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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No problem. I'm afraid I don't understand your question though? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Brigade Piron by Vami_IV✠ on 02:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

On 30 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Malawian presidential election, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. qedk (t 愛 c) 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

On 2 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Antoinette Spaak, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Graeber, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

Precious

Six years!

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

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

On 20 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul Sobol, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dumelow (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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 teamReply[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

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[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

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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

On 12 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Elliott (historian), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 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[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[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[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