallonia and it's pretty definitely Belgian - the one to be related to is Jean-Baptiste Piron though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
My dad, Robert Piron and others were in the Witte Brigade. It was quite horrific to hear them talk of those times which they do/did reluctantly. Buster Seven Talk 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I hereby award this barnstar for your extensive rework of the Royal Question, an important article that (as I have argued before) has needed revision for some time. Very good work! Elphion (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The Dame Blanche network was founded in 1916 by Walthère Dewé, an engineer in Brussels in a telegraph and telephone company. The decision resulted in the arrest and execution of Dewé's cousin, Dieudonné Lambrecht, who had himself founded an intelligence network codenamed Lambrecht. In order to save the group, Dewé took control and developed it under the name Dame Blanche.
English is not my first language, but I am almost sure that the correct interpretation of "The decision resulted..." is that Walthère Dewé founded the Dame Blanche network and, as a result, this somehow (how?) enabled the Germans to arrest and execute Dieudonné Lambrecht. But the next sentence makes it seem that Walthère Dewé created Dame Blanche as a successor to the Lambrecht network, which looks like a time paradox. Or did Dewé just incorporate the ruins of the Lambrecht network into his already existing Dame Blanche network?
Another interpretation of "The decision resulted..." would be that Dewé's decision (to create the Dame Blanche network) was a result of Lambrecht's arrest and death. This would, as far as I know, be the exact opposite of what the phrase actually means, but it would be more consistent with the "In order to save the group" sentence.
Can you please clarify this?
Thanks,
Ondrej (141.228.106.151 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC))
Thanks for bringing this up! It's a typo as you assumed and I've corrected it - you were pretty much right in your second guess as regards meaning. It's now fixed.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it so quickly – and for all your wiki effort. 141.228.106.148 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I'm happy to help where I can! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finding all these!! Buckshot06(talk) 09:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries! MONUSCO have put some fantastic pictures on Commons (from period 2012 to present mostly) and they're a great resource. Unfortunately they're also really badly categorised - although I've made a bit of a dent in this over the last few months. If you've the time, it would be really useful if you could do some more on it! It would be really useful in particular to categorise photos by conflict (M23 conflict, Kivu war, Ituri war etc.)... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron. I haven't actually worked much on war infobxes to know what degree of detail goes in, but the information you removed has been returned. Please take a look. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rui Gabriel Correia! I've reverted the edit since the user didn't present any reasoning behind the revert that I can find. Viz infoboxes in general, it's worth reading the style guide - it's only to "summarize...key facts that appear in the article". The belligerence of a small country like Egypt - which is neither a great power (like the USSR/USA) and thus of wider geopolitical relevance nor a belligerent in any kind of fighting (unlike Zaire or Cuba) - is, to my mind, irrelevant. After all, by the existing reasoning, all 200+ countries in the world at the time who had foreign policies and thus a mild preference for one side or the other should merit a place! That would be chaos. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Question you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Royal Question you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Question for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well done sir! :) —Cliftonian(talk) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Brigade Piron, hope you're well. The article Mortara case is now up at FAC here if you have a few minutes to have a look through—Belgium is mentioned fleetingly near the end! Seriously any thoughts you might have would be very much appreciated. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cliftonian, don't worry I'll get to it! Looks like you won't have any problems getting a pass though, the article looks excellent. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Actually the unfortunately named "1959" flag is really the flag of Tunisia before 1999, all the way back to the 19th century. If you look lower in the article you'll see, under the flag that I'm putting on the article, the caption that clearly confirms this. The flag that you are putting is really the one with standardized dimensions that were enacted in 1999 :)
Hi, regarding your reversion of my edit, the introduction to the paragraph under which the edit was inserted reads 'imposing all their new reforms'. The republican calendar was one of the key reforms of the French Revolution, and its imposition on the southern Netherlands a mark of the assumption of French rule, hence establishing the significance of the edit and its appropriateness in the paragraph into which it has been inserted. Happy to discuss. Clivemacd (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Clivemacd. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, just that the calendar reform isn't hugely important in the huge chronological sweep of the "history of Belgium" in the same way that, for instance, the suppression of the aristocracy or the French linguistic policies were. The article is already grossly too big and the period post-1789 is covered in far too much detail compared to its chronological span. As I understand it, the calendar reforms survived for less than a decade and thus are of limited importance here? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the impact of the imposition of the calendar is at least as significant as the linguistic policies, for example. However you are correct in saying that they were abandoned (in 1805). If you are trying to keep the size of the article manageable I can accept the exclusion of the reference to the calendar as a contribution towards that objective. Clivemacd (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you might be right, though there seems only little information on the new 25/26 provinces reform. This was the best I could find from the Congo itself. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have been in the works for some time. Either way, the move to a new article title was an uncontroversial one made by another admin, so I thought I'd help out with a little housekeeping. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. My apologies for questioning it! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on the Gommecourt article here User:Keith-264/sandbox4 so I will paste it in when I've finished it (tomorrow I hope); I doubt that I will find much from the material in the existing edit to keep. Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Am happy to help if I can, but it isn't really something I know much about, I'm afraid!—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know very little about North Africa. If West Africa or Central Africa come up, please let me know! Thanks for the message though.—Brigade Piron (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Brigade Piron. Seeing as you're an experienced editor and a Belgium buff, I was wondering if you could assist me in improving the Battle of the Lys (1940) article. As the Belgian Army's last stand, the battle seems to have attained some cultural significance in Belgium, while the delaying-action itself was key in ensuring the success of the Dunkirk evacuation. As you know, a few months ago I greatly expanded the article, bringing it out of that shameful "stub" status. But it still needs work. With no "Background" or "Aftermath" sections, the event's context and effects can't be realized by the reader. Even the description of the course of the battle (by far the largest of the 18 Days' Campaign) is somewhat lacking. Personally, I think this subject is of great importance, especially to the Belgians, and deserves better coverage on Wikipedia.
You seem to have a much larger collection of potential resources on the subject than I do, as well as comprehension of languages that I do not understand. You also know what it takes to get a GA status. Also, any pictures would be great. If you're interested in helping out, let me know. Indy beetle (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Indy beetle, great to hear you're starting work on the Lys article. You're right it still needs a lot doing to it! I've had a look through my library but I'm afraid there's not that much there that's of use. Most of my stuff is related to the social history (the occupation) and the politics around it. The military side is still a gap, unfortuanately. I'm not sure what French/Dutch language sources would deal with it in sufficient depth either. I did start work on the stubby Vinkt massacre article, only to encounter the same problem from lack of sources. So I'm happy to help where I can, but I don't think I can take the lead. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
TRAJAN 117 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:Chilembwe uprising for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Congo Crisis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1#Comments from Neelix. In this section, please look for the phrase "please help". Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of German occupation of Belgium during World War I at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Serten (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brabant Revolution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:South Kasai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)/Archives/2021/December#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
.png)
