User talk:Brigade Piron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Atrocities in the Congo Free State you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article Atrocities in the Congo Free State you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two years ago ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jean-Baptiste Piron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article Jean-Baptiste Piron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jean-Baptiste Piron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Brigade Piron,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Brigade Piron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there Brigade Piron,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello:

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

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

I believe the article now meets GA standards.

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precious

Six years!

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

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

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

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