User:Brigade Piron/talkarchive2

Monmouth Rebellion

Hi, I noticed your edits to Monmouth Rebellion which I've been expanding over the last few days. You added flags to the royalists in the infobox - are they required? and if so is there a suitable similar flag for the rebels? (or any other things you think need doing to the article)— Rod ^talk 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Armée Belge de 1940

Bien le bonjour! J'ai fait quelques recherches, les photos de la campagne des 18 jours ne sont pas légion! Je n'en n'ai pas encore trouvé. Je regarde encore. Bien à toi, --Madelgarius (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fort Saint-André

I sat down to construct a stub for the Fort Saint-André - only to find that you had already done so. I've driven past the fort on many occasions and was aware that English wiki lacked an article. My further reading list is the result of my struggles to find suitable sources. I have the edited book on the Abbaye Saint-André. This gives the historical background but doesn't have a section on the fort itself. The articles online at Gallica are rather old. The most promising article on my list is that by Chantal Maigret and I'll try to obtain a copy. I'm based in London and conference proceedings are always difficult but the British Library has a copy. It may be easier for me to use a library in Avignon. I'll see what I can find on the Tower of Philip the Fair. Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II

G'day, could you please sort out the GA nominee templates on this article? It can't be nominated twice without a review. Suggest deleting the older one. Leave the fail template from before. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK Victor Maghakian

Issues fixed! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

I have reviewed the Janssens nomination and have raised a minor concern regarding the hook.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Émile Janssens

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Luxembourgish resistance groups

Category:Luxembourgish resistance groups, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Museums of the Far East

Hello! Your submission of Museums of the Far East at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nom:Ulucanlar Prison Museum

Thanks a lot. CeeGee 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined - User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Rexism

WP:CSD#G10 is for "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I do not agree that this is one. If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:MFD. JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Liège Wars

You reverted my edit and told me to make a formal request, but you didn't revert the move. My reasoning is based on the Google Books searches below:

• "wars of liège"
• "liège wars"

In the first search, 4 reliable sources use the term. In the second, there are 14 results, a few of which are irrelevant and only one (possibly two) of which use the term. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the compromise headings I have edited. I don't think it's really necessary to mention Liège three separate times.

I don't know what you mean by:

Just one more thing - when you rename a page, can you also change it on the foreign language section? Otherwise it simply becomes a foreign-language redirect page and you cannot see other versions.

—Srnec (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rexism userbox

I have tidied your MfD nomination up a bit. Although the instructions suggested the "subst:md1-inline" template, it produced a most peculiar result. I don't know why, but I have replaced it with plain "mfd" surrounded by "noinclude" tags, which seems to work. For the sake of form, although UNSC Trooper has not edited since 2011, you should notify him with {{subst:MFDWarning|User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Rexism}} on his talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that.---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Museums of the Far East

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

National invention categories and criteria for inclusion

Raised at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_29#Category:Inventions_by_country. Your contributions are welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Statists (Belgium), Brigade Piron!

Wikipedia editor Jezhotwells just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is more of a stub than start class. Needs a expansion and a broader range of references.

To reply, leave a comment on Jezhotwells's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Belgium GA

I'm sorry Brigade but i'm not going to be able to finish that review of Belgium in WW2. Sorry if this inconveniences you. I don't think there is too much work to do on the article. You should be able to stick the article back in it's spot (It was no.4 i think) in the GA line. Hopefully this speeds up the remainder of the process for you. Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 13:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II -- Couple of details

Hello Brigade Piron,

The proper usage is "U.S.", not "US" (as in "U.S. First Army") -- the "US" usage being a shortcut often seen on the internet and in lower quality publications (I was in the U.S. Army -- our equipment was uniformly identified as "U.S."). As well, I noted the usage "allies" in the article -- this is usually capitalized as "Allies" (as is "Axis").

Nice work on the article. One thing worth mentioning in the context of 1940 is the refugee experience -- lots of people attempted to move west or south, trains were getting strafed, etc. I see you mentioned the return of many Flemish prisoners -- nice touch; not many people outside of Belgium are aware of that -- not sure if you wish to mention in that context that the return of the Flemish prisoners was likely part of the German meddling in Belgian politics that attempted to exploit the differences between the Flemish and the Walloons.

Oh yeah -- my edits were a bit rough. I could not figure out how to smoothly describe the liberation of the part of Belgium that lies south of the rough line from Mons-Brussels-Maastricht without the text becoming clumsy. (I know Maastricht is in the Netherlands btw :-) ), I mentioned that town because the northern reach of the U.S. part of the front line reached to Maastricht and a bit beyond if I recall correctly.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can provide some comments for the GA review, but I won't be able to start for a week or so as I'm going on the road today. Thank you for your reply. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Belgium GA Again

Hey Brigade,

As per your request I have closed (failed) the review. I couldn't see any way to close it without failing it, but I don't think it matters how it was closed.

Happy to offer advice on any small problems you have before the GA, I just don't have the time anymore to do a full GA. Sorry for all his inconvenience Brigade, best of luck! ★★RetroLord★★ 09:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I can do the review. Is there a particular location the review should be located -- can I just add comments to what Retrolord started ? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've started the review -- may take a few days to finish. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Talk:Belgium in World War II/Good Article Review Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Belgian forced labor and other laborers

This German archive page states about 189,000 volunteered for work in Germany prior to establishment of forced labor quotas by the Nazis. Of course "voluntary" is a relative term if one feels starved of food. I read today that German food seizures started a slow starvation of the population by the autumn of 1940 and that intervention of Leopold got the Germans to relent a bit. This slow starvation may well have prompted the large number of "volunteers". The page referenced above states that 375,000 Belgians in total worked in Germany during the war. Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Volume 9/2, page 669, has a table showing 253,648 Belgians working as laborers in Germany in August 1944. 50,386 of these were prisoners of war; the remainder were civilians. This book can be cited with the title and page as above, and was published by Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt in München in 2005, with an ISBN of 3-421-06528-4. All this said, I think the statement that Leopold saved some 500,000 from forced labor is probably correct, but the numbers of those who labored in Germany should be mentioned in the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cost of the occupation until 31 December 1941

The German series I mentioned above, this time Volume 5/1, page 256, mentions the cost billed to Belgium to support the German occupation came to 29,500,000,000 Francs Belge (or 2,537,000,000 Reichsmarks) as of 31 December 1941. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain this further? What were they paying for exactly and how long did they pay it over? Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the total paid over the entire war, but essentially the Germans charged occupied countries for the "privilege" of having German forces occupying them. So, Belgium was forced to pay large amounts of money to cover the costs to the Germans of having soldiers deployed in their country -- a way of making conquest pay for itself. Some comments from a document quoted on the Axis History website:

4. Belgium: From the beginning of the occupation period until 31 March 1944, Belgium paid about 5.7 billion RM in occupation costs. [See Table 6.]

The total given here is probably too high, for in Belgium, too, certain sums regularly reached the black market; at the least, this occurred in the case of personnel expenditures. Belgium's price policy has been definitely more successful than that of France, however, and the extent and prices of the black market accordingly lower. If one reckons with an inflation factor of 3 for 1940 and 1941, and of 6 for the succeeding period, and assumes that 1/20 of the amount for the first two years and 1/10 for the remaining period went into the black market, the above figures may be broken down as follows: [See Table 7].

In comparison with the occupation costs, the clearing debt (customs fees for transporting goods across the international frontier) is very high, at least when regarded from the standpoint of the relationship in France. In Belgium it amounts to about 3/4 of the occupation costs, whereas it totals only 1/4, in France.

It increased as follows:

From 12 July 1940 to 31 August 1940 by: 21 million RM From September 1940 to end of August 1941 by: 383 million RM From September 1941 to end of August 1942 by: 974 million RM From September 1942 to end of August 1943 by: 1898 million RM From September 1943 to end of March 1944 by: 1012 million RM Total: 4288 million RM.

These reichsmark sums, determined with the aid of the official rate of exchange, also must be converted to the rate of purchasing power, and there must be taken into account the sum of the official black market purchases (Veltjens Action), amounting to 267 million RM. Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, that the black market action took place entirely within the 4th year of the war economy, even though it began somewhat earlier (mid-6.42). The increase [Not including Belgium's deliveries.] of the clearing debt may be broken down as follows: [See Table 8].

The sum total of Belgium's contribution, then, amounts to about 9300 million RM. -- from this site Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

and more (forgive the multiple posts, I'm learning a lot by looking into this). This site quotes from material prepared for the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials. The Nazi conspirators demanded from Belgium both "internal occupation costs" and "external occupation costs" (ECR-2). The former was defined as "those sums which have gotten out of the country to finance the needs of the German military formations located in the country" (ECR-32). The term "external occupation costs" was used interchangeably with the title "antibolshevistic contribution" (EC-401). Under whatever theory, the exaction of occupation charges was made "to the limit of capacity". (ECR-59)

Throughout the period of German occupation, a substantial part of the contribution charges obtained from Belgium was used as a matter of regular practice "not for occupation cost purposes" (ECR-166; ECR-155-A; ECR-35), including:

(a) Exports to Germany, Holland, and France (ECR-89; ECR-104).

(b) Exchange for Belgian francs of RKK certificates, a "not inconsiderable part" of which did "not have the least thing to do with occupation costs" (ECR-39; ECR-142).

(c) "Political purposes (that is, SS, Propaganda, Hitler Youth)" (ECR-106).

(d) Purchases in the "black market" (ECR-106), many of them destined for export. (See supra, B, (2).)

(e) General war expenses, including the supply of troops based in Belgium for military operations against England (ECH-5); the Commander-in-Chief of the Army rejected a recommendation of the Military Commander that a distinction be drawn between occupation troops and those for military operations (ECH-5).

Notwithstanding the extensive use of occupation levies for nonoccupation purposes, the contributions exacted from Belgium

"were not only sufficient to cover the needs of the Wehrmacht *** but also made it possible *** to found a cash reserve which reached at certain times about 2,500,000,000 bfrs". Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Previously quoted material can also be seen on this site. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've added a mention to it in the "Life in Occupied Belgium" section as requested. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely happy to take the figure presented on the forum you mentioned (I'd prefer not to use forums in general as sources, and considering its title, it may have political motives for questioning the figure). I have instead cited the 5.7bn RM figure which the Nuremburg Trial papers present. I think it will suffice for this article, though I'm increasingly thinking that a "German Occupation of Belgium in World War II" article, to treat these sorts of topics in more detail, would be a good idea! Thanks for you great work! ----Brigade Piron (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

light tanks and battle tanks

Hi Brigade, I have to admit I didn't understand your comment about "battle tanks". To explain my comment, in English usage the term "battle tank" has only really been used postwar as part of the phrase "main battle tank" (a term used to mean any tank besides a light tank as the terms "medium tank" and "heavy tank" dropped out of use post-1945). While the word "tank" could mean something like a vessel to hold water, I think the context of the article (war) makes it clear that the word "tank" relates to armored fighting vehicles; thus "battle tank" is a bit redundant. Certainly, it is not an important aspect of the article, but I thought perhaps I had not been very clear in my brief comment in the GAR. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful resource

Brigade, one resource I've found that is a useful reference on the topic of European volunteers in the SS is Kenneth Estes' A European Anabasis. Estes was a career officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and wrote this academic work without the usual political favoritism that seems characteristic of works about the SS, especially the foreign volunteers (I personally can't stand the works that ooze ham-handed sentimentality and almost always lack any real documentation of their claims). Another nice aspect of Estes' work is that is available on-line and can be found here. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tables

Brigade, this might be a useful table for the article.

Belgium in World War II
Strength of primary military organizations
Military Organization	Period	Total personnel over time
Belgian army (1940)	May - June 1940	600,000 - 650,000
Colonial Force Publique	May 1940 - May 1945	ca. 40,000
Free Belgian Forces	June 1940 - September 1944	ca. 5,000
SS volunteers	April 1941 - May 1945	ca. 15,000
Belgian army (1944-5)	September 1944 - May 1945	ca. 100,000
SS figures from Kenneth Estes A European Anabasis.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great! I think it would work really well in the "Military of Belgium" article (the self-appointed "Military History of Belgium") but I think its focus is perhaps a bit too military to include in Belgium in World War II? You are absolutely correct, that book is an exceptional resource - admirably free of weird political views! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think by the way that the figure for Free Belgians might be rather over optimistic. The figure I've heard in >5,000 in the UK in the months before D-Day. I guess you could include the resistance but as it is, it looks like Fusilier Bns are being counted too...--08:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is a table you think would work better for "Belgium in World War II", we can make it -- just note which information you want to include. Re: The 100,000 figure includes the Fusilier Battalions -- perhaps "Belgian Army 1944-45" would be a better title for that force. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised there are no infoboxes for "Country X in Y War" (or I haven't found any). Can you look at User:W. B. Wilson/sandbox/scratch ? I've started a basic infobox that summarizes national participation in a war. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to express such complex events in the form of a table. "Allegiance", for instance, is difficult to assign - for Belgium, Neutral until May 10, Allied until May 28, Axis (and allied!) until September 1944, Allied until VE Day! It would be worth raising at WP:MILHIST if you're keen about it? All the best, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are infoboxes for the wars themselves and those are also complex events. The purpose of the box is not display every detail but to summarize key aspects of the topic; seems like something could be put together. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, good effort anyway! By the way, could you add the 40,000 Force Publique and 5,000 "Free Belgians" to the table too? --Brigade Piron (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Table done. If you have sources for the other figures, I can add reference statements to it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

about the King

One idea for the "Belgium in WW2" article -- perhaps the fate of King Leopold (abdication etc.) should be moved to the "legacy and aftermath" section. Seems like it was definitely part of the aftermath. Also suggest moving the paragraph regarding Belgium leaving neutrality behind to be the first paragraph in the "legacy and aftermath" section; seems like it was one of the more important developments postwar. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your reasoning. You're right that something about the Royal Question needs to go at the end (I will add something) but I'd prefer if the section as a whole remained at the top. The thrust of the paragraph was supposed to be (how well I communicated it, I do not know) about Leopold's surrender and role in the occupation. All the stuff about the royal question was just to close it up a bit. I will move that neutrality bit though, as you suggest. Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

good article review

Hi Brigade, Looks like most of the items in my good article review have been addressed by you in the article. The only thing outstanding is the comment I made re: ultimate German plans for occupied Belgium. Not sure if you missed that or don't think there is enough documentation for it at the moment, but it can always be added later. I'll have to look around to see what should become of the GAR at this point. Thanks for the invitation to review your work and thanks for your work on this article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Don't worry, I will certainly get around to the Flamenpolitik, just it is difficult to find reputable sources that can give both an idea of the policy and the extent to which it was popular/successful! There's a risk of exaggerating it to levels of the WWI occupation. Do you know how to close the review to give your final verdict, by the way? All the best & thanks for your help & great work reviewing!---Brigade Piron (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Brigade, I updated the talk page to show GA status and noted it on the web page that tracks good articles. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

I have been thinking a lot about the "County X in War Y" / "County X during War Y" thing myself, as well as the way people name other articles on wiki. As far as I know, there has never been any sort of standard for the WW2 military history by country articles. I have been reading over these artcles for years, and have been planning to make a few of my own, and I have seem them named according to several different naming conventions. Overall, I think "X during Y" is better, because its clearer (The Military history of the United States during World War II article being a good example [On a personal note, Id drop the "Military History of the" part]). A war is not a physical thing you can be inside of, people just say it like that for short. This is an encylopedia, so I think the proper words should be used. Also, not all countries were "in" (as in fought) World War II, but even the ones that were neutral still have relevant WW2 history, hence "X during Y", rather that "X in Y." The 1939-1945 date is correct. The article is about Colombia "during" World War II (1939-45), not Colombia "in" WW2. Colombia was only "in" WW2 from 43-45. I will also say, without trying to be rude myself, that I think its rude you made major edits to a page I had litterally just created (and am still working on), and left me no more than simple explanation. I'm sorry, but I will be reverting to its original state, I want it to be consistent with the Cuba during World War II, Arizona during World War II, New Mexico during World War II, and Nevada during World War II articles I have created, as well as all the others I intend to create over the next few months. Thank you and have a nice day--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. To start, Id like to clarify what I meant in my last message. By using "during", instead of "in," you are referring to the entire period of war (in this case 1939-1945). "In," as I said before, is short, or slang, and refers to "fighting in", or "participation in." Since many countries didnt fight in WW2, but still are important to WW2 history, "during" would be more appropriate. But those are just words. One of my main concerns is consitency. I intend to make an article titled "Latin America during World War II", for the general WW2 history of the entire region, and use it as a main article in a series (Im sure you already noticed that Ive created a template for this future article, which is at the bottom of the Colombia during World War II article). The sub articles in the series, such as Colombia during World War II, will be named consistently. Latin America is not a country, and therefore it did not "fight in" WW2. "During" is the only appropriate word in this case, and, for the sake of consitency, which is of paramount importance in any encyclopedia, the sub articles will be named the same way. The same can be said for individual Latin American countries: Most were neutral for most of the war, and the ones that did actually fight only saw a little bit of action, the one exception being Brazil. Having two artcles, one for X country during then entire period (1939-45), and one solely for X country's time at war, would not be neccessary, which is another reason why "during" is better, because many countries were heavily involved in WW2, before they actually declared war (obviously). All I can say is that I will use "during" for any of the articles I create or have already created, and I will not rename other articles from "in" to "during," out of respect for your opinion, but also because its not that big of concern to me. The boxes are more of a concern. I am a member of wiki mainly for two reasons, to create articles about interesting but forgotten points in human history, and to also have fun playing around with templates, because I really enjoy the creativity. I know I am not a very good writer, so playing around with templates, and, basically, making the articles look descent (or better) is important to me. Although the "Historic event" box may be considered by some to be unneccessary, I think all wiki articles should have a box of some sort at the top right. They are important for the look of an article and really nice to have. A reader can go to an article and look at the box and see all of the article's basic and/or most important information, without having to read or skim through the entire article, which can be a real pain in the ... when you are reading a large article, like the WW2 article, for example. I know that the "Historic event" boxes I have used in the articles contain only the simplist of info, and, believe me, that very thing was a concern of mine when I first started using them on articles like this, but I have decided that the use of the "Historic Event" boxes will only be temporary until I can create a new box using an auxiliary template. These new boxes I hope to create will contain much more information, such as dates and links for important people, and hopefully a small little timeline-like section for the major WW2-related events of each country. I have so much I would like to do, however, and so little time. Also, it seems like half the time I try using one of those auxiliary templates I screw it up. I am by no means an expert with computers. :) For now I will at least add in a little bit under the 1939-1945 date for the two articles (Colombia and Cuba) to show when they actually declared war on the Axis, but, as I said before, that was something I intended to do with the new boxes. Thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourg and the Ardennes Offensive

Hi Brigade, I'll have to look at some sources. This will not be straightforward as the narratives of the battle focus on the operational flow and not so much about in which countries things were taking place. I'm assuming what is looked for here is not so much a recital of the military operations but more how this event impacted northern Luxembourg in terms of damage and casualties. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Resistance

Article passed! ★★RetroLord★★ 18:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Retro! Pleasure to work with you. --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

French Indochina in the Second World War

I see the logic of your move, but there is also a potential argument for keeping the series of articles on Vietnam's history intact. I'll make a note at WikiProject Vietnam in case other editors would like to discuss it. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Belgian Government in Exile

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Korean War

Hello Mr. Piron:

Thank you for your kind words. I do have to apologize and admit that I did lost temper during the previous argument, due to my personal experiences in cross referencing countless Communist, US and South Korean records had taught me countless times that assuming absence of evidence equal to non-existence is a gravely mistake to make. I hope we can move on from that experience.

Now on to the topic: please rest assured that I have monitored you development of Battle of Haktang-ni, Battle of Chatkol since day one with great intrest, and there are two reasons why I haven't contributed or commented on those articles until now:

1) Chinese historiography will never, ever mention combat operation below divisional level, and rarely, if ever, mention combat operation at divisional level, and god forbid you wanted a detailed analysis of combat actions at those levels. Yet Belgium battalion's small size made it such that I doubt Chinese will ever commit more than one regiment at a time in attacking it. So for the lack of better word, Belgium battalion's history is beneath the notice of Chinese historiography.

2) I could not find enough mentions in South Korean and US histories to corroborate the details of those two battles (South Korean official history only mentions the word "Belgian/Belgium" in combat context three times, and once in an appendix nonetheless), but of course, since absence of evidence does not equal to non-existence, and no red flags were raised based on my understanding of Chinese/UN combat operations, plus I don't either speak French or have a PhD in Belgian history, I don't think it is my place to either contribute or openly challenge any statements within those two articles.

Now, this does not mean all hopes were lost. Based on the time frame provided from those two article, I was able to deduce few things, which may help me to gain a clear picture of the Communist involvements in those battle:

• Battle of Haktang-ni: Haktang-ni operation was taken place during Operation Commando and Operation Polecharge, with Belgium Battalion's parent units taking a key part in it. The question is, what is the Belgium Battalion's overall role in those operations? Once that question is answered in detail, then I believe can trace Chinese involvements using hints provided by US, British and Commonwealth source.

• Battle of Chatkol: This is a tricky one, since the period between February to April 1953 were described as "static" by all major participants of conflict. Most of combats during those periods were consists of raids and patrols rather than formal ground taking operations (however, given the stubborn Chinese resistance at the Battle of Triangle Hill in the same area, I'm not ruling out the Belgian narrative as impossible either). So why did Belgian sources believed otherwise? Or to rephrase the question, was Chatkol battle are a series of Communist raids or a larger effort to take Belgian outposts? Until those questions can be answered, I'm finding trouble to even find US/British/South Korean sources that supports this article - and I need hints from US/British/South Korean sources to deduce the Chinese involvement in any battle involving China and a UN combatant that contributed less than a regiment.

Good luck on your research and contribution!

BTW, do you have any French source that can add to article First and Second Battles of Wonju? I only know enough French to learn that official French sources mentions this battle as "Bataille de Wonju" and that it is important. Jim101 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the Chinese unit responsible for the Haktang-ni area was the 141st Division of the 47th Army, based the the Chinese history which stated that 141st division was responsible for defenses against US 3rd Infantry Division. Jim101 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Government in Exlie

Mind if I take this one for a GA review? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgian Government in Exile

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Belgian Government in Exile 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 GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Belgian Forces

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Free Belgian Forces 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 GA bot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brigade Piron. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgian Government in Exile

The article Belgian Government in Exile you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Belgian Government in Exile for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II A-class Review

G'day, there appear to be a few comments unaddressed at the Belgium in World War II A-class Review. If you are free, can you please return to the review and provide an update of how you are going? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in WWII

I had no idea that work was going on that complemented this article. If you need any help I can try, since I have most of the sources and was the main contributor to the Battle of Belgium. Emphasis on try!Dapi89 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I am not an expert of Belgium in this conflict, or at all. My knowledge about the country extends to the 1940 and 1944-45 campaigns and the deployment of Luftwaffe units and ground forces during the occupation. Re: Battle of the Lys (1940) I think this could go to G.A - just. But I am snowed under with work so my edits have dried up for now. Over the next few years I don't see myself editing more than half a dozen times a week. But as I said, I'll try to lend you a helping hand where I can. I'll follow your progress at any rate. Dapi89 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Belgian Forces

The article Free Belgian Forces 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Free Belgian Forces for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All done and passed - great work! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Belgian Forces

The article Free Belgian Forces you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Free Belgian Forces for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cigars of the Pharaoh

Just to say thank your undertaking the review! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there BP! You expressed an interest in The Blue Lotus, and I just thought I'd let you know that I've recently done a load of work over there if you want to take a peek, making any changes to the prose or whatever. I have a few more sources I'd like to use there, so I wouldn't submit it to GAR yet, but feel free to take a look. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Belgian Congo in World War II

Alex Shih^Talk 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Congo in World War II

No problem for removing unsourced figures or synthesizing the information. I rephrased my contribution. Without U from Congo, the Manhattan Project could not have delivered the material for the bomb. As such, it is arguably the most important "contribution" of Belgian Congo to WWII. Shipping U to NY was a private initiative of UMHK. It was a sort of bet on the future as, at that time U, was mainly considered a waste from radium refining (no open market). Some U is believed to have been sold to Nazi Germany by UMHK, unaware of its military applications (see [1] p.23) but also to UK, France, Netherlands,... Thanks to Belgian Congo, Belgium got an early and a privileged access to nuclear technology. Consequently, Governor-General Pierre Ryckmans ended up becoming the first "commissaire belge à l'énergie atomique" in the 1950s. Hope this helps to understand why I expanded this section. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Task Force

Brigade Piron, thank you for the invitation. I'll hold off for the moment as I'm not currently doing much on Wikipedia. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netherlandish Proverbs

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Netherlandish Proverbs 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 GA bot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netherlandish Proverbs

The article Netherlandish Proverbs you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Netherlandish Proverbs for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Revolutions in Belgium

Category:Revolutions in Belgium, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page comments...

Are u aware u removed my talk page comments? Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. Sorry, but I certainly don't remember removing any comments, let alone yours, from any talk page. Could you let me know which page? It's certainly concerning. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I've found it. I didn't deliberately remove it, it was an edit conflict which I didn't notice but my apologies anyway.Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgian ship A4

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Belgian ship A4 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 GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgian Congo in World War II

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Belgian Congo in World War II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Review

Hello, Brigade Piron. You have new messages at Talk:Belgian Congo in World War II/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looks pretty good to me in general, just a couple points we need inline references and I think we're good. Well done on this! Also, are we using British or American English in this article? Let me know and I'll go through and make sure all the spelling is consistent. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgian Congo in World War II

The article Belgian Congo in World War II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Belgian Congo in World War II for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Very well done. I left a couple bonus comments on the review page for if you want to take it further. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Blue Lotus GAR

Hello there BP! I have made the required GAR revisions over at The Blue Lotus. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Komitee der Generalsekretäre

I have answered you on the discussion site of the German translation over here. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust in Belgium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Holocaust in Belgium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for German occupation of Belgium during World War II

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is in recognition of your fine addition of an article for Emile Janssens, last commander of the Force publique. Keep up the good work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust in Belgium

The article The Holocaust in Belgium 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Holocaust in Belgium for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust in Belgium

The article The Holocaust in Belgium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Holocaust in Belgium for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

French Sudan

Greetings. I noticed you are reviewing the GAN for French Sudan, but the original nominator has not edited Wikipedia in a couple of weeks. Hopefully he'll return shortly, but if not, could you let me know before you fail the nomination? I'm willing to take it over if the nominator doesn't return soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe all the issues you raised at Talk:French Sudan/GA1 have now been addressed. I also performed a copy-edit throughout the article. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to held this article attain GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/World landscape

Brigade Piron, I've just answered your concerns about this nomination: it was indeed nominated within the required five-day window, so it is completely eligible on that point. Please complete your review at your earliest convenience. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Belgium Barnstar of National Merit
		For your tireless efforts concerning the Belgian articles on Wikipedia and your contributions as a whole! Mathijsvs (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much appreciated! Brigade Piron (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Mansuriya

Hello again. You recently reviewed the GAN for French Sudan, and I finished the nomination when the original nominator QatarStarsLeague failed to show up. I also am reviewing one of QatarStarsLeague's GANs: Al-Mansuriya, at Talk:Al-Mansuriya/GA1. It's very close to GA status, but needs a little work to push it over the top. Would you be interested in taking over the nomination, making the requested changes and hopefully bringing it to GA quality? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No problems, I'll certainly have a go. If I don't alter it in the next week or so, can you send me a reminder? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, although I've also put a public notice up at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, so it might not last that long, we'll see. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

Brigade Piron, just wanted to thank you real quick for your work on the French Sudan Good Article review process. While I had written much of the current article and QSL offered to help work it through the Good Article process, it seems both of us were traveling and without internet at the key period of review. So, your activity to keep that alive (and to give excellent critical comments) was greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for all your help. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you for your comments! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Black Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snowy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Committee of Secretary-Generals

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Committee of Secretary-Generals 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 Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Committee of Secretary-Generals

The article Committee of Secretary-Generals 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Committee of Secretary-Generals for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Fractional currency FLC

Hi Brigade Piron- I am trying to find reviewers for a Featured List nomination through the Numismatic portal membership list. If you have the time to look at the proposed list, feedback or comments (either positive, negative, or both) would be appreciated. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Committee of Secretary-Generals

I have been reading this article with interest. I was wondering if the title should not be "Committee of Secretaries-General". In my experience, the plural of Secretary-General is usually Secrataries-General (cf Directors-General). See these examples. --Ipigott (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't mind, though if it's OK with you, I'd rather leave it until after the GA review is done before starting a move discussion? Personally, I think it sounds a bit odd, but that's not to say you're not right.Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for helping with the overhaul of the Mummies page, I really appreciate it! -- Saint Soren (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of you, thanks! Let me know if I can be of any more assistance. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Committee of Secretary-Generals

The article Committee of Secretary-Generals you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Committee of Secretary-Generals for comments about the article. Well done!

Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Смерч

Actually it means both tornado and waterspout, probably because a waterspout is essentially a tornado over water.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But then why choose "Waterspout" over tornado? Besides, Ru.Wiki lists a waterspout as a Водяной смерч. Tornado's not a particularly unusual name for a ship and a waterspout is a pretty obscure concept, particularly in Russia...Brigade Piron (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hi Brigade Piron. There is a user at the Help Desk asking about deleting/modifying material at Luxembourgish Wikipedia. I saw your contributions noted here, and was hoping that you could help the user. The thread is at Wikipedia:Help desk#my wikikedia page.[2] Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit

		The Belgium Barnstar of National Merit
		I see I'm not the first to think of this. You've earned it for your extensive contributions that greatly improve coverage of Belgium! Oreo Priest talk 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Oreo, very much appreciated! Brigade Piron (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German occupation of Belgium during World War II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Belgian government in exile

The article should be Belgian government-in-exile because look at the others:

• Czechoslovak government-in-exile
• Greek government-in-exile
• Luxembourg government-in-exile
• Dutch government-in-exile
• Polish government-in-exile
• Yugoslav government-in-exile

It needs to keep up the consistancy with the others.Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Then please open a move discussion. But in BRIT ENG, per the standard which has applied to Belgian government in exile since its inception, it is without the hyphen and I personally feel that the others should be moved to this standard.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC - Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo

Hi Brigade Piron, I've responded to your comments at the FAC for Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo. Thanks for taking the time to review and support this - it's much appreciated. Regards, Lemurbaby (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

/* Siege of Antwerp (1914)

Apologies babe, I've only just noticed that you're back. I fear I've reverted some of your amendments, under the impression thay they were my typos.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The narrative I've been adding is longer than I thought so now I'm unsure when the Siege ended and subsequent operations began - perhaps some of the description of the withdrawals might be better in a seperate section and the aftermath (I'd move the surrender narrative to the end of the siege section)? There's a few more pages in the OH to paraphrase but nearly finished now.Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Erm, was it you who changed it to b-class? I don't think it's ready and since we have made a lot of edits we have a conflict of interest.Keith-264 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The article German occupation of Belgium during World War II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War II for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Antwerp zeppelin

• https://ia600301.us.archive.org/26/items/timeshistoryofwa02londuoft/timeshistoryofwa02londuoft.pdf
• https://ia600502.us.archive.org/29/items/timeshistoryofwa03lond/timeshistoryofwa03lond_bw.pdf

There's a chapter on Antwerp and a pic of a zepp in Vol II but I didn't notice any text.Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/!image/AC01859873/241/-/ if you can read German there might be some useful data here but I haven't found a page with an oob or German casualties yet (I have to plough through it with an online translator).Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oi!

Will you stop ruining my prose? I haven't copy-edited it yet.Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any chance we can discuss our copy-editing differences, so as to avoid nullifying each other's work? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Belgian 19th century history

Hi Brigade! I must confess that most of my contributions, including the covering of the Senne, are actually translations rather than original content. I'm not tremendously knowledgeable about the subject either. Having said that, the article looks great so far, and I'd be happy to help in what ways I can! Oreo Priest ^talk 18:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through so far. I've made lots of minor changes, but few substantial ones, and I think the article is pretty good. I was inspired to write Risquons-Tout (also nominated for DYK) based on your article. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oreo, that is an amazing help! I'm very glad about the DYK too! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation 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. Madalibi (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The review is ready! Please see Talk:Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation/GA1‎. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

1830 belgian independence navbox

I have been working on a navbox covering the fight of Belgium for its independence (1830-1839) inspired by the FR wiki one: User:Afernand74/sandbox_4. The navbox is meant to be collapsed. I would appreciate if you could have a critical look at it. I am aware that the very first Belgian medal is missing but I don't known how to name it (see [3]) Thanks Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at making some changes. It goes without saying that you're more than welcome to revert any you'd like ;) For what it's worth, I think it's a bit too centred around people (I don't think it's possible to change that, but a seperate "people of the revolution" might be more appropriate? Best to get another opinion too probably, but good effort! Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The nav box has gone live. I have added the flag icon back. I agree it is rather people-centric. I had the articles orangism, rattachism in an attempt to balance it. Hopefully will someone else pick it from here. Thanks again. Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! What's rather embarrassing for us, though, as a project is the worrying number of red-links for some of the key revolutionaries. Even stubs would be better than nothing. Still, that's a future project...Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation

The article Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Belgium 1914

I've been looking at the existing pages and have been doodling thus User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 User:Keith-264/sandbox5 User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 with a view to collecting and cross-referencing existing material with some new items. Dapi is adding narrative to the 1st Ypres page and I'd be interested in your opinion of them, particularly the Belgian aspects. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I'm actually working on the East African campaign of 1914, but I'll certainly try to add information that I can. By the by, I was looking at the Siege of Antwerp again, and it occurs to me that the narrative is actually probably a bit too detailed (on a unit and precise geographical areas etc.) while not making the general strategic development so clear - this might be something to look out for on your new articles, but they seem pretty good so far anyway! Brigade Piron (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The three I'm doodling are as much to clarify chronology and nomenclature as mch as anything else and are a bit like expanded campaignboxes. I tend to write more narrative than other editors because it avoids controversy in the ==Battle== section and segregates it in the Analysis section, while refuting the incompetence and negligence farrago with facts (you could take some description of the Somme 1916 and use the terminology of Normandy 1944 and no-one would notice). I'm thinking of most headings having a 1-2 paragraph limit. I hope to get things like the strategy right in one article to link to from the others. Strachan is pretty good (and succinct) on German and Belgian military thinking and Foley is detailed on the Schlieffen debate. French planning is a bit more difficult but it can be done. The page on the Schlieffen Plan needs a lot of work. Anyway thanks for taking a look, I'm sure that I will find lots of obsolete spellings for you (Wytschaete, Gheluvelt and Roulers ;O)). I have OH EA I if you need references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got Fendall too. The casualty section in the OH had casualties by each action (Bagamoyo, Mhonda etc) rather than by period so I expect the rest is in the unprinted OH EA II. Paice 'Tip and Run' has some OOB and casualty stats.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox

I noticed your sandbox today. I have Shepperson and Price, Independent African: John Chilembwe and the Origins, Setting and Significance of the Nyasaland Native Rising of 1915 (Edinburg, 1969), if you need any help. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Srnec! I'd certainly welcome your help! I'd also really welcome any tips on how to talk about causes of the rebellion while keeping the historiography separate: as I'm sure you know, the causes of the rebellion have been cited as everything from forced labour, religion, nationalism etc. to psychosomatic Asthma (!) - and I would like to give these due treatment alongside the writers who think them but in an encyclopedic style article, this presents problems... At this stage, I am planning on taking it to GAR too.Brigade Piron (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning Who is a Jew

WP:BRD is very specific about not restoring reverted edits before you establish consensus. The burden to prove consensus is upon you. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion can be found at Talk:Who is a Jew?#God-fearer. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Liege forts and German artillery

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=203960 you might find this interesting.Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)