User talk:Brigade Piron

Hi Brigate Piron, I'm tentatively back on WP after a several year break. My assignment in Pakistan is over and I'll be based the next four years in... wait for it... Madagascar. :D So I'm back on the Mada article project to the extent my job will allow time for it. So glad to see you're still here and working on beautiful articles like the Congo crisis. Hope all's well on your side. Cheers, - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemurbaby. Thanks for the message and I'm glad to hear you're back! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I was wondering where you found the picture that you uploaded of the signature of Né Luculla in the treaty concluded by Hanssens? Tdirve (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tdirve, thanks for your message. I photographed it myself (not very well) at the Royal Museum for Central Africa before its closure for restoration. The treaty itself was on display. Why is it of interest? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I see! I'm a student doing an assignment on the topic! Thank you for the information! Tdirve (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brigade Piron, did you also make a picture of the full treaty or only of the signature? Tdirve (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tdirve, I'm afraid I don't think so. It might be worth contacting the Museum directly to see if they can assist you. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope all's well with you too! All is well with me, except that I am problematically busy. I'll take a look at the article, but I probably won't have time to make it a thorough one, sadly. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 15:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saarland Protectorate. Since you had some involvement with the Saarland Protectorate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Piron, it's me again. I recently created an article on Émile Speller, the major commandant of the Luxembourgish Volunteer Corps during WWII and aid-de-camp to several Grand Dukes/Duchesses. I'd be most thankful if you would look the article over for me, assisting with necessary cleanup and adding relevant categories. If you can think of anywhere to find information on this guy, let me know. I've found one additional source that may information on the identity of Speller's wife, but it's in French and not easily translatable for me. Would it be possible for you to translate it, or do you know someone who could? --Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, not a problem - just had a quick skim through and it seems very good! Will take a proper look when I get a moment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention - I created the rather pathetic article for Albert Wingert. Don't suppose you have any sources to add to it with? I had thought more material was available and it looks rather sad at the moment...—Brigade Piron (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance Brigade Piron! I just added a little info on Wingert's marriage that I found. I'm happy to return the favor and will continue digging. I think you are right in your assumption about more material being available. So far I've been looking at the reference section of the German article on him. The Luxembourgish Wikipedia also has a short article on him with a large "Further Reading" section. Unfortunately, most of those in the latter are in print and not available to me. --Indy beetle (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just would like to bring up this source that I've found. I'll do what I can to translate the German text about Wingert, but I think you'll really want to use it for stuff on the Luxembourgish Resistance. --Indy beetle (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, I've had a look at the article of yours - I'm afraid it will not be of much help. All the relevant information is that the youngest daughter of the three daughters of a certain Alfred Scholler married Speller. Unfortunately her name isn't given. I'll keep looking for more sources but I don't think there's much chance of finding something you've missed. If I have one suggestion it is that it might be worth putting a short paragraph about the role of the Volunteer Corps during the invasion of 10 May 1940? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Piron. I put in a short summary of the Corps involvement in the invasion, as you suggested. As for the mysterious Scholler daughter, I guess there's no real way to tell unless we find out more about her father, which seems unlikely. --Indy beetle (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I came across this documentary about the invasion of Luxembourg produced by the Luxemburger Wort newspaper. (If you can't access it, just give the site your email and it will let you through). I'm going to gather what I can from it, but my German isn't very good, so this could take some time. At any rate, it has some very interesting footage, and I think they show some letters signed by Speller. Though you should know. Indy beetle (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I'll take a look. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Atrocities in the Congo Free State 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new editor altering OOB data without citing it, an error of omission. I'm attempting dialogue but also realise that I've reverted three edits (!). Would you mind observing? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith. I see you problem. I think the IP user could profit from reading through WP:OR and especially WP:V. I'm not sure there's anything I can do, though - I think you're better off looking for an admin who can issue a gentle reminder...—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to say that the editor took the trouble to add citations (from Zuber) so my caution was unjustified. I offered links to OR and Cite too, thanks for the reply. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Atrocities in the Congo Free State you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brigade Piron. You might remember perhaps, how I added some info to the German invasion of Luxembourg article a month ago. One part of the information concerned a meeting on the night of May 9th between the minister of justice, the police commissioner, and the commander of the gendarmerie. All I had was the gendamrerie commander's last name, Stein. I wanted his full name, naturally so I could include in the infobox under "Commanders and leaders." I've found these two pages from a book of some sort, [1] [2] and [3], that suggest that I'm looking at a Maurice Stein. Both are in French, which, as you know, I'm unable to read. Would you be willing to assist me in translating some of this? Basically the info about his activities before, during, and after the invasion; anything which could help improve the German invasion of Luxembourg article. Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Purely on the first of your sources, Maurice Stein took command of the Gendarmerie on 30 December 1932 and was also give command of the Compagnie des Volontaires on 9 October 1940 but was dismissed by the occupiers on 1 January 1941. He was deported to Wittlich but released under Gestapo supervision soon after when he fell ill. He worked with the allies after September 1944 but was after suffering an accident had to resign in May 1945 as an "Honorary Major".—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 2 and 3 are not very exciting, though 3 does talk a bit about his role in stopping attempted Gestapo infiltration into Luxembourg during the Phoney War.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance!. As for article 3, could you be more specific? Is there any information there that could be added to the "Background" section of the German invasion of Luxembourg article? Also, here is the last page, [4] and the first page [5].Indy beetle (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's not that much detail to add. According to p.25, he died on 7 March 1957 and had married in 1930. He was apparently involved in discussions about anti-tank barriers in 1939 (the Schuster Line I assume, p.24)—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll set up a Miscellaneous one at the bottom, including all general Africa ones like that and also off continent island entities like Canries and Reunion etc. That one can be for the odd ones like those which don't fit an African country. So I'll move that to there shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. I think it would probably be helpful to have such a section, if only to add stuff about the African Union and similar bodies too.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added, it's under Zimbabwe. I'll have to try to get somebody to cough up $20 on that one though ;-) For this Miscell. you can do anything on any of the related African island groups too, all in one section, anything which doesn't fit a country.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work so far! Can you do me a favour though and always add every entry you do to the main list here as well as the entries page, regardless if yet approved or not as that's the master list of all articles being done. It's just very time consuming for me to be judging the articles, trying to contribute myself and chasing up what people have done and filling it out for people each time. So if you can take care of that this would be a great help, there's some part filled out ones underneath so you just need to add country, article name and then your username. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago ...

history of Belgium and Africa
... you were recipient no. 1010 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and four --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

,,, and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brigade Piron. I notice that you have deleted the section of the above article covering the Force Publique mutiny of Dhanis expedition. Grateful for your reason. Regards Buistr (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buistr, I'm sorry for the deletion and I hope you don't take offense at it. I think there are two reasons here of which the first and most important is the question of relative importance. The 1897 mutiny in just one of the "Batetela mutinies" - in my understanding, the term is applied to three, totally separate revolts that colonial authorities attributed to the same ethnic group and therefore connected. In my opinion, having a section about mutiny #2 without sections on the first and third (which are arguably more significant anyway) risks creating a false impression of the mutiny as a whole and distorting the reader's understanding of it. However, the sources available to me do not give me enough information to fill those gaps myself - hence the deletion. The second, less important, problem was the single in-line citation for a chunk of text.

I hope you'd agree that the article is, at least, slightly clearer following the additions made yesterday. Obviously the article is far from comprehensive at the moment and, if you have access to good source materials, please do add to it! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the reason for refocussing the article. However I hope that as more source material is identified the article can be expanded to provide some coverage of all three outbreaks. The limited information that I have access to does describe the 1896-97 mutiny of the large Sudan expedition as being the first major violent protest against the European presence in the Congo. As such this does seem to be a significant but (at least to English readers) little-known incident of Central African history during the colonial era. Buistr (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding! I wouldn't say that 1897 specifically was the "first major violent protest" (1895 was probably more damaging) but you're certainly right about its importance. I'm hoping that I'll be able to significantly expand the article in the near future (I have some useful materials, but will not be able to access them for a couple of months). I was planning to do some work on rebellions in the Belgian Congo in the near future (we should probably have an article on the Pende Revolt of 1931, Luluabourg Mutiny of 1944, the Kwilu revolt of 1964-65, Student unrest of the 1970s etc. In the meantime, I've added some more details about the 1887 mutiny from your section to the article.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit re Ruanda [6].--Woogie10w (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just bought - in Brazil!! - an old deck of playing cards and it is written (handwritten and signed) "souvenir des sons officiers de 3o Cie du 24e Bataillon de Fusiliers. 25 mai 1945", along with 6 signatures, on the Ace of Spades. One of the signatures seems to be from someone named "Calliwaerth". As far as I could find out, it is a Belgium Bataillon founded at Gand and which existed from February to December that year. I would like to find out more informarion about this 24th Bataillon de Fusiliers and about the guys who signed this card. Do you know how could I find more info? Of course, I can send a picture of the card. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.79.12.159 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to help with that - I'm no expert in the fusilier battalions. Most were never deployed out of Belgium though I don't know offhand if the 24th was one of the ones that was. If I find anything I'll let you know.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BP. I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the Congo Crisis article. I was a little confused by your explanation. Could you clarify? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry about that. I had written a proper edit summary but must have pressed the wrong button before it saved. Basically the issue is twofold. Firstly, chronologically that picture would be much more logical in the section below it which already has a picture and, secondly, the place you current had it squeezed the text between two images. I suggest that if you really want that image, it will have to replace the "reconciliation" postage stamp - but that depends on whether you think the picture is more helpful to the reader. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please carefully read the instructions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for collecting your prize. I will need you to send me an email, your wiki name, what I owe you and your preference for currency in dollars or pounds/country of residence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jean-Baptiste Piron 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

An editor has asked for a Move review of German South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

The article Jean-Baptiste Piron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jean-Baptiste Piron 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brigade Piron. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Jean-Baptiste Piron at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks very much! —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I thought of something I wanted to ask you about. In the lead, you say it was called the Brigade Piron. In the second paragraph of the section Jean-Baptiste Piron#World War II, you have this sentence:

• The unit, numbering between 1,800 and 2,200 men, was soon popularly nicknamed the "Piron Brigade" (Brigade Piron) after him.

This last wording, with italicized "Brigade Piron" following the English phrase, suggests that "Brigade Piron" was the French name of the brigade. Was the brigade commonly known in English as "Brigade Piron"? Or was it called the "Brigade Piron" only by French speakers?

If the brigade was commonly known in English as the Brigade Piron, then you might consider adding "by its French name" before "Brigade Piron" in the lead. However, if you do that, then "known by" sounds better than "called" – compare "known by its French name Brigade Piron" vs. "called by its French name Brigade Piron" – (I had changed "known by" to "called" because you already had "best known" earlier in the same sentence). So, maybe it would be better not to mention "by its French name" there, but wait until the second paragraph of the World War II section to say that.

If, on the other hand, the brigade was commonly known as the "Piron Brigade" in English, then there is no reason to use "Brigade Piron" anywhere in the article except once: italicized in parentheses following the first mention in the World War II section that I mentioned above.  – Corinne (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and, in all honesty, I'm not quite sure. Brigade Piron obviously derived from the French (hence the word order) and based on a Google Books search, it clearly does have some currency in English-language works. That said, "Piron brigade" or "Piron Brigade" also seems to be used by modern sources. I'll make the (2nd) changes you suggest.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say somewhere that the brigade is known by both its French name and its English name.  – Corinne (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to ping you on Copperbelt strike of 1935. Please let me know for review comments - thanks again.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you know, yesterday I remodeled the list at List of colonial governors of the Congo Free State and Belgian Congo. While working on it, I've had a thought about removing all deputy colonial governors (Vice Administrators-General and Vice Governors-General), and leaving only those who were actual colonial governors (Administrators-General and Governors-General). The list look somehow "pilled up" if it include deputy colonial governors... Of course, I didn't want to remove them until I share my thoughts with you and hear your opinion on the matter. --Sundostund (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the work on the article - it looks much better! This should probably be raised on talk, especially since there are at least a couple more active editors in the topic. Personally I think I support retaining the Vice-GG positions if possible on the grounds that the more information we have the better. That said, I do appreciate your point. Might some shuffling of the table (indenting for instance) solve the problem? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like my work! As for the Vice-GG positions, I don't have some strong opinion about it. All of it is just an idea, I just thought how it would look if they're removed from the article... Maybe we can separate them in a different section within the article? If you have some idea about it, I'd certainly love to hear it. --Sundostund (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be an option certainly. As I say, it is probably best to raise the discussion on the article's talk page before making any substantial changes! I'll see if I can find any more free pictures to illustrate it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! As I said, I don't have some strong opinion on the issue, and since I have some other things to do, I don't plan to raise the discussion at the talk page, at least for now... I fully respect what other users did at the article, that's why I didn't remove anything during my work there - I just reformatted the article. Also, it would be great if you can find more free pictures (especially those of post-1908 Governors-General, but of course look for pictures of pre-1908 officeholders as well). --Sundostund (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice Governor-Generals were the actual governors on the ground and should remain. See Congo Free State#Government. (Personally, I do not like the tables; I prefer plain lists. It also made the distinction between GG and VGG clearer.) Srnec (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: As you can see, I didn't even attempt to remove the Vice Governor-Generals from the article, without clear approval from other involved editors... Personally, I always prefer tables over plain lists - beside better systematization, they allow us to add elements which wouldn't exist in plain lists (images, years of birth and death, etc). If you have any proposal on how to make distinction between GG and VGG clearer than it is at the moment, I'd be more than happy to hear it. --Sundostund (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tables. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that might be a good idea. It might also be possible to list Vice-GGs by Governors too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and Brigade Piron: Both of your proposals seems quite acceptable to me - I'm looking forward to see one of them implemented in the article (I can't say my final opinion until I see how it looks). I'll let you guys to implement what you think is the best in this case, then I'll make my corrections (if I find it necessary to correct something). --Sundostund (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do if I find some time! I don't suppose you could take on List of colonial governors of Ruanda-Urundi at some point by the way? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piron. Just wanted to let you know that I created a simple draft at User:Indy beetle/Independence of the Belgian Congo. No doubt this project will take me some time. If you would care to put in some info, it would be much appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy. Thanks for the note. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Brigade, the article is being reviewed and I wondered if you had a better source for Belgian W. Front strength? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith. I'm afraid I don't - only for the Yser in 1914. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Le Grand Kallé.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your concerned editing of Belgian articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Fitzcarmalan submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Editor Brigade Piron is by far one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors when it comes to Belgian history. They've been editing this project for over five years now, making 30,000+ edits so far and authoring 23 good articles (to my count) in the process. And when it comes to countering systemic bias, having recognized it as one of this project's "core deficiencies", Brigade Piron is no less prolific. They've greatly improved many African history articles, a much needed initiative, and continues to do so in a regular fashion. I have never had the opportunity to interact with this editor before, unfortunately, but I am nevertheless delighted to nominate them as Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Brigade Piron! The award is well deserved. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brigade Piron,

I have proposed a style edit of the article Contemporary History, to which you have recently contributed. I see you have a great many edits under your belt: would you like to review my work with your sharp historical eye as I begin this one?

Duxwing (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection and will watch the results with interest. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I apologise for the confusion refarding Administrative history's notability. I performed an adequate search using google before tagging the article. But i have been having issues with google's search results recently, so I switched to yahoo a few hours ago. I am also using bing and another search engine to avoid similar mishap.

I also wanted to ask, do you know how to add page number of a pdf file in reference? If you do, would you please tell me? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm afraid I don't understand your question though? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brig, do you know of a Battle of Merkem (Merckem?) in early 1918? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Merkem? If so, it's probably not very important in its own right - part of the wider Belgian advance in the 100 Days, an offensive generally known as the "Liberating Offensive" (l'offensive libératrice). It was probably only a skirmish with some Germans who hadn't retreated fast enough. I actually mildly regret creation Charge of Burkel on this same basis. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned it in Action of 1/2 December, it was a German attack on 17 April 1918, according to the OH. Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brigade Piron, thanks for categorising my images - the ones from Kazerne Dossin from last year in the Wiki loves Art competition. I consider visiting the african museum near Bxl which has been renovated for 4 years so many photo opportunities there I expect. I just now participate in the Wiki loves Public Space competition with many pictures of central station in antwerp + some minor other subjects. best rgds Ronald — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRG-fan (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I, Vami_IV, award the Barnstar of European Merit to Brigade Piron for their participation in the European 10,000 Challenge, no matter how minor. –Vami_IV✠ 02:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Brigade Piron by Vami_IV✠ on 02:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help develop the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.116.109.105.239 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my field of expertise I'm afraid! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made on 15:19, 29 November 2016, which consists of the following sentence and its source:

One 2007 estimate put the figure at just 1.4 percent.[1]

The source you cite is strongly at odds with all other available sources, including another Pew Forum report cited in the article and the CIA World Factbook. This has led to an edit war, unfortunately. I am removing your edit, and if I have made a mistake, please point out any supporting source passage for your figure on my Talk page. Also, it is bad form to WP:edit war as an IP when you have a WP account.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, Quisqualis. I am not the IP in question and I do not appreciate the accusation either. I do not live in the same country as him/her, as you might guess from a glance at my user page. We do not even have the same editing interests! Though I admit I made a single and entirely unconnected edit to the page during the edit war (which I had not noticed), I am genuinely baffled about how you could have reached that conclusion.

As you will see from the edit logs of both Arsi786 and the IP, their edit war is not restricted to the Islam in the DRC page. It includes a number of other subjects (including Tatars, Volga Tatars, Irreligion in Saudi Arabia) which I have never edited - or indeed read. They are also subjects about which I have no knowledge, let alone an opinion worthy of an edit war. Please assume good faith unless you have a decent reason not to.

That said, I do agree with the IP here that this source should be included - and for precisely the reason you cite. The estimate is notable because (1) the source from which it comes is clearly a WP:RS and (2) because it gives a very different estimate to the others cited. As you will see at p.30, the report puts the number of Muslims in the DRC at 943,000 - or 1.4% of the national population. (Since all population data for the Congo since the Mobutu years is based on estimates anyway, this disparity should not be too surprising.) It is cited to the Demographic and Health Surveys (2007) which should be a good enough source for anyone.

Above all, I'm slightly mystified about why neither Arsi786 nor yourself has raised the issue on the talk page or, indeed, in an edit summary. Is that really constructive?

I hope an admin will block both warring accounts in due course. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry that I might report you as an edit warrior; the edit war is at low ebb. I'm sorry it appeared to me that you might be the same person as the IP. Note that at 15:19, 29 November 2016, you actually added that material in question: 1.4% muslim (Pew study published 2009). While I follow your argument, Pew also found a 10% muslim population in a different study from 2010. The most recent (2018) CIA World Factbook also gives a figure of 10% muslim. All of these are post-Mobutu dates, which is why I have to view the 1.4% figure from 2009 as aberrant. It was a figure Pew pulled from a source not specifically listed in its report, so there is no way to check it, either. I guess you can tell which edit warrior I was rooting for.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I looked properly I thought you got confused with the other congo the fault was mine as I looked at the source given and I take full responsibility. Arsi786 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2018

Nice to bump into you again. I've got hold of a cheap copy of Liege 1914 by Zuber which has a lot of good descriptive material useful for the 1914 articles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware of the single "foreign" pilot who was born in the Palestine Mandate, who is sometimes listed as "Israel" on these kind of lists? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain; it was George Goodman (RAF officer). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! Do feel free to make changes on the draft if you're interested by the way. I have come across Goodman but the general consensus seems to be that he doesn't qualify as "sufficiently" foreign as his parents only spent a brief period there on a work posting. There's a discussion here, if it is of interest. It will probably need a few sentences at some point, but I don't think that "Mandatory Palestine" can really be included on the same status as, say, Southern Rhodesia.

In all honesty, there is an embarrassing lack of clarity about what constitutes nationality in the Battle of Britain sources. The case of Barbados exemplifies this but, without moving into WP:OR, I don't think it is possible to do anything about it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron

Just in case you're interested, I've put the above article up for FAC today, in the hope of getting some feedback on it. If you have the time and inclination, please could you have a look over it? No probs if you're too busy though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you moved the page name to the plural. It appears, however, that the sources refer to the event in the singular i.e. "a mutiny" with many parts. Vanderstraeten's book about the revolts, De la Force publique à l'Armée nationale congolaise: histoire d'une mutinerie, juillet 1960 is in the singular. Hoskyns in The Congo Since Independence: January 1960 – December 1961 refers to it as "the mutiny". The RAND Corporation's The UN's Role in Nation-Building: From the Congo to Iraq appears to do the same. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I wouldn't say I felt very strongly either way. Nor, I think, are the sources terribly helpful on this point. My argument that "mutinies" (pl) seems more appropriate came from the fact that the "mutiny" happened in several different (widely dispersed) places over the period of a week or two and had no single "leader" or motivating ideology. You're welcome to make a judgment on this, though I think it is important that the "1960" part be kept in the title to distinguish it from the (three) "Batetela" mutinies which arguably have a better claim to be the Force Publique mutiny because of their duration and effects on the EIC.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the time distinction is important, but seeing as most sources use the singular, I think its best we go with that. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page. For the record I admire your work on the article! Would you consider adding a rather basic "background" section for new readers though, giving them a bit of context about what the Force Publique actually was? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to get around to expanding the article at some point. It's mostly just a content fork of Lumumba Government at this point. Willame and Hoskyns have more detail about it so when I get the time I'll have the necessary sources to improve it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Do you have any sources for Austo-Hungarian artillery at Liège? Presumably this would be the 30.5 cm Skoda mortars? Now at Namur, yes. But everything credible that I've read recently says that they weren't there by Liège. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your move of the 2014 Katanga train derailment article to 2014 Haut-Lomami train derailment, there is a problem. Your justification is that Katanga no longer exists as a province of the DRC. However, in 2014, Haut-Lomami did not exist. As we do not rewrite history on Wikipedia, I believe the article should be moved back to its original title. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Mjroots. I must admit I believed the provincial reforms had happened in 2012, rather than 2015. Feel free to move it back. For what it's worth, "Haut-Lomami" referred to the region before it became a full province. 23:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I've moved it back, but left the redirect in place. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Brigade Piron,

I got a notification you undid my edit on the Marie Popelin article regarding the spelling of "court of appeal". The correct way to write "court of appeal" is without any capital letters, as only the names of unique courts are capitalized: e.g. Court of Cassation, Constitutional Court, International Court of Justice. The names of courts that are not unique (of which there exist more than one) are not written with any capital letter: e.g. court of appeal, court of assizes, police tribunal. These spelling rules both count for French as well as Dutch, see these websites for reference: www.taaltelefoon.be, lesjuristes.com, www.cuy.be (page 7), justice.belgium.be (top of page 25). If anything, the linked page should definitely written as "Court of appeal", because "Court of Appeal" is just a redirect page to "Court of appeal". Under Wikipedia policy, linking to redirect pages should be avoided. Therefor, I undid your undoing of my edit.

Kind regards, --Brentjee (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brentjee, please do not take my edit the wrong way. It is well established in UK and US writing that you capitalise the name of a specific court - but this does not mean that there must be only one of them! Sources for this are here (UK) and here (US), though you will find plenty of others online. Conventions in French and Dutch (which are obviously different in many areas) are not relevant. You would be correct, though, if talking about a Belgian appellate court in a generic sense. You will see plenty of examples of this online (here is one random example) in a Belgian context. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We've managed to fix most of the incoming links to disambiguation page Free University of Brussels but there are still about 20 where it's not clear which university is intended. Please can you help? Most of the links are via redirect University of Brussels, so they may be for Catholic University of Brussels, fr:Université impériale à Bruxelles or fr:Université nouvelle de Bruxelles rather than the three obvious candidates. Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am not really familiar with the DAB solver tool, and cannot find the remaining links. Could you tell me where to look? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links from articles are listed here. I didn't see convincing evidence for any particular institution from a brief look at the text, references and corresponding fr: and nl: wiki pages. WP:Dabsolver could do the job but is best when fixing links from one page to several destinations. For fixing links into one page from multiple origins, as we have here, WP:DisamAssist is more appropriate, though frankly not worth installing just for 20 links. Certes (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I've addressed a couple of them, but frankly I do think the ambiguity reflects the fact that they either do not meet the notability threshold or BLP verifiability. I am afraid I do not think I can help much. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. By the way, should we move the dab to University of Brussels and make Free University of Brussels a redirect to there? It's normal to name a dab after the most general term, and that would allow us to include the Catholic university properly along with New University of Brussels which we both just found (the same 1894–1919 institution as fr:Université nouvelle de Bruxelles). Certes (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The move you mention sounds reasonable, though I don't know if it would include Saint-Louis University, Brussels (or whatever it's called this week). I created the New University of Brussels article (based on the fr.wiki version largely) yesterday, so feel free to add to it! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's add anything that could reasonably be referred to as "University of Brussels" or similar terms which redirect to the dab. I'll request the page move and move the entries up. Certes (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, please, clarify your stance on my proposal at Talk:1965 Burundian coup d'état attempt#Value of an infobox, about using Template:Infobox event instead of Template:Infobox military conflict on articles about military coups? After you first mentioned that template, I am seeing it as a possible alternative for both articles in Category:Military coups in Burundi, as well as other similar articles in Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts by country. I saw that you asked for an input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Perspectives sought on infoboxes, but I don't know your stance about my proposal. I would also like to see how would you implement Template:Infobox event in 1965 Burundian coup d'état attempt, so that I can see your idea about how an infobox should look and what should be its content. --Sundostund (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was updating this page at the same time as you. If you prefer your text, feel free to revert me and overwrite my changes, we edit conflicted. Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Bezen Perrot has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I believe the article now meets GA standards.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your work on the article Twofingered Typist. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any more issues with that editor, don't hesitate to ping me. Cheers! starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, Starship.paint. Many thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging did not do this! It will be removed unless you follow proper procedures. see --> curprev 10:55, 8 May 2020‎ Brigade Piron talk contribs‎ 17,999 bytes +22‎ In light of the tone and citation to primary or non-peer reviewed sources, the WP:OR tag is appropriate. undo curprev 10:51, 8 May 2020‎ Brigade Piron talk contribs‎ 17,977 bytes -9‎ "Terrorists" is both inappropriate (WP:OR) and inexact undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.116 (talk)

I am currently reading Bernard, J.F. (1973). Talleyrand: A Biography, and I've reached the part discussing the London Conference. What's in your opinion the best way to incorporate the information into your draft?--Catlemur (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly room for this at User:Brigade Piron/sandbox5#International reaction. Please feel free to add to it! Given the length of the article as a whole, I don't think the London Conference merits a dedicated sub-section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have therefore undone your addition to Hidden Children, where you added that the the term "Hidden Children" comes from the French "Enfants Cache's" (notice the plural) Kacser (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Kacser[reply]

Thank you very much for your cleanup efforts on this article! I was considering taking it on but I haven't done any substantial editing in years, and you did a much better job than anything I possibly could have done. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind Bzweebl. I have been vaguely working through Burundian presidents already (Michel Micombero and Jean-Baptiste Bagaza anyway) but Nkurunziza is obviously more relevant. Do feel free to add to it! I'm very conscious that there are big gaps. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen much of you of late, nice to see you're still around. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ًWhy did you delete the mention of [[University of Burundi]] - I do not think it is really needed to delete something important like that, i will add it again El Prime 15:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Re [7], a) Commons is a sister project link, which is not the same as an external link (although many links are erroneously placed under external links). b) the reason I said "misplaced" in this context is because it's not particularly useful to link to commons:Category:Stamps of Belgium from Epaulettes (stamp) since it doesn't help find media related to the article's topic, is there a more specific Commons category it could link to, or scope to create a new Commons category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel, I think you have missed WP:MOSSIS. The same point is also in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. Surely you'd agree that there is more value to a reader in a link to "Stamps of Belgium" than no link at all? But if you want to WP:BEBOLD and create a dedicated commons category appropriate for the article that'd clearly be an improvement.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen those pages, but I disagree with them. One day I'll take the time to dig back through the history and find out how they came to be that way, and ask for it to be changed. For now, I'm just trying to fix the links, without arguing about exactly where they're placed in the article. I don't think a link to a general category is particularly helpful. I've set up commons:Category:Epaulettes (stamp), does that look OK to you / can you add more images to it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I'm writing you this message to say sorry. I'm so sorry I ruined your edition. I've never done that before.and I hope I never do it again.I don't need an answer. Greetings and good editions.--REKKWINT (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Brigade Piron, I've recently expanded (or rewritten basically) the article on the Belgian Court of Cassation. Since you've also shown an interest in articles on Belgian law topics, I'm wondering what you think of it? --Brentjee (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brentjee:, with pleasure. It looks very good on first inspection. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm afraid it's not really a credit due to me! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piron. Thanks for making your edits to the Invasion literature article and reverting the disruptive editor, who I understand you've had some issues with before. I just wanted you to know I reverted the article back to my version, which was just simply the information that the reference cited before it was confusingly changed. I wanted to let you know this so you don't have to edit the article again. Sorry if I come across as blunt, but thats just the nature of the internet. Thanks again, Sapphironic (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Paul-Emile Janson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.​ Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think you must have noticed my changes ;). So, what I was thinking of doing, was to visualize the dislocation of units in something more clear to someone not truly knowledgeable about Belgian geography. Although I agree that the Organisation part becomes more extensive if it goes my way, I have to say, it becomes to bunched up when narrowly put into 3 columns (as it is currently). I'll try and set it all out in my sandbox and then show you how I envision the section should look like.

You are definitely right, I forgot that Belgium won Eupen-Malmedy from Germany after WW1, my mistake :) I'll try and create a new map without them (which is comparatively easy). Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Itzhak Rosenberg. I am glad you did not take my reverts in the wrong spirit! I see the rationale, especially if the three "fortresses" at Antwerp, Liege, and Namur are shown. In any case, there would be a lot of mileage for a pre-1918 locator map of Belgium (perhaps depicting the then-provinces?) in plenty of other articles too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to work on the maps without the Germanophone localities. I'll be sure to tell you when I finish it. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do let me know. I don't know whether it makes a difference at this scale but Eupen-Malmedy is not quite the same as the modern German-speaking Community of Belgium. Stavelot, for example, has always been part of Belgium. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished [map], what do you think? Is it all correct? Looking forwards to hearing from you -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot access it on Google but I'm sure it's fine. I had forgotten I had uploaded this image to Commons a few years back which might be of some use. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belgium_location_map_1839-1919.svg is fine? Just for the outlines of Belgium, the regions etc. will be amended later. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask, but if you're feeling inspired it would be great to have a replacement for this map at German occupation of Belgium during World War I#Administration and governance showing the different zones of control! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely do it! Thanks for the idea. Practice makes perfect and one can't get enough of practice. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! There's certainly no shortage of demand, and it's a great skill. I think this is the best map which shows the difference between the three Belgian zones - the General Government, Staging Zone and Operation Zone. It seems to suggest that the General Government had some territory in Occupied N-E France which might complicate it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that too sometime ;) I was pleasantly surprised how little Belgian regional borders changed, so I have corrected my map accordingly. What I wanted to tell you, is I have made some changes to the article regarding which we started interchanging. Yay or nay? (It was what I initially envisioned, but I had to make a historically correct map). Best -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks good! I think that it's possible to have too much of a good thing though - it isn't unusual for military units to be quite scattered and many of these units must have been pretty small. How about a single (much larger) map showing simply "major garrisons" (roughly 10x) and the fortification areas (3x)? It must be possible to put one in a drop-down box so that it isn't quite so small? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so an Extra Large Map with all units marked out (like what I started) and a small map with fortresses like Liege (and other fortresses of which I am unaware)? Sounds good to me -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BP. Long time no see :). I've recently been working on overhauling the article on the Ikiza, the 1972 genocide in Burundi. I'm curious as to whether you'd be interested in assisting me, or if you at least have a few tips or know of good sources. For example, I know Chrétien's and Dupaquier's 2007 book Burundi 1972, au bord des génocides has a lot of detail on the event, but I don't speak French. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you, Indy beetle! I have done some work on Michel Micombero, Joseph Cimpaye and a few other related articles but Ikiza could definitely use some more work and is really more important. The key text is usually taken to be Lemarchand's Burundi: Ethnic Conflict and Genocide but I do not have access to it or the Chrétien-Dupaquier book, I'm afraid, so I'm not sure I can be of any help. I do have some reservations about the title which is not really a WP:COMMONNAME in English, perhaps Burundian genocide of 1972 might be more appropriate? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Thanks for the pointer on Lemarchand's book, he's obviously an authority on the subject but I'm finding his material scattered all around. As for the name of the event, I chose "Ikiza" because it seems to be the unanimous term in Burundi. Outside of the Burundi, apparently most commentators call it a genocide but not all do (not out of denialism but out of legitimate confusion at parsing the events, who killed who, as well as the selective nature of the killings). Meanwhile, in Burundi itself, the question over whether it was genocide has not quite been settled, and Kirundi recountings of the 1972 tragedy rarely use the word "genocide" (per Nimuraba & Irvin-Erickson). So I figure its not best to make the de facto genocide argument in Wikipedia voice in the title; Ikiza just means catastrophe. "Burundian genocide of 1972" isn't really a COMMONNAME either, it is more of a descriptive title (English sources use various phrasings that all mean that though). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that much less is written on Burundi than Congo-Kinshasa. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't the least studied country in Africa. Chrétien and Lemarchand are really the only two prolific academic writers on the post-colonial era. Your best bet is probably this article. I agree that the term "genocide" is not ideal - I have tended to refer to it as "genocidal violence" in articles I have written (cf here and I note Lemarchand uses "killings") but I understand that isn't an ideal term as a title. On the background, the entry for Micombero in Oxford's Dictionary of African Biography is quite good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Burundi's status in academic literature is probably the worst of any African country. I was in my rather expansive university library yesterday looking for literature on Ikiza, and there were probably 6 or so books on Burundi in total (the section on the Congo meanwhile takes up about four shelves). Thanks for the Martyazo link, I'll make sure to include it in the Ikiza article once I fully develop the section on the Hutu rebellion. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- Just FYI I hastily reverted your edit on Operation Barbarossa due to a couple grammar errors, but realized it was a good edit otherwise, so I reverted myself and instead corrected the original changes you instituted.--Obenritter (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. They confirmed my line of thinking. NealeFamily (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed all commercial books have an ISBN number, however the ISBN bureaus and databases are commercial, copyrighted and non-public entities. That's why you have worldcat and openlibrary as an alternative administration. I assume you are Belgian. Let's say that you have written a book about Ghent with 200 copies. You would have to register that book at the ISBN bureau which is a daughter of Centraal Boekhuis B.V. (yes commercial). That book will not be listed at worldcat or at openlibrary. Even bibliotheek.nl won't have it, because that's the shared database of all Dutch public libraries and if they haven't ordered a copy,, the book cannot be found there either. Of course every bookseller in Belgium and the Netherlands can find the book, because they pay for access to a restricted database. KittenKlub (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. My only point was that WP:V requires that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Since the only fact that the section attests to is the subject having published a book by that title, it isn't necessary to adduce a citation to support its existence because all the necessary information is already there for the reader to check. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to join this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_23#Category:Jewish_escapees_from_Nazi_concentration_camps Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Désolé, si j'avais su, je n'aurais pas été pêcher cette photo. J'ai déjà eu à batailler contre un "je-sais-tout" qui voulait absolument la coller dans un article sur des faits survenus dans le Limousin. Les exactions commises par la Bezenn sont suffisamment connues et répertoriées. Cette rafle a lieu le 7 mai 1944 (et non en juillet) et répond aux manifestations du Premier Mai ayant eu lieu à Lanvénégen (commune voisine) et au Faouët. Ces faits ont donné lieu à des ouvrages écrits faisant une large part aux témoins. Rassurez-vous, je n'ai aucunement l'intention d'entamer un conflit là-dessus. Cordialement. Dakbzh (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong here. We do not display the modern name in the infobox - Cesar was not born in Italy, Jesus was not born in Israel, and Michel Micombero was not born in Burundi. Basic stuff. GiantSnowman 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, can you please show where you get this "basic stuff" from? You cited WP:MODERNPLACENAME but there's nothing relevant there. From the reader's perspective, I think it is quite reasonable to explain why someone born in something called Ruanda-Urundi later became president of Burundi. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at a Good Article like Mahatma Gandhi - doesn't say 'modern day India' does it? What happens in your case if/when Burundi changes name - would you track the full history of the country's name? GiantSnowman 16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, I think you're confusing your own personal style preferences for a rule. I suspect that Mahatma Gandhi does not specify India because of the implied continuity between modern India and colonial India - I note that Muhammad Ali Jinnah does state "modern-day Pakistan" presumably for the same reason. Equally, Constantine the Great (a GA) does specify that he was born in modern-day Serbia. You're welcome to seek to build a consensus for this change, but please do not imply that it is some kind of policy and certainly do not attempt to edit war over it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a few moments, would you please have a quick scan of my work-in-progress at Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. I have revised (heavily) the lead and sections 1, 2 and 3. Am I going in the right direction? Is it appropriate to quote the introduction to the Act verbatim in section 3, or do I need to rephrase it? [It is already very concise so I can't summarise it].

I have a lot more of the article to get through so, as I am likely to continue in the same style without a steer, I'd rather have a mid-course correction now that have to be hauled off the rocks in a week's time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Maynard Friedman, I think it is certainly an improvement but it is always best to use prose where possible. I'd suggest looking at existing GA-class articles on statutes for inspiration (full-list here) such as the Arbitration Act 1979. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "Arab slave trade" instead of "East African slave trade" or "Indian ocean slave trade" is a wrong. By 18th and 19th century, the East African slave trade was dominated by European slave traders. While the East African slave trade itself began with Gujrati merchants 4000 years ago. Moreover the Zanzibaris where Arab-Swahili and not just Arab. Therefore the East African slave trade was a multi-ethnic slave trade and not just Arab. The page on the Indian ocean trade is better because it includes information on both Muslim and European periods.

Otherwise if you don't like the redirect to the page on the Indian ocean trade, then I will just bring back the old redirect to the page on Slavery in Africa. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim5361, thanks for your message. I think there are two issues here. The first is a historical one. Although I admit it is not my specialist subject, I do not think you are right that "the East African slave trade was dominated by European slave traders" and it is certainly associated in Central African history with, for example, the spread of Islam and Swahili alongside Afro-Arab traders from Zanzibar who often had close personal connections with the Arabian penisular (especially Oman) like Tippu Tip and Rumaliza. The second is a Wikipedia reason which is that the article on the Arab slave trade#African Zanj slaves, whatever the merits of its title, is the one which should be linked here. If you would like to open a move discussion, I suggest it would be better to do so there. If you do not agree, I'd suggest you leave a message on the article's talk page to get a consensus from other editors first. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. First of all, it was actually dominated by the Europeans for a period of time, as it is said in the article Indian Ocean trade

European slave trade in the Indian Ocean began when Portugal established Estado da Índia in the early 16th century. From then until the 1830s, c. 200 slaves were exported from Mozambique annually and similar figures has been estimated for slaves brought from Asia to the Philippines during the Iberian Union (1580–1640)

Second of all, the old Wikipedia link was to the page on Slavery in Africa and not to the page on the Arab slave trade. As I said, if you still don't think the Indian Ocean trade should be the article linked, then otherwise I will just bring back the old link to the Slavery in Africa.Ibrahim5361 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think 200 slaves a year from Mozambique is pretty minimal compared to the thousands of people taken from Congo, Tanzania, Malawi, etc. in the period 1800-1880 but I suspect we will not agree on this. My point is that there are plenty of scholarly sources in this context which talk of it as an "Arab slave trade" (eg 1 and, more recently, 2). The best course is to seek a WP:CONSENSUS by starting a discussion on the talk page of the article to get the opinions of other users. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)~[reply]

Hi, you asked for a more accurate source: here one is "Özlem Özen, porte désormais la proposition de loi défendue les derniers mois par Éliane Tillieux, devenue présidente de la Chambre." cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Brigade Piron -- thanks for ringing in at the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) page, as I was pretty sure I had a legitimate point. It's always a little disconcerting when two Admins step in and counter one's point. On an entirely different note, I always wanted to ask you what you considered your mother tongue. Over the years, I have met Belgians who've told me their first language was French, Flemish, (even the unique dialect Belgique), German, Dutch, and Italian. It's such an interesting linguistic smattering, much like Switzerland but with smaller pockets across the country. To your knowledge, has anyone ever created a "mother tongue" map of Belgium? I have a passing interest in linguistics and suspect you speak at least 3 or 4 languages, if not more, but always wondered what you considered your first language.--Obenritter (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Obenritter, there's this map although I don't know how accurate it is. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for sharing that map and weighing in. BTW that "Talk Page stalker" designation is hilarious. I will borrow that for sure. --Obenritter (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, Obenritter. Please do let me know if there is anything else (Buidhe might actually be interested in weighing into the same discussion too?). Language in Belgium is complicated, but not that complicated. The majority in Flanders (yellow) speak more or less orthodox versions of the Dutch language ("Flemish") while the majority in Wallonia (red) and Brussels (orange) speak fairly orthodox French. German is spoken by a fairly small number of people in the rural eastern territories annexed from Germany after WWI (blue). The three regions map broadly onto the Communities of Belgium though there are some anomalies. It was a bit more complex before the 1950s when there were sizable urban populations of French speakers in towns and cities in Flanders but that certainly is not the case any more. Languages like Walloon or Picard in Wallonia (or Marols in Brussels) are effectively dead, and the same is true for West Flemish and Limburgish in Flanders. There used to be quite a large Italian community in parts of Wallonia, but it's certainly not an indigenous language. Never heard of a Belgique language!

I have not seen any statistics but the number of truly bilingual (French/Dutch) people is fairly low and tends to map onto other class and educational differences. In my experience, there are very few people who are not clearly more comfortable in one rather than the other. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well--I do appreciate the insights you've provided for sure. The person who told me he spoke Belgique as his first tongue was an old man, who I suspect was singling out Belgian French as "unique" and it may have been a play on words. One of my Belgian friends speaks French as his first language but is comfortable in Flemish and English of course.

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Just a heads-up that you’ve been mentioned at wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User: Indy beetle User:Brigade Piron as I can’t see you’ve been otherwise notified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. A new experience. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When something with a foreign name is notable, but very obscure to the general public in English-speaking countries, then it may not have any English-language "common name" in the Wikipedia sense. AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, thanks for your message. This issue is dealt with in WP:USEENGLISH and I do think there is sufficient usage to show that "Azerbaijani Legion" has currency in English-language scholarship. I note that it is used in Rubin and Schwanitz's Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2014) and Motadel's Islam and Nazi Germany's War (2014). I am usually very sympathetic to the argument that we are too ready to impose arbitrary translations but I really do not think this is an issue here. Apart from anything else, I do not think any inferences are lost in this particular case.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Hema speak a bantu language and therefore are bantu peoples. Their language is closely related to those of the Banyoro, Banyankole and other Ugandan Bantus. Also how are the Lendu Bantu when they dont speak a bantu language? They are Central-Sudanic speakers Wojak6 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with this at Talk:Hema people#Hema origin. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Home Army. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu:, many thanks for this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Begrüßungen good Sir...While I created a new article on the topic in the subject header, there's not a lot in English about this document. None of my German works on the First World War say much about this document either. If you have the time, check and see what French, German, Dutch, or Flemish sources might be out there on this and feel free to beef the article up if you are so inclined. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter:, I've had a quick look but I cannot see anything helpful. Most of the coverage seems less detailed than what you already have! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries -- I found a chapter in a German book on political manifestos and a couple journal articles. However, there's not much out there. Thanks for checking nonetheless. Mach's gut.--Obenritter (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You totally griefed the Free Arabian Legion article, and many others. Really would appreciate if you stopped editing Wikipedia because it just creates more work for people who have to clean up after you. 2601:18E:101:5FC0:6C15:A337:A419:DACB (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've barely edited this article and have made no remotely controversial edits to it since 7 September 2020. Weird. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the author of the Barrel Incident (1952) article. You marked my article as possibly violating WP:EVENT for reasons I'm not quite sure of. I asked about it in the Talk page of the article, but you never got back to me there, so I'm asking again here. In regards to sources, I've since added four more amounting to a total of seven, although I feel the original three firsthand sources were more than sufficient as they were from witnesses/participants and UN documents. I also fail to see how a nation getting caught in arms smuggling and taking over a United Nations headquarters by armed force in response isn't a notable event. If the sources were your issue, I'd appreciate if the Notability tag was removed, and if you feel this internationl incident wasn't noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article, I'd appreciate hearing your reasoning. UncleBourbon (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in the discussion on the talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

Hey Bridage Piron, I recently revived the Ancient History Task Force of WikiProject History, and you mentioned ancient history as one of your interests. Please let me know if you'd like to join. Once we have a few more members, we cans tart divvying up a little bit of work on articles and work on getting more to GA status. I notice you're a huge contributor to Belgium, so any related work with ancient groups there in the first millenium BC would be appreciated. JayTee🐦 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As you may see, I tried to make List of colonial governors of Ruanda-Urundi look like List of colonial governors of the Congo Free State and Belgian Congo as much as possible. I did it for the sake of consistency, among other reasons, as the two articles are quite connected with each other. If you find anything that you think should be changed/remodeled, please feel free to do it; any help would be appreciated. Also, help would be needed on the issue of references for the Ruanda-Urundi article. —Sundostund (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund:, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I do think it is an improvement and have actually meant to do something similar myself but never got round to it. Personally, I think the German-era material should be stripped out and put into another article - there is no real justification for having them together since there was no equivalent German administrative unit and certainly no legal continuity. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry myself for taking so long to reply to you... When I think of it, it seems somewhat logical to me to move the German-era material into another article, but the biggest problem of the Ruanda-Urundi article is the issue of references. It should be settled in the similar way as in the Congo article, especially due to the fact that the two articles are so closely interconnected. —Sundostund (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture in German occupied Belgium during World War II has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mohammed and Charlemagne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Indy beetle/Bugesera invasion if you'd like. If you have any comments or suggestions I'd appreciate it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Indy beetle:! And congrats on your Burundian GAN. I'm afraid everything is rather busy at the moment but I'll try to take a look if I can. Hope all is well with you! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle:, I've had a look and think it's an excellent start. I must admit it's not a subject I know much about. I've suggested a way of tying it into the Rwandan Revolution as an illustration - please feel free to revert. I think it might be sensible to take the background section right back to Ruanda-Urundi and the Tutsi/Hutu divide in the monarchies, but you may think that a bit much for such a specialised article. I would suggest, however, being a bit forgiving with the reader about acronyms which are very off-putting to a non-expert. For example, I'd suggest introducing Parmehutu as "the Party of the Hutu Emancipation Movement (Parti du Mouvement de l'Emancipation Hutu, Parmehutu)" even if this is a bit wordy! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was hoping to work in the Rwandan Revolution somehow—I reached out to the author of that article for some pointers. I'll probably take it all back to Ruanda-Urundi and the ethnic divides in the country (which explains both why the Belgians were there and why there was conflict to begin with). I was going to introduce UNAR and PARMEHUTU in full once I rounded out the background section. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left a message on my talk page saying you reverted an edit I made on Congolese National Liberation Front. However, it seems the edit you reverted was made by Adib1234. I'm unsure if this warrants mentioning on your talk page, but you said to comment here if I believe you have made a mistake. Onespankman (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Onespankman[reply]

That's quite right. My apologies - I'll remove the notice of course. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rwandan_Revolution&type=revision&diff=1030927662&oldid=1030924978

I understand that you have undone this edit for the following reason. I would like to know why you believe that an infobox is unhelpful in this article.DeathTrain (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deathtrain. Thanks for your message. MOS:INFOBOXUSE states that "[t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". The real issue is whether it adds anything for the reader. The infobox you suggested, Civil Conflicts, is really intended for straightforward confrontations - riots for example - and cannot really deal with the subtlety of political and historical events like the Rwandan Revolution. Although Infobox Historical Event can sometimes be tailored well for these kind of articles, it creates further difficulties with summarising complex events into a couple of bullet points and has its own complexity. I guess the real question is what do you think the reader can learn from the infobox that they cannot already do from the first 10 lines of text? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rwandan_Revolution&diff=1197909844&oldid=1197428166

What do you think of the new infobox added to the article? DeathTrain (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reply? DeathTrain (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jean-Baptiste Bagaza.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed it is because this username is an offensive username which was banned. We don't permit such accounts to edit as it creates a hostile environment towards other editors. Allowing this comment to remain on the talk page reduces the possibility of harmonious editing. I am removing the edit. If you feel there are valid concerns raised in post, please feel free to post them yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

Thank you for undoing a lot of the damage done by the inappropriate moving of the pages of Belgian Prime Ministers by user:Castel-Brindisi to pages with their noble titles or middle names included. That certainly was a breach of WP:MIDDLENAME. The page of Yves Leterme however has yet to be moved back to its original article. Could you do that as well? –- fdewaele, 22 August 2021, 9:51 AM CET.

You may ignore this particular request: it has already been rectified by an other user. Anyway, many thanks for repairing all those other ill considered movements. -– fdewaele, 22 August 2021, 11:35 AM CET.

fdewaele, thanks for your message. I am afraid I was not able to move Yves Leterme myself (I think this is due to the delay in attempting) so made a request at WP:RMT. I am afraid that Castel-Brindisi has moved a number of non-PM articles too, so it may be worth keeping this in mind if you see any more. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

Begrüßungen Brigade Piron, it's been a while since we interacted. Hope you are well. Your deletion on the Germanic SS page surprised me a bit. I realize that these parties were unique, but it's the fact that members of these parties willingly collaborated with the Nazis after occupation (including some of their members joining the Germanic SS) that warranted its inclusion. Do you have source material that contradicts those facts? Maybe you have some other logic in mind? I am not going to fight you on this, however, out of respect for your scholarly work across Wikipedia. --Obenritter (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter:, thanks for your message. I don't deny in the slightest that these were authoritarian political groups which collaborated energetically with the German occupation authorities, but that's a rather different issue. Collaboration was not a monolithic entity and there were ideological divides between different groups and between different parts of the Nazi German state of which the Germanic SS represented only one (fairly minor) faction associated with the SS. Larger groups such as the Dutch NSB had an ambiguous relationship with it. Basically, it's a slightly separate issue and the existing paragraph isn't particularly helpful to the reader - as well as blurring this dimension, it doesn't even address all the countries at issue! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron – The mention of the most prominent parties to this end was never intended to be all inclusive, just instructional. Since you feel this strongly and I do understand your point, your deletion stands. --Obenritter (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Obenritter. If you're interested, I think there is real scope for increasing the coverage of these parties but I think it's sensible to make sure that we're clear about what the subject of each article actually is! —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brigade Piron. To avoid a back and forth and the naming of that Stew originating from Belgium, I figured it better to directly explain why I made the change. It was first brought to my attention by an English speaker, who found it rather strange that a Flemish recipe would have a French translation on the English Wikipedia. I consulted the talk page, and found that the main reasoning was the search results on google books. I performed the same research on google books, trends, a normal google search and a number of English speaking recipe website. In every instance, either Flemish Stew, Flemish Beefstew or 'stoofvlees' are the preferred terms. Following Wikipedia's rules regarding this, Flemish Stew strikes me as the most neutral, clear, and above all, recognisable term for English speaking users. I am open for debate howevver if you have another argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverburn (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riverburn, this is not really the place to discuss this. I would advise you to open a WP:RM if you believe the page should be moved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brigade Piron. Thank you for letting me know about adding sources. I must say that there are many Spaniards of Moroccan ancestry living in modern day Belgium and it will grow in the near future. I am not familiar with Wikipedia at all although it is not my attention to vandalize any pages. I added a source on that page yet it is a bit of a mess at this point. Kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.42.135 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, thanks for this. I have fixed the citation on the article. If you are interested in contributing further, I would recommend creating an account. There is guidance at WP:HOW and people to assist with questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Burundi - Michel Micombero postage stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Hi BP, I'm working on a copyedit of your article Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism. In the future, feel free to request copyedit directly from me if you prefer since GOCE has lost some of its most prolific editors thus leading to long backlogs. (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Buidhe:, thanks for this. I am afraid I did not know you also did copyediting! Great that it will get proper attention from a specialist! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism 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 Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth to mention that JudgeScar (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of Cypriot Chauvinist (talk · contribs) similar rhetoric. Beshogur (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur (talk · contribs) Im just going to transfer what I put on your talk page here because clearly you dont answer where it doesnt suit you.

In the first source from JSTOR it states on the page given to you "The insurgents were able to prevail despite the...re-organization of the COIN force structure"

In the Global Boundaries source it clearly states on Pg. 62 (PC/Laptop) "It is a matter of interest that, whereas the British military intervention in Cyprus in the 1950s failed to overcome the guerilla activity of EOKA (the Greek Cypriot freedomfighting organization), despite the overwhelming superiority of the British force"

In the Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies, pg. 614 (PC/Laptop), it again clearly states "For example, when asking militants about their participation in militant movements, those who were victorious (such as the EOKA organisation which contested British imperial sovereignty on Cyprus in the 1950s)"

You cant just disregard non-partisan sources when they dont suit you. Youre quite clearly a in a conflict of interest given A) Articles you edit and B) Your reluctance to keep perfectly adequate sources simply because it wouldnt suit your political views. Since were on this topic though, why do you feel its acceptable to say that Enosis wasnt achieved, but yet have an issue with Taksim (partition) not being achieved being included as well given that TMT existed and actively fought for Taksim? Additionally you remove things that have nothing to do with the outcome such as the British leaders in the conflict which have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the conflict which just tells me youre pressing the revert button without even A)Actually looking at what youre reverting and B)Probably means youre not looking at the sources either. JudgeScar (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JudgeScar, there are two separate issues here. The first is whether the Cyprus Emergency was a "strategic victory" for EOKA as you claim. I do not claim any particular knowledge of the conflict, but this is not addressed unambiguously in the sources you have quoted above. Even if this wasn't the case though, the real issue is what can, and cannot, be put into the infobox. Template:Infobox military conflict states Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". As they are obviously normative terms, they should be discussed as part of the wider assessment in the prose of the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If were being completely honest here, if the Cyprus Emergency was virtually any other nation on earth, it would be a done deal that it would have been an insurgent victory (In this case EOKAs), EOKAs main goal was getting rid of British rule on the island which they successfully did, yes Enosis was an eventual goal of EOKAs and nobody has denied this, however due to the toxic political nature of Cyprus + the Cyprus problem and the fact that some (They know who they are) clearly cant handle when its the other side winning, it makes it virtually impossible to write what is, and that is, that EOKA was successful.

I would encourage you to take a look at the sources as well so that were not playing guesses here but I dont know another conflict, ever, where if you remove another power from your country (Whether that be independence or union) via the means of an armed struggle, that wouldnt constitute a victory for you.

Not only that, the way the article is laid almost portrays the insurgency as if it failed although it did the exact opossite (Which is completely ludicrous given that the UK wanted to make Cyprus their HQ in the middle east after the suez canal crisis and EOKA pretty much made sure it didnt happen, limiting the UK from having the whole island to 2 bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia).

Unfortunately though, this particular article, like most when Cyprus is involved, has been destroyed by nationalist editing which leaves no way for at least neutral information to pass through.

If you want to work out a way to keep all parties happy in this article (Assuming the information is legitimate and verifiable), I would be happy to do so and as Ive said, id encourage you to check those sources out that way making sure that I in turn would not be lying and that we have something to work on here, because throwing claims around all day will not get anyone anywhere. JudgeScar (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. D. Y. Peel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Africanist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

I reverted my own revert of another editor's pending edit and thought it would be OK with a decent ref. Thank you for your revert. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verdinaso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dietsch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It is not KIKONGO but KIKONGO YA LETA (also called KITUBA in the Republic of Congo) which is one of the four national languages in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The constitution refers to KIKONGO YA LETA (also called KITUBA in the Republic of Congo) not to KIKONGO. Linguistic works on KIKONGO and KIKONGO YA LETA are available. French is the only official language of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Somebody040404 (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Somebody040404, thanks for your message. Like "official languages", "national languages" are a legal category. Article 1 of the current Constitution states (in English translation):

“

Its official language is French. The national languages are Kikongo, Lingala, Swahili and Tshiluba. The State assures their promotion without discrimination. The other languages of the country are made part of the Congolese cultural patrimony of which the State assures the protection.

”

As you can see, the national language de jure is Kikongo. You are right that de facto this often means Kileta/Kituba and we should certain explain this in the text of the article, ideally with some more citations than we currently have. However, this does not alter the legal reality. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KIKONGO is not one of the national languages. It is KIKONGO YA LETA not KIKONGO. KIKONGO YA LETA IS THE LINGUA FRANCA IN KONGO CENTRAL, KWANGO AND KWILU. THERE ARE MORE EXPLANATIONS ON THE KITUBA LANGUAGE PAGE. Somebody040404 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody040404, I'm afraid that isn't the official position as the constitution makes clear. I do understand what you are trying to say and we can explain this in the article. As a legal concept, the "national language" is what the constitution says it is. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read about the differences between KIKONGO and KIKONGO YA LETA. The Constitution refers to KIKONGO YA LETA NOT TO KIKONGO: In the provinces of Kwilu, Kwango and Mai Ndombe they call KIKONGO ya leta by KIKONGO while in the Kongo Central province the Kongo people know that it is not KIKONGO (Kiyombe, Kimanianga, Kisingombe,...) that is the national language. The TV News is in KIKONGO YA LETA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nVHMM_He8o8 NOT IN KIKONGO, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated into KIKONGO YA LETA https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/kikongo-ya-letat-kikongokituba. The inhabitants of Kwilu, Kwango and Mai Ndombe understand and speak Kikongo ya leta which they also call Kikongo. For the Bakongo, Kikongo is the set of variants spoken by the Kongo sub-groups, Kikongo ya leta is not included. Somebody040404 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of the difference, thanks. Even so, the constitution clearly says "Kikongo" and does not say Kileta/Kituba. We need to go with that and explain what this means in practice in the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody040404, I am grateful that you opened this discussion but please read WP:BRD. If you still feel that your view is correct, I suggest that you open a discussion on the article's talk page and explain your point of view and why you think the article text should be changed. Then you can try to gain a WP:CONSENSUS from other users with an interest in the topic - this is key to how Wikipedia works. It is important that you do not simply try to push through your preferred changes without doing this. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove "the third of five children" surely a significant part of his biography? Mcljlm (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcljlm, I agree that it is potentially significant but the source you added to support it was a self-published website. If you can find a WP:RS to support this, please do go ahead and add it! —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's managed by residents of Kestell, not the Legum family. How is it a self-published website? Mcljlm (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcljlm, I think you misunderstand me. It is about the quality of the source, not whether it is independent. See WP:RSSELF. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be specifically your area of expertise, but I believe your familiarity with Belgium may help me. I remember the last biography of a Belgian woman I worked on was difficult and sources were hard to come by in the country, although I found a lot of international coverage. The woman I'm working on now is a Georgian exilé, who lived in Brussels for the majority of her life. She was a scientist and published in the name of Varia Kipiani (or Varia Kipiani-Eristavi), but modern sources refer to her as Barbara or Barbare Kipiani. I have mostly been able to document her scientific career up to 1919, when she returned to Georgia for 3 years. After her 1921 return to Belgium, I find virtually nothing. Because women were not considered to be public figures, typically coverage of their activities is limited to feminist journals or newspapers. Do such collections exist for Belgium? (More importantly, can they be accessed from say Mexico?) Were there organizations that supported the Georgian community living in Belgium, which might have records of their members and their activities? Besides those general question, I have some specific questions:

• Apparently in 1910, she established an "exhibit" of Georgian artworks, or a "section" on Georgian history and ethnography (sources vary) at the International Museum of Brussels. What the heck was this museum? I find nothing List of museums in Brussels that it might be. (Was it a permanent exhibit or for some event?, no clue).
• An Australian magazine (1927) lists her as a doctor and professor at Brussels University. Surely it did not take her from 1902 to 1927 to earn her doctorate. Do you know if there are class annuals or yearbooks that are accessible?
• Her family reports that they have been searching for her burial site for years without success. Wouldn't her death certificate say what was done with her remains, even if there isn't a grave marker? Is it possible to access death records from 1965?

If you are able to assist with any of this, it would be helpful, and I would be most grateful. If not, or you are not interested, no worries. SusunW (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusunW, I'm afraid I can't be of any help and I suspect you would need to contact an archivist for several of these questions and I suggest the State Archives of Belgium may offer you a reasonable start. There are some digised collections of Belgian newspapers but they are scattered between repositories and I suspect few will meet your requirements. You might find something of interest in the Revue de l'université de Bruxelles (1) but I can't think of anything else I'm afraid. I think the International Museum you reference might have been something to do with the Brussels International (1910) rather than any serious museum or institution in its own right. I assume this is for personal research purposes? If you can add anything to Georgians in Belgium (I de-PRODed it once) I'd be grateful.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron, that is actually very helpful, especially the reference to the Brussels International (honestly kind of what I suspected). I've spent the last several days combing through the KBR archives and have found several in-depth articles about her, but mostly the nonsense "she's a pretty girl" drivel and not the science. If you think it would be more productive to contact the state archives than the women's studies department at ULB I'm happy to try that. I will definitely add her to that Georgians in Belgium page when I actually am ready to publish the article. Her sister Nino Kipiani also studied in Belgium and their father Nikoloz Kipiani [ka] lived there from 1890 to 1905. Truly, thank you for your help. Every little bit of direction helps. SusunW (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Do be aware that primary sources are depreciated and there would probably be a fair element of original research in an article of that scope. Better to keep it restricted to personal research, I'd suggest. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what you are suggesting. But if you are suggesting that I am writing something based upon OR, you would be mistaken. There are literally hundreds of published sources that demonstrate her notability and review her scientific contributions. Primary sources can absolutely be used within an article to confirm specific details that require no interpretation, i.e. when did she obtain a degree, when did she die are not typically subject to interpretation. SusunW (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mohammed and Charlemagne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

I think you are mistaken, but if you can back up your revert with French-language sources, I will admit that.you aren't. Such a deal, right? Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From :fr:Milice française - "Supplétifs de la Gestapo et des autres forces allemandes, les miliciens participèrent à la traque des Juifs, des réfractaires au STO et de tous les autres « déviants » dans la France occupée. La Milice était ainsi à la fois une police politique et une force de maintien de l’ordre." Note that it is "la Milice" but "les miliciens". Next time please ask. Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, if you really really really want to capitalize the adjective, you could unitalicize it since at that point you are treating it as an English word, not French. But you should revert yourself.Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: If you keep removing stuff with your narky comments from the article at Union générale des israélites de France I will start issuing warnings against you. Your callous attitude and your narky comments are starting to get right up my nose, particularly on an article that details the death of children. That external link has extensive details on holocaust in France regarding the UGIF. Don't remove it. scope_creep^Talk 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep, I'm very sorry to see this comment. It is precisely because the article deals with the Holocaust that it is particularly important for us to cite reliable sources only so that readers can be sure that they can rely on what we include. I am not sure why you find this controversial especially you are an experienced editor.

I am sorry that you think my attitude is "callous" and "narky" - it is not intended to be - but I am afraid I am also frustrated that you have almost totally ignored the points raised on the article talk page. This should be a very straightforward applications of Wikipedia guidance and WP:MOS applicable to all articles and not some kind of essentially subjective content dispute.

Given the tone of your recent comment, I will ask an impartial admin to intervene in this dispute to prevent it deteriorating further. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was narky and unncessary. All you you done is manage to remove the only English translation of the decree on any enclyclopedia and removed the bib section that contained much more detail on subject without a single by-your-leave. There has no update on the talk for 2 days. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say the sources are unreliable when they are clearly not? scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The redirect Léon Gillis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9 § Léon Gillis until a consensus is reached. pburka (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Hello, Brigade Piron

I read the Broken Arrow (Korea) and Battle of Haktang-ni which you created.

Thanks for your contribution about Korean War.

May I ask a favor of you?

I'm South Korean. According to some South Korean source, Broken Arrow and Arrowhead hill are same place.

I think Broken Arrow and Arrowhead hill are at the near Chorwon. But two are not same place.

Broken Arrow was the name popularly given to Hill 391^[1]

Can I check out text from the upper source (A. Crahay, Bérets Bruns en Corée 1950-1953 (Vécu Par Des Belges) p.111) ?

Regards. Footwiks (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Footwiks:, I'm afraid I don't think I can help you. The source certainly refers to Broken Arrow as Hill 391 which was situated slightly west of the Chorwon-Pyonggang Road. There were two nearby settlements named as To-Dong and Pongili. Two nearby hills were Hill 317 and Hill 488 (Pallibong). Although I cannot be sure, I'd be surprised if the two hills were the same.

My strong guess is that Haktang-Ni is 38.339957, 127.254929 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B020'23.6%22N+127%C2%B015'17.7%22E/@38.3380254,127.243667,14.17z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d38.3398943!4d127.2549228!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu) which looks very similar to the map in the Crahay book (reproduced here: 2. This is pure WP:OR of course. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Thanks anyways, In South Korea, Battle of Haktang-ni and Battle of Chatkol are unknown battles. So It is difficult to find a detailed information.

Honestly, Haktang-ni(학당리), Chatkol(잣골) are very unordinary place name. This is the first I’ve heard of it!

If you have any questions about Korean War. Please feel free to contact me.

Best Regards,

Hi, I inquired about locations of Haktang-ni and Chatkol and I received an official answer from South Korean Institute for Military History.

• Coordinate of Haktang-ni: (38°-20′-22.6″N / 127°-15′-17.6″E)
• Coordinate of Chatkol: (38°-19′-39.7″N / 127°-24′-13.0″E)

Original answer

• 1) 학당리 전투는 ‘코만도 작전’ 기간 중 美 제3사단에 배속되어 철원과 평강 사이의 학당리 388고지에서 전초임무를 수행하던 벨기에-룩셈부르크 대대가 1951년 10월 11일부터 13일까지 중공군 제78사단의 공격을 격퇴한 방어 전투입니다. 388고지는 강원도 철원군 중강리 일대(38°-20′-22.6″N / 127°-15′-17.6″E)에 위치하고 있습니다.

• 2) 잣골 전투는 벨기에-룩셈부르크 대대가 美 제3사단에 배속되어 김화 서북방 잣골에서 주저항선 방어임무를 수행하던 중 1953년 2월 26일부터 4월 21일까지 중공군 제70사단의 공격을 격퇴한 방어 전투이며, 전투 지역은 강원도 철원군 근북면 백덕리 일대(38°-19′-39.7″N / 127°-24′-13.0″E)입니다.

You can see the map below link https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_201306250725426210.pdf

• Map of Haktang-ni: (PDF 232P, BOOK 220P)
• Map of Chatkol: (PDF 241P, BOOK 229P)

Footwiks (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to say that these are the coordinates are effectively those we already have on the article which is encouraging. I am afraid I do not read Korean though - does a copy of the book exist in English? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean Institute for Military History have below Korean War History Books written in English.

• The History of the U.N.Forces in the Korean War (1974 published)

(1) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020925219960.pdf

=> About Ethiopia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, South Africa

(2) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020924598030.pdf

=> About Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK

(3) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020924300990.pdf

=> About Belgium, Colombia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands (Belgium Part: PDF 69P & BOOK 53P)

(4) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020923555070.pdf

=> About USA

(5) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020923202530.pdf

=> About USA

(6) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202211020922227920.pdf

=> Summary, (Belgium Part: PDF 119P & BOOK 107P, There is a Map of Haktang-ni)

• THE KOREAN WAR (1997~1999 published)

(1) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202303310234112240.pdf

(2) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202303310233492010.pdf

(3) https://www.imhc.mil.kr/user/imhc/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_202303310233258330.pdf

I hope it helps anyway.

Footwiks (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Addison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blitz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brigade Piron. In the article International response to the Holocaust, I thought the edit would satisfy the expand section box, to some degree.

To address your objections, To clarify the line about "significant challenges," I have expanded it as follows:

"During World War II, the Soviet Union faced invasion and occupation by Axis forces, which posed significant challenges in addressing the Holocaust and its implications. The Soviet Union had a substantial Jewish population, and approximately 300,000 to 500,000 Soviet Jews served in the Red Army, making significant contributions to the overall war effort against the Axis powers.[15] In 1941, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was established with the aim of promoting and propagandizing the Soviet war effort, as well as raising awareness about the crimes committed by the Nazis. The committee played a crucial role in highlighting the atrocities inflicted upon Jews and other targeted groups. However, due to political dynamics and concerns within Soviet authorities, the committee faced skepticism and occasional scrutiny. The Soviet Union, being a totalitarian state, maintained tight control over the media and had a heavily censored press. This censorship often hindered the dissemination of information and limited public awareness of the full extent and anti-Jewish motivations of the Holocaust. The Soviet press, in accordance with government directives, sometimes downplayed or obscured the specific targeting of Jews and the magnitude of the Holocaust. These measures were implemented to maintain a unified narrative and prioritize the overall war effort. The challenges faced by the Soviet Union in addressing the Holocaust within its borders were compounded by the ongoing struggle against the Axis forces. Logistical constraints and the urgency of combating the invaders diverted resources and attention from comprehensively acknowledging and responding to the atrocities committed against Jews."

Do you think this meets the requirements? StarkReport (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StarkReport:, thanks for your comments. I think this is certainly much better but I still have some reservations about some of the phrasing which seems to be a bit MOS:PEACOCK.

In the case of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, for example, what is your basis for saying it played a "crucial role"? How and in what sense? "Skepticism and occasional scrutiny" also seems a curious way of describing the arrest, imprisonment, and eventual execution of its leading members by the Soviet state. The last sentence also implies that the Soviet state wanted to "comprehensively acknowledge and respond" to the Holocaust but was prevented by "logistical" and military "constraints". This seems a very far-reaching claim.

On a sensitive and well-examined topic like the Holocaust, we need to be as clear, accurate, and precise as possible on these kind of issues. What sources are you relying on? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see. Maybe adjustments could be made in order to adhere to MOS:PEACOCK. Additionally, I was considering the importance of maintaining a WP:Neutral stance. However, I do agree that the last sentence may unintentionally conceal the Soviet Union's apathy, not to mention some of its own atrocities against the Jewish population.

Regarding the sources, my initial reliance was placed on the already provided source and was trying to expand from that. But I think these may be suitable: ^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

I guess I may need to conduct more proper research later. StarkReport (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Hello, Brigade Piron Recently, I created articles about Korean War

But some user want to delete these articles. If you have the spare time, please participate in the discussion.

• United Nations Forces in the Korean War
• Medical support in the Korean War
• United Kingdom in the Korean War

Best regards Footwiks (talk)

It looks like this has been resolved now. The best thing would be to ensure that these articles are expanded as much as possible. Fewer, genuinely substantive articles are more helpful to our readers than large numbers of stubs. 19:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Von Bissing university, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aula.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Hi! Thanks for your work on Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Fyi, there are some more reviews to incorporate on the talk page, in case you feel like doing that. Happy editing :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frans Masereel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belgian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swedish Holocaust Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holocaust museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

I've remastered the insignia, but cant seem to find a way to upload it ... help. want het zag er een beetje downpixeled uit. dikke groeten van een bsd-product. WARD MARTEIN (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WARD MARTEIN:, probably best to upload it as a new image in that case! Are you working through Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard)? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Category:Sri Lankan numismatists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I've reverted the Pelican History of England page to my last version. While I understand your embarrassment, I'd be grateful if you didn't vandalise it again.

Explaining who Morpurgo was or the background to the withdrawl of Ashley's volume is not trivia.

Penguin's supposed world-dominance in the 1950s is an anglocentric delusion — it's not hard find commentary from the period complaining about how far we lagged behind the Americans in the serious paperback department.

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Utilisateur19911 (talk · contribs), I'm grateful for your explanation here but I would also be grateful for a little more WP:GOODFAITH. Please read WP:BRD in particular. Short of "vandalising" the article in question, I actually created it back in 2018 but I certainly do apologise if my earlier edit summaries were a little too abrupt.

There are a number of reasons for my deletions which I have restored per WP:BRD:

• The "trivia" I mentioned references WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am not at clear what the section of Maurice Ashley is actually intended to say but his comments on historical writing in general and subsequent engagement in history (or lack of it) has very little relevance to Pelican History of England. It belongs in his own biography. And why should a reader care that only one of the writers were still alive when the successor series appeared - is this important or relevant to the subject?
• A large proportion of the text is uncited and needs, at minimum, to be marked with template:citation needed tags.
• You removed a cited quote from a serious scholar in a major literary publication. This was not explained but your comment above suggests that you disagree on the basis of WP:OR.

I suggest that this discussion move to the talk page and that we try to get some other editors involved to reach a consensus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks for your response, which is more courteous than my post. I'm done. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes to the Liberation of Belgium article, including adding some citations. I am not entirely happy with the current organization, but tried to work within it. I await your review, if you'd be so kind. --Bejnar (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]