User talk:Brigade Piron

Untitled

Hi,

About : "*Creation of the flag and insignia of 2nd/4th Regiment Mounted Rifles in 2004 by Olivier Nolet de Brauwere (Belgian artist, heraldist who worked for l'État présent de la noblesse belge) and by Commandant Benoît Sibille." Why do you want a domain public ? You want to see everybody sale it ? I don't sale it. It's done already. It's the regiment flag, not mine anymore. And nobody needs to sale it. The Cdt is a friend. I should sale my words ? Don't be so juridical. The inbox is not a what for but the artist as the right to clame his name. That's what I do. It's my right. I don't ask anything more and I will never ask anything more. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardesneiges (talk • contribs) 10:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leopardesneiges. I assume you're new to Wikipedia and I'm really not trying to kill your enthusiasm. All pictures are the intellectual property (copyright) of their creator, unless that person is long dead or decides to release it. Wikipedia is run by a charity and can be sued like any other company and LAW is not something that can be brushed aside as unimportant. Please read this article on commons for instructions on getting legitimate permission.

In addition, and please don't take this the wrong way, your written English is not easy to understand. I removed the text above because, quite frankly, I had no idea what it referred to... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC).

Yes, my english is not good, I can't see it but I know it ... . I'm the intellecual owner of that pictures, theorically. I think I just have the right to show it, name it, and give my name. That's all. Those pictures dont' have to be modified. "Public domain" would mean that it can be modified by anybody. It's not a good idea, right ? But if the Belgian army wants to change it, it's not my business. I'm not the army. I draw that flag but it's not my flag, so ... . Should I fight the Belgian army if they change something on my pictures or sale somes "souvenirs" ? lolll ... . Finally, I think I choose a fine way to show the authors. Thank you. Sorry for my english.

Battle of Britain foreign pilots, and Merry Christmas

Hi Brigade Piron, how are you? I'm sorry but I'm rather confused by the claim that "After Poland and the Commonwealth contingents, Belgium provided the second-largest foreign contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain." I guess we are saying that ignoring Poland, NZ and Canada, Belgium had the second-largest contingent after Czechoslovakia? This seems a slightly awkward way to word this. Why not simply say that Belgium had the third-largest non-Commonwealth contingent and the fifth-largest foreign contingent overall? Or something like that. Seems more logical to me. Cheers, hope you're well and a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian. Yes, I'm bemused about it too (please feel free to rephrase or delete). The section in the book I'm working from says "It is a little known fact that after the Commonwealth and Polish contingents the largest number of foreign pilots in the RAF during the Battle of Britain were Belgian...". Perhaps the source is wrong, but I don't like making that sort of call.

If you could have a look some other aspects of the same article though, it seems there are quite a few dodgy (and rather nationalistic) claims. The number of Irish pilots has halved from 15 to 10 in my research (down from about 40 a few months ago!) and the Ceylonese pilot has also evaporated, while Barbadan and Newfoundland pilots have popped up ex nihilo. I'm happy it's more accurate now (or, at very least, sourced), but I'm sure there are further inaccuracies lurking... Happy Christmas to you too! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have looked up the source on Google books. Hmmm. Seems that the author either made a mistake or perhaps is erroneously referring to the Poles and Czechoslovakians together as the "Polish contingent" (alternatively it could be that he made reference to a "Polish-Czech contingent" or something similar and a prose editor changed it). I would usually say leave it as it is when you have a sourcing anomaly like this but in this case we are dealing with numbers of people and it can clearly be seen that as worded this just isn't right. I have reworded to "Belgium provided the largest contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain that did not come from Eastern Europe or the Commonwealth." Do you think this is okay?

I think there is never going to have a stable set of figures for this, partly because it is often hard to pigeon-hole people as being specifically from one country. Take for example Squadron Leader Caesar Hull—born in Rhodesia, schooled in South Africa, joined the RAF in Britain. Sources variously list him as either Rhodesian or South African; in his article I went with "Southern Rhodesian-born". There's a Battle of Britain pilot who was born in South Africa and a British citizen, but who is counted in this article as American as his parents came from there. Then you have that pilot who was basically British but who was born in Haifa and so occasionally shows up in lists as Palestinian or Israeli (for example at the end of the Battle of Britain film with Michael Caine). I think the approach we have at the moment is actually best—the figures don't line up exactly, but giving a couple estimates for each country gives a general idea of the contingents' size. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! The same is true for the Barbadan guy who is listed as British by the RAF, but considered a national hero in (and listed by the RAF memorial as from) Barbados by all accounts! Incidentally, I've reverted a couple of additions I think you made to the table which do not seem to be mentioned on the link cited - could it be that you mistook the reference you were using? Anyway, if we cite both "official" estimates given by RAF and the London memorial, I don't think anyone can complain! Cheers for re-doing the table formatting btw: looks much better! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to have been a combination of me getting the two links mixed up in the Northern Rhodesian's case and the RAF list referring to "South Rodesia" and "North Rodesia"—quite shocking frankly. Evidently the RAF recruits semi-literates. I would say it makes me feel glad I volunteered in a foreign army instead but the Israelis are much worse on this kind of thing; you would not believe how often they spell their own names wrong. There was once when a package was sent to me care of "JP Asher, Flat 1" and the Israeli post office thought it was addressed to a Mr Asher Flat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Still, making a mistake like that on a "Roll of Honour" does seem a bit bad even still! Incidentally, I've added a legacy section to the bottom - please feel free to add to it if you can think of anything. The BNP Polish spitfire thing was just something that stuck in my mind ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That was amusing, wasn't it. Silly people. I'm also reminded of that thing just a couple weeks ago, when Dave announced a plan to cut off immigrants' benefits after four years in the UK. A Czech minister tweeted a picture of Czechoslovakian RAF pilots with the caption "no benefits for them?" —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'Belgian waffle' in UK?

Howdy; I hope all is well. You said this. Do they really eat that particular kind of not-Belgian-at-all waffle in the UK? The rest of Europe? Are you sure? Even if you are sure about the UK, I wouldn't want to phrase it 'Europe' for fear of it seeming more widespread in Europe compared to real waffles from Belgium than it really is. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 13:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oreo! Well, I don't have a cite, but I believe a Belgian Waffle is basically what the rest of Europe (UK or, indeed, France and probably elsewhere) considers when the word "waffle" is mentioned. I agree it's potentially a bit problematic. Could the mention of place not be deleted from the first sentence altogether and mentioned more specifically elsewhere? That might address some of the frequent IP edits which try to Belgian-ise the dish! Happy Christmas by the way! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Added cat

Dear, I took the liberty to add a category to your user page. I am member of the board of WM Belgium [1] and I would like, if it is ok, to have curated list of active wikipedians in Belgium who may be interested in our future activities. Feel free to revert of course. I have on my personal todo list a collaboration with the Musée National de la Résistance. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, though I fear I may not be so active in the coming year! Programme sounds good though! All the best & have a good Christmas! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Brigade Piron, You cancelled two small contributions I recently put ont the page "Belgium in WW II". This is just to let you know that I am interested by this aspect of Belgian History. I am most willing to collaborate with you in this intersting and poorly developed field. But let me tell you that I did not write that the Belgain government in exile in London was composed of four men only. I did say that in the fall of 1940 only the first four members were in London. Your statement on the SOE activities is alo a bit short and rather incomplete. Please let me know if you are willing to discuss those points. sincerely Luc Michel--Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luc-Michel,

Your enthusiasm is great and your knowledge on the subject appears really commendable. Plus, of course, thank you for not taking my revert the wrong way!

Concerning the revert in question, I'd really advise you to consider whether the article in question (intended as a short and basic guide to everything that happened in Belgium 1940-45) is necessarily the best place for a discussion of what is a relatively peripheral matter.

As you might have seen, I've worked through a dozen or so Belgian-WWII articles to get them to GA standard, but there're still plenty of gaps in the detailed coverage (particularly at Front de l'Indépendance and for similar articles). If you would be interested in creating an article for the "Socrates" network, as you seem to know about it, that would be brilliant! Incidentally (please do not think this intended to cause any offense!) I assume English is not your first language? If so, please consider using the Sandbox to test the content you want to add. All the best!—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Previous Rollback

I roll the edits on Attack on the twentieth convoy of the IP user (Probably sock of Banned User) because he continuously ignores others requests that he actually read an article before he assesses them. Albeit some of his edits are technically correct through blind luck, I find myself rolling him continuously. I appreciate the catch as I appear to be causing the same problem I am trying to prevent myself.--Molestash (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for letting me know! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brabant Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South Kasai

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article South Kasai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brabant Revolution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South Kasai

The article South Kasai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South Kasai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brabant Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

The article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

The article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hubert Pierlot

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hubert Pierlot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hubert Pierlot

The article Hubert Pierlot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hubert Pierlot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

The article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Congolese Independence Speech for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer citation question cleared up

Nice job on the Congolese Independence Speech article. I believe I set the reviewer straight with his question Wikipedia:Good article help#Short citations. Good to see you around. Prhartcom (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

The article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Congolese Independence Speech 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 AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Video of Independence Day events in Congolese Independence Speech

This video is certainly not a copyright violation! The video has been uploaded to YouTube by the copyright holder!! It is a news reel produced by Pathé News, which operated until 1970. Their archive of 85,000 videos are now owned by British Pathé (same Wikipedia article), which has published the entire archive on YouTube. The video is also available on the British Pathé website.

This video is what Template:External media was created for. It is very valuable content relating to the subject of the article, especially in the section it was placed, and I believe the description was appropriate (the length is ok, see the first example). This edit needs to be undone. AHeneen (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't know. I've added it in. Thanks for the review! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Any reason for not using Template:External media? It is very relevant in the "The Speech" section and with the description and is used like the quote box template. AHeneen (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm really not sure it adds anything. For videos hosted on commons, it makes good sense to include it in-line. But here, I think a picture is more helpful - to my mind this is exactly what works best in the external links section. I know it's not a picture per se, but I think much of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images still applies. All the best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Horne and Kramer

Greetings BP, do you have a copy of this? German Atrocities, 1914 A HISTORY OF DENIAL John Horne and Alan Kramer. Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not heard of it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want a copy, send an email to [] Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Philip Verheyen hoax

Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.

So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I hate this kind of thing. I've had a look, and it seems clear that the book "Amputaties en Bewaringen" does, indeed, not exist. Considering the claim that "it is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity", I definitely think it should be deleted. If it is also true that much of the content is questionable, I think we have a real problem. In the meantime I've put a "hoax" tag on the page to warn unwary users... Can anyone from WP:Medicine provide expertise on this? Unfortunately it's really not my area... Well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[copied to Talk:Philip Verheyen. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)]

Requested Move discussion

There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Unicorn

Hi Brigade Piron, it's always good to see our resident Belgian expert touching up the Tintin articles. In the Unicorn, which I have nominated for GA, the thrust I am going with here is that the ship's nationality is British, not French. Let me explain: While of course I know that the fictional ship was not originally British, Hergé's English publisher actually went to a great deal of trouble to make it appear so, even altering the French flag to a British one in the comics. As this is the English Wikipedia, I am beginning with the English Unicorn and it's characters, then working backwards to the French Unicorn as you can see further down in the article. I hope you agree with this approach. Therefore, may I ask you to please touch up the article again, restoring it back to this original way, in the manner you see fit? I wish to stress that I greatly appreciate your edits and input; as I have probably missed something and I know your touch always is an improvement; I have no doubt you will leave the article better than the way I left it last night. I am expanding the article further down the page a bit right now, but before saving my changes I will wait for you to do this edit first and give it your stamp of approval, then I will paste in my changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Okay, I waited about four hours and went ahead and applied the changes I was making that edit conflicted with yours, overruling some of your changes (but I appreciate and kept several others). As I said, I am very interested in your historical expertise and invite you to now have at it, improving it as best you can. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update again: Oh! You should review it for GA! Go to its talk page and click the link if you dare. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm afraid I'm on a wikibreak (if not a total one) so taking on reviews and stuff isn't really possible. I wish you all the best for it though. Frankly, I must say I disagree with your stance on this issue. As the original, the French should be given a degree of primacy and, I think, putting "Royal Navy" in the first line like this is slightly misleading. However, for the GAR, I'd say the lack of any mention of the ship's role in the Spielberg film (particularly because of its importance) is a much more major problem. But good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam

No. As a former government in exile it gets an infobox. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Frankly reverting my edits constitutes vandalism. RoyalMate1 00:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Royalmate1, I can't understand anything (no matter how obvious it may be) if you don't put an edit summary since I'm sorry to say we probably don't have some kind of telepathic connection. But I'm afraid there is no law for governments in exile getting infoboxes - plainly because they aren't the "former countries" which the infoboxes were intended for. Shall we take it up on the talk page? Please actually look at Wikipedia:BRD by the way - reverting is not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the start of a constructive process... Your revert of my revert could, I'm afraid, be interpreted as attempting to start an edit war. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dinant

Battle of Dinant (1914) I'd be grateful if you'd run your eye over the new version. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Have done my best ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, nice pics too. Ready for a B?Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I should think so. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, my Wikimojo seems to be returning too; hope your break is going well.Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, the page looks better for them. After the recent depressing experience with the Somme page, it's a relief to get back to a constructive relationship. Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why?

What gives you the right to replace reliably sourced content with BS that you obviously haven't even read? M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus. If you want to make a change to this fairly integral thing, make your points on the talk page first! I know I'm far from the only user to find your constant pushing of a certain line (without any attempt at discussion) rather exasperating. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello,
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding M.Bitton's edits on the article Algerian War.
Thank you.
--Omar-toons (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Dear Brigade Piron, you recently undid my contribution on 'manpower' of the Belgian Armed Forces page. I don't know who ever came up with the 24.500 number of active personal, as it never actually was that low. Belgium has always had a relatively large army from over 40.000 in 2008, needing to be decreased to about 32.000 by 2015. In January this year, official statistics mention 31.847 men of active personel. This was given in a flemish article of our local newspaper 'Het Belang van Limburg'. Therefor, i give you a link to that source: https://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/10993120_450099845144190_7160610129054473811_n.jpg?oh=a284fb20038f9a33a132524d1a3cee96&oe=557E71D0&__gda__=1431177320_a93914cd5a7e186c23a1398500555d3d

Fair enough, but do add the citation to the article. What date/year does the article you mention date to? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Belgium 14

I don't suppose you could remind me which Main or See also links go at the top of the page and which don't, please? I think I've just buggered them up again. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, neither is very good for the top of a page - both are really intended for sections (especially the "main article" one). The see also template is generally superseded by a "see also" section at the bottom. Hope that helps :) —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It does, thanks. I thought the link at the top was a new wheeze but then I haven't added see also's as I thought they were obsolete....Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Ypres is done, (at last) Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oom Paul

Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look when I get a moment! Good luck with the review. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep well now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Hi. I've reverted your inclusion of a "Killed in action" template after the names of the Irish leaders of the Easter Rising, as they were executed by firing squad after the Rising itself, and not killed in action. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you! - your removal of my 'hugo frey review' edit at Tintin and the World of Hergé

me bad:) anyway it had tintin in the title and it was late and i had no sleep and .... aww heck just send me a wp:trout

Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Coolabahapple! It happens. Thanks for contributing on Tintin articles anyway and I hope to see you around in future. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Congo Crisis

Instead of REVERTING my contribution to Congo Crisis as you did and commenting that it's better as a "See also", it would have been more appropriate for you to take the easy next step to MOVE the contribution to the "See also" section, which by the way, was in need of an editor's attention.

Good luck on your exams. Froid (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for bearing with me, I've made a bit of a tweak but I hope that's OK. Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mary Lindell

Bonjour, Pour info, j'ai laissé un message ici concernant une récente publication à propos de Mary Lindell. Peut-être seras-tu intéressé de laisser une section "Controversy" suite à sa lecture? Bàt, --Madelgarius (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Moules-frites

Hi, I thought that northern Europe consists of Iceland, the British Isles, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Northern Germany, Finland, the Baltic States and Northwest Russia, in most of which Moules-frites are unheard of. Wouldn't it be less ambiguous to list the countries here? -- Theoprakt (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but to say they are popular only in France is a bit misleading and, likewise, to select a scientifically-chosen series of countries is impossible. There's a lot of overlap between Northern/Eastern/Western Europe (naturally) and I think there's reasonable grounds for ambiguity? Not everyone in Belgium eats moules-frites all of the time, remember! —Brigade Piron (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Arras Lille 1940

Greetings, it's been a while, I don't suppose you have any sources on them? I've been doing a few articles which are missing citations and references and stumbled on them but they're only mentioned in passing in the stuff I've got. Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I can be of any help.—Brigade Piron (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

history of Belgium and Africa
Thank you for quality articles such as German occupation of Belgium during World War I, for rewriting the history of Belgium, including featured topic Belgium in World War II, for your plans to improve the African topics, because "The day will come when ... Africa will write its own history ... of glory and dignity", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 1010th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Requesting guidance

Greeetings

It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name

Looking forward to your kind guidance

Thanks and warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mahitgar, thanks for bringing this up. I absolutely agree with you and have commented on the move discussion. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"following colonization"

Hi Brigade Piron. Please see talkpage. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Dream of the Celt

Brigade Piron. Isn't it just odd how things are. I am busy reading "The Dream of the Celt" (Vargas Llosa), which deals with the atrocities in the Congo Free State, from the time Leopold set his eys on it. Because there is a lot of overlap with other stuff that I am interested in, I was looking into this and that and kept seeing your user name. Today I had decided to drop you a note on the extensive work you have done here on Congo-related pages. I wonder how things would have turned out if I had written to you before you seeing my edit, which I now see from the edit history that it was something that you personally added. So it goes. But, notwithstanding, do accept my compliments on the work you have been doing. And keep it up. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to our paths crossing in future.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise. I would like to share this source that I found yesterday. http://www.kaowarsom.be/documents/BIOGRAPHIE%20COLONIALE%20BELGE%20-%20BELGISCHE%20KOLONIALE%20BIOGRAFIE/TOME%20I/TOME%20I.pdf. Also note that you can change the URL, but you need to change in two places — see highlighted in bold italics "TOME%20I/TOME%20I.pdf" to TOME%20II/TOME%20II.pdf, etc. I am not sure how long the series is, I am battling with the internet, have downloaded I to IV. I specifically find value in the 'spelling mistakes'/ alternative spellings, which often serve to corroborate that things before to be distinct are in fact the same, just with different spelling. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMPASS

Please read MOS:COMPASS the name was in British English spelling you changed it to American spelling, eg North East England. -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@PBS:, I know, I created the article! Actually, until your move just now, I was also the only contributor to it. It was just a redirect before, and I don't think that sets a precedent. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Netherlandish proverbs

I corrected a French translation in one of the Netherlandish_Proverbs, can you explain why you put back a wrong translation?Н Француз (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree that the previous translation was "wrong", but please feel free to raise it on the page's talk if you feel that I was in error. All I would say is that a good metaphorical translation is always better than a bad literal one. Plus, the only source that I can find for any of the entries on Netherlandish Proverbs uses the version you removed - see here. Please don't think I'm trying to discourage further contributions though! —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat : "I corrected a French translation in one of the Netherlandish_Proverbs, can you explain why you put back a wrong translation?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Н Француз (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, you made the English translation wrong while also making a dubious change to the French. A basic google search can find a number of sources in support of the original French text which you altered (here, for example) - your proposed translation seems clunky by contrast and I can't find anything to support it online. But perhaps you can enlighten us by providing a WP:RS? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Belgian franc

Hello Brigade Piron,

why did you remove the link to the gallery of the Belgian banknotes? This page shows all of the last two series of the Belgian franc banknotes - and the site is free of any advertising. In my opinion this site is a good complement to the Wikipedia article.

Regards, Luna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.197 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luna, please don't take it personally. If you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, you'll see some clear criteria for other webpages we can link to and reference. I don't think the site you referenced meets these. We do need to be careful that we present the reader with reliable evidence.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I don't take it personally. I just wanted to help. I've found this site on the German Wikipedia. There a lot of articles about banknotes have a link to this website. So I think, this site should be clean and safe. But if you have concerns, I can understand that.