User talk:Oreo Priest/Archive 5

Poelaert
I am weating the answer of the archives of Brussels, but the fact that Poelaert was residing no long of the works is not surprising, the baron Haussman was also residing in the center of Paris and Christopher Wren in the centre of London. The number of expropriated persons is not so great 75 + perhaps a 100 habitants. The number of expropriation four the Vaulting of the Senne and four the Jonction Nord Midi and now for the extension of the ralways is greater. But my only sources are books and it is also possible that those auteurs are making errors and mistake. It is verry surprising that not any autor speaks about the atelier and domiciliation of Poelaert.--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gilles Binchois
Its only a coincidence. Gilles Binchois was from Mons, and the name Gilles or Aegidius was verry currently in use at this time. de Binche was the family name of his mother, perhaps also the name of a seigneurie or a manor. History is full of coincidences of this kind. Bien cordialement.--Bruxellensis (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium  Oreo Priest  talk 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)]

Belgian cities
Hello Oreo Priest. I'm sorry if this is not the right place, but I was wondering if you could help me.

I've seen that you are a contributor on Belgian articles, that's why I ask for your help.

I'm in a discussion with user "Sijo Ripa" about the name of the belgian cities ( outside of Brussels capital region ). I've been added in english wikipedia french names for flemish cities, as these names are use by a part of the belgian population. But, user "Sijo Ripa" revert all my updates and says that as these cities are in flanders, it should only be the dutch name and that the other names should be removed. But, most of the belgian cities have a french, dutch and german name ( have a look at Liege, Namur, Arlon,.... ) For more info, please have a look at the discussion page from halle

What do you think we should do ? Remove french names for flemish cities and remove dutch names from french cities ? If the usage on English wiki is to put only the dutch or the french name, then I have no problem with that. Thanks again for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Liegeois (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Le Liegeois, I have not reverted all your edits (?). I have just put a POV-tag, because I deliberately want to avoid a revert war. I did revert two changes you have made after our conversation started. It is not polite to makes changes that directly impact the points of discussion when no consensus has been achieved - it indeed can result into a lot of irritation. Don't worry, I understand you're new here and you're more than welcome on Wikipedia. Oreo Priest, thanks for the link with Wikiproject Belgium. Cheers and all the best to you two despite our different views, Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sack of Antwerp
Hi Oreo Priest.

The article linked in this section title was on my watchlist as I had done a minor change; I now saw you eliminated 'Flemish' and the edit comment. I'm not quite sure about details of the Spanish soldiers' motives but obviously, as they just fought at Zierikzee and Aalst, they had been fighting in the latter Flemish city without pay (Aalst belonged to the County of Flanders since the XIth or XIIth C.) Were the rebel enemies of the Spanish forces in that city only Northern Dutch forces under the command of the States-General, or also the locals? Unlike the situation later on, in those days, the new Protestant convictions in the Southern Netherlands were stronger and more widespread than in the north, the rebels were mainly Southerners. In fact, the Spanish Furies (plural) and the faith of the Count of Egmont (like the Count of Hoorne) caused many Southerners to flee to the north: at least a quarter though possibly a third of the inhabitants of my city, Mechelen — and those did not mainly belong to its poorest and least educated part of the populace, while only a few decades earlier that city had been the political centre and most rich of the Netherlands). &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-01 23:31 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply of 09:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC). No, I do not have any ideas about this: I'm not all too well familiar with the topic and it is difficult to ascertain the reliability and objectivity of sources: Obviously many stories and reports of the time would have been exaggerated for propaganda, and —arguably with exception of one guy last century— Alva being the most hated person in the entire history of present-day Flanders, it may not have become filtered as scrupulously by historians. That does not mean that negationist WP articles like the Black Legend should be taken seriously, and post Franco 'historians' of that style have been quite busy publishing texts as well.

In the Sack of Antwerp article, it says that Zierikzee and Aalst were plundered because they had not been paid fighting "Dutch" rebels. And the Eighty Years' War article says that they had not been paid for two years. Their last battle mentioned there however, was the 2nd siege of Leiden in July to October 1574 (clearly Dutch) but that does not show them as having been fighting rebels all that much before Zierikzee and Aalst in 1576. In 1572 Mechelen had surrendered but was nevertheless as thoroughly sacked as Antwerp later in 1576, but under full Spanish command and the also three day murdering and pillaging must have delivered good 'pay' then (a year later magistrates still tried to get church belongings back from cities where soldiers had sold those), and Alva had massacred the entire population of resisting Zutphen and of surrendering Naarden (its 3,000 people were gathered and locked in the church, which was then set to fire; all perished). Philips' bankrupcy may then have been a cheap excuse for the 1576 so-called-mutineer plunderings, which presentation is perhaps not entirely objective. The whole episode is a bit too complex and edits are bound to cause far more discussion than I'm willing to accept. Kind regards. &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 11:28 (UTC)

Note on style
OreoPriest, step back a bit and look what you are are doing. In the article on a university, the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, you keep reverting Academic Year 2009 back to your academic year 2009 even though someone who has been in Academia for nearly 50 years tells you that titles of time periods are capitalized. How often do you use a title such as Academic Year 2009? I gave you an example from Oxford at http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/university_year/dates_of_term.html where the title Full Term 2009-2011 is used. You gave me a page at http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/university_year/index.html where there is a phrase, "The academic year at Oxford..." but "academic year" is just a phrase, not the title of a unique time period such as Academic Year 2009. Click on the link there, "dates of terms" and you will get to my example where Full Term 2010-2012 is used. If you go to government web sites, you will find the title, Fiscal Year 2009 or FY 2009. The web sites you cited give only definitions of types of years such as academic year and other terms in academia and types of years. The commonly accepted style is that when one cites both the specific type of time and the time together (especially a year), one capitalizes the unit of time because it makes the period of time unique. Each institution will have its own defined Academic Year 2009, Fiscal Year 2009, etc. If after all this, you still think the change to Academic Year 2009 is from some vieux c__ whom you can brush off with reverts, try g__gling academic year 2009, especially within the .edu and .ac.uk domains.Laburke (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Oreo!
I had health problems and so i was unable to work on en.wp during these summer holidays. If - if ... - you have some time to do that, I answer you to have a glance on a page I am going to create about a French novelist Joseph Malègue I was just aware I read all my life long. Sincerely and friendly, José Fontaine (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I want also towork on the Walloon and Belgian pages
 * OMG I love Oreos. I eat them all the time. They are great! France and Belgium reminds of me French Fries too! I love them too! It is fascinating to read about their culinary origin on Wikipedia! :D This also reminds me of Belgian waffles! 198.151.130.64 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Where's Wally Disruptive editing
her there, I´m sure you´re quite dedicated to the cause of wikipedia and having a fancy user page but can you please desist with your disruptive editing of the where´s wally page with your revisionist views? yes, english is the majority language of the united states but please consider that it is also the majority language of the internet as well and in that perspective the united states becomes another country in which where´s wally was localised. please realise the united states is not the most important country on the planet, even if you obviously are from there yourself. if there are any more reversions it´s about time for the article to be submitted for mediation and to potentially be locked due to continued vandalism. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Brussels
Hi Oreo. Re your comment: Asavaa (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do no intend to make any move, but I think I will maybe launch a discussion on it, as I do not see a consensus (I mean, I do not see that the subject has been discussed.
 * The issue I see with Brussels is not about "distinguishing territories and people from the bodies that govern them". I know this is the case with Wallonia for instance. But this is another story. It is about the fact that "Brussels" is in fact the name of...Brussels, 32.61 km², one of the 19 municipalities forming "Brussels-Capital", the Region, 161.38 km². So having Brussels being about "Brussels-Capital" (or "Brussels-Capital Region") seems deeply illogical, as Brussels is in fact just a small portion of Brussels-Capital. And because Brussels refers to Brussels-Capital, we are obliged to use City of Brussels when we want to talk about...Brussels! For no other belgian city, we use the form "City of...". So again, I will not change anything, but if I gather my forces, I will maybe launch a discussion on the following moves: City of Brussels => Brussels, and Brussels => Brussels-Capital Region (or Brussels-Capital).
 * I do not think the question has already been discussed, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are good reasons for what I find strange. If you know of these reasons or of a discussion on the subject, I'd be thankfull if you could let me know.
 * Oh, so it was discussed, I did not see that, thanks for the information, I will try to find it. Honestly, the parallel with City of London looks strange, as even in french, we talk about "la city" when we refer to that area of London. And I wonder whether all risks of mistakes have been handled. You know, even in french there is always that risk when we say that Brussels is the capital of...: most people tend to then understand the "great Brussels", as when they say "I work in Brussels". This is why any serious source tends to use "Region" or "Brussels-Capital" when referring to "Brussels-not-the-city-the-larger-thing". Asavaa (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Adjectives versus political and geographic entities
Western Europe, as a political term of reference, was a creation of the Cold War. The countries of Western Europe were aligned to Western ideologies - captalism and democracy, and so on. It set those states apart from what was termed Eastern Europe, or the Eastern Bloc. That distinction does not exist now. There has never been a defined geographic western part of Europe - draw the line where you like. People in - what the West referred to as Eastern Europe, will now tell you, and quite rightly, that they live in central Europe ... Europe (the continent), but the central part of it. Central is being used as an adjective - therefore no capital letter is needed.

North America - that's a geographical term because it's a continent. In France, western France is not a defined area ... western is just an adjective. In England, northern England ... we always argue about where the north begins.

You can say, "I live in Europe." Which Europe? Western Europe or Eastern Europe? "Well actually there's ony one Europe, but I live in Belgium, it's on the western side of Europe." So, when describing Europe - I can only say that western Europe is a description of that part of Europe which is on the western side. It's not a proper noun.

Very best wishes, Francis Hannaway 16:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) in north-western Europe.

Provinces of Belgium
Hi, I saw you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgium&diff=467565093&oldid=467557524 removed] the provinces table on the article about Belgium. I don't really care if it's removed as long as it's on the article Provinces of Belgium. But I was surprised by your reason: "many people don't even know which one they live in". I'd like to say that I can't think of any Belgian who is not aware which province they live in. (People in Brussels may be less aware of the political structure, because they don't have a "province"). The importance of provinces is however probably decreasing, that's right. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Overwelving
Hi Oreo, finally did it: nl:Overwelving van de Zenne. Great article. --Hooiwind (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Counts of Louvain: new move request
Hi Oreo Priest, just a courtesy-message to inform you to I have submitted a move request of "Counts of Louvain" to "Counts of Leuven". You can find my reasoning here: Talk:Counts_of_Louvain. Kind regards, Morgengave (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Brussels: languages
Hi Oreo Priest, I disagree with removing the word "discrimination" out of the section. This discrimination was an official government policy. That a part of the political elite were francophile or frenchified Flemings does not change the fact that an ordinary Dutch-speaker was highly and systematically discriminated against. As a consequence many tried to create a better future for their children by raising them in French. The discrimination is one of the most important explanations on why Brusselian Flemings made themselves French-speaking over several generations time. Morgengave (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the same phenomenon in all Europa, the great cultural linguages have an attraction because they have a great cultural weight, therefore the Welsh and Scotts have abandoned her linguage for English, in Dublin people don't speak Gaelic, the Frisons for Dutch, the Pragues citizens for German, the Tunguze for Russian... The weight of a linguage is not only economical also cultural. Why the little Danish linguage has resisted against German : because Danish has a great cultural weight with great international writers as Holberg, Kierkegaard etc.. The existence of great cultural linguages is a fact and to speak french in Brussels was a cultural choise not an obligation (they ware in this time not any linguistical laws, nobody was obligated to speak French, then you cannot speak of official policy, in contrary the Brussels governement has always favoured and promote the Dutch culture (Anspach has created the Dutch Theatre in Brussels) now the linguistical laws make a legal obligation and compel to speak Dutch in the periphery of Brussels were the majority speaks French that's a legal compel thats a "governement policy"! To speak of "discrimination" is a victimisation point de vue of history--Bruxellensis (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, that's blatantly minimalizing or negating the widespread discrimination that existed in Belgium. Historians agree on the word "discrimination". French was the only language for administration, law, justice, education and so on while the majority spoke a Dutch dialect. Dutch-speakers didn't understand the laws or their trial (the latter is now a basic human right), wouldn't be able to get a job at the government unless they spoke French (and in Brussels, often elsewhere), or couldn't get their children educated in their own language, couldn't go to university in their own language. That's linguistic exclusivism and to escape it, people raised their children in French. Also, seen the emancipatory Flemish movement that gained ground during the history of Belgium, it's clear that the population itself considered it as such. There were already controversies in the early history in Belgium, like the when Domien Sleeckx tried to get the birth of his son registered in Dutch in 1844's Brussels; or there was magazine Vlaemsch België which heavily criticized the francisation of education and justice that occurred after independence. The examples are legion. The current tensions in the Flemish periphery are a different phenomenom - that's an immigration-driven issue (and just to be clear, everyone can speak whatever language he wants in Belgium, also in the periphery; that's a basic human right as well). Morgengave (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're watching my talk page; I'll respond here. Just to be clear, I understand that until relatively recently in history, there was systemic disregard of Dutch in Brussels. To a reader though, this is a sterile and confusing fact; why on Earth would a city filled with Dutch-speaking Flemings discriminate against their own language? The reason that French got a chance to supplant Dutch was the big difference in prestige, and that difference made the Flemish upper-class change it. That in so doing they created a system which was difficult for the lower classes to use is less important, this is a mechanism of how the change took place, not the reason for the trend. The reason I am against including your language in the article is that it is too much detail and requires too much expanding upon for what is (and should be) just a high-level summary with more detail in the main article. - Oreo Priest  talk 15:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The strong government-led linguistic exclusionism is at the heart of the matter and at least as important as the low social prestige of Dutch at that time. As such, it ought to be included. It's not difficult to explain: a Frenchified elite implemented linguistic exclusionist-policies: French became the sole language of law, justice, administration and education at the expense of the ordinary Brabantian-Dutch speaker. At this moment - and I don't doubt your good intentions, Oreo Priest - the discrimination is not even mentioned and puts the cause on the average Joe Fleming. That's an unintended minimalization of real and pervasive discrimination. Perhaps I can propose some edits where we can both agree on (an explanation on the discrimination that is both succint and clear). Morgengave (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not true to say that the tribunals are only in French. In Flandern and in Brussels the judge haded tho obligation to speake Flemish. You have to read yhe judgement of the Belgian court. Now we have the same phenomen : the joung Flemish abandonne Dutch for English, without any obligation, and in Louvain courses are given in English! The same phenomen is not so in Brussels because the Englishspeaking community don'y have contacts with the local population and then dont propagate the use of this linguage (to read : fr:Usage de l'anglais à Bruxelles--Bruxellensis (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only in 1873, following the Jan Coucke and Pieter Goethals case in 1860, the Belgian parliament voted the Law Coremans, which allowed Flemings to speak Dutch at Flemish courts... though not yet in Brussels. It would take until 1935 before Dutch was equal to French in Brussels' courts. But I would prefer to keep such discussions out of Oreo Priest's page. My only goal here is to find an acceptable way to include a mention on the discrimination (=not disputed by Oreo Priest) without overcomplicating things for the reader (=his concern). Morgengave (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How to explain than that the governement has always promoved the Flemish litterature and great writers as Hendrik Conscience, Guido Gezelle and other. It is a great part of legend in those persecutions against the Flemish linguage. In this time it was only one university in Dutch linguage the University of Leyde. The judgement of Coecke and Goethals ware in Charleroi and today also in Charleroi the tribunals are only in French.--Bruxellensis (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And also mutch jugdes ou lawyers defended the Flemisch linguage as fr:Ferdinand Toussaint or Victor Delecourt "Den waelschen doorgronder en voorstander Dietscher tael en letterkunde 1854 :


 * Other exemples of trials in Flemish also in Brussels:


 * Verzameling der wetten en koninklijkke besluiten van Belgie 1868


 * Exemple of trial in Flemisch 1837


 * Foundation in Flemish Brussels 1844
 * There is no "legend" and I found that remark offensive, so I took a while to come back here.

That demonstred that this legend is without foundements.--Bruxellensis (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Once I have the time, I will come back with reliable sources that clearly demonstrate the discrimination, though my above examples should already have done the trick. But just ask yourself this question in the meantime: if there was no discrimination, then why was there a language movement demanding equality of Dutch? Demanding that it be a language of education for instance? If there was no discrimination, then why couldn't people even do basic things in their own language like registering the birth of their children? If Dutch was put on the same footing as French as you seem to imply, then that would have been completely unnecessary. To be frank, neutral people will not deny the discrimination - they could however find the word confusing in the text for readers with no background in Belgian history. So my main focus here is: Oreo Priest, if I am correct your concern here is that the text should be clear to the reader. If so, how do you suggest we can combine a cited reference to the discrimination while remaining clear for the reader? I can propose some text adaptations. Morgengave (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry for the delay; I could tell that this issue is complex and would require a lot of time and attention; I'm ashamed to say that for that reason I've been putting off addressing it.

Upon review of the situation, I find myself somewhere between the current state of affairs and Morgengave's position. I think "discrimination" is too strong a word; it implies a deliberate policy of putting Dutch speakers down (to the advantage of perhaps equally illiterate French speakers?), when I think the reality is much closer to a soulless and uncaring bureaucracy that forced everyone do paperwork and formal matters in the language that the bureaucracy had chosen. I've tried to expand on their being forced to learn French in half a sentence ; what do you think?  Oreo Priest  talk 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Brussels naming conventions"
I see you have just removed the Dutch-language versions of several Brussels places. This might be mistaken for partiality. Where are the conventions you use to justify your decision? TobyJ (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the name change I did on the articles of some Brussels institutions into their bilingual versions, was meant to be impartial and neutral. I am aware that the monolingual naming regarding the places and institutions in Brussels is highly controversial (as I have discovered also on Wikipedia), and the changes I did was meant to alleviate it. I was not aware of the established Brussels naming issue in English Wikipedia until I found it in the Brussels talk page archives. Other Wikipedias are more flexible on this and some of them do actually use both French and Dutch versions of Brussels place names in their articles.


 * I was following the example of the government of Brussels Region and their authorities who specifically insist diplomatic missions, foreign companies and institutions to use both French and Dutch versions, in accordance with their compulsory laws on bilingualism.
 * I will leave it for rest.


 * But would it be OK to put both versions of an article's name in its content, while leaving the article name monolingual? Or is it also excluded? Otherwise, both French and Dutch versions of an article's name (even if it is monolingual) related to Brussels, should be equally highlighted in bold letters, reflecting the official bilingual status of that city, as it seems to be the case in most Brussels-related articles.


 * Saguamundi (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Telefrancais.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Telefrancais.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Arenberg Château
Hi, I answered on my talk page, don't know if you preferred a reply on your talk page :) Anyway, I saw your change of Arenberg Castle to Arenberg Château. I was not aware of this difference in English (it was a rather strange edit summary at first sight, since there's only one word in French and Dutch, château and kasteel). So, technically château might be more correct, but looking at Category:Castles in Belgium, there seem to be a lot of pages that would need to be moved because of this distinction, including in French-speaking Belgium. And also, the city website, as well as other sites in English, says Arenberg Castle, not Château (per WP:ENGLISH). And the way how the lead is currently written might give the impression (to people who don't know Belgium well) that it's a French name with a Dutch translation. For these reasons, perhaps it would be better to leave it as "castle" and mention in the article that in English it's technically a château? SPQRobin (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, in the case of Arenberg Château, I don't really like the solutions such as Arenberg Manor or mentioning the French name... What would you think of starting the lead with "Kasteel van Arenberg (Dutch), or Arenberg Château in English, is ..." ? That makes clear chêteau refers to the usage in English and that it's not used because it's a French word. And looking at the List of castles in Belgium, I noticed Royal Castle of Laeken, which is possibly the most important one that needs to be moved to "Royal Palace of Laeken", if I am correct? And there are many redlinks on the list that (if we have time) we can relatively easily change without needing to move pages. SPQRobin (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the lead of Arenberg Château and bringing the general topic up at Talk:List of castles in Belgium. It think it's a good summary of the problem. SPQRobin (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viva Colonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viva (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) 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Non-political regions of Belgium
Category:Non-political regions of 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. Pichpich (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
For checking. Apparently didn't manage to keep the twang down. Or else I blame my Espanglis. --Hooiwind (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

List of castles and chateaux in Belgium
I owe you a great apology for not replying earlier to your request for comments. I agree overall with your proposals (although I have one or two concerns about whether one or two of them may get some criticism from casual drive-by editors) and (will soon) have left a fuller response at the talk page. Once again, very sorry not to reply before. Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Response now left. Best wishes, Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture of region reverts
Hi,

I've replied over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Move Brabant Revolution
Hi Oreo, I'd appreciate your input in the move request at talk:Brabantine Revolution. I'm trying to get it moved back to Brabant Revolution (which it was, until last week), but anyway... Best wishes, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BELG English
You're quite right of course, my mistake. I was thinking of the one in WP:LUX. Apologies, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Maps
Hello Oreo Priest,

we are making maps equal, so with greys and greens, for replacing older maps

example also Wales, Scotland and England (See example Wales)

the other map doesn't show Kosovo and is not longer used

For the article Flanders we use just Flanders in green because it's a geographical article.

Politic articles are showing also Wallonia in Flemish Community and Flemish Region.

But geographical Flanders and Brussels are one part.

So I would suggest to revert.

What's wrong with the map Walloon Region in Belgium and Europe.svg?



Klodde (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oreo Priest, the problem is fixed, the new maps are showing the detailed map bigger. I asked the maker to make them bigger. Flanders shows Brussels Klodde (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Map of French departments on the Belgium page
Hello Oreo Priest, Basically I agree with you reasoning on this. It might have a better place on the page you mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Grand Place link
Hello Oreo Priest, I removed this external link: http://www.brussels-online.be/maison-du-roi/uk/ on august 24 because, when you click on it you come to a dead page... Now you can keep it if you want but don't really see the added value of this... --Xof2328 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Oreo Priest. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)