Brigade Piron
My talk page archives are available at User:Brigade Piron/talkarchive.
Always precious
editTen years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Considering starting a CFD
editHello Brigade Piron, I wanted to reach out about your essay at User:Brigade Piron/"Luxembourg", "Luxembourgish" or "Luxembourgian"?. I stumbled across something and it's been bugging me for a bit, and I was considering proposing a mass renaming of ~637 categories to change "Luxembourgian" to "Luxembourgish" for adjectival usage in category names (see the list here). Your essay seems to support this idea, but I wanted to run it by you first as a sanity check before I make this type of mass edit. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Hey man im josh, thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. I fear that this is rather an impossible task given the resistance of a large number of US-based editors, but I wish you luck. Among all possible choices, "Luxembourgian" is certainly the least used and frankly the least logical choice. I think the other two are pretty much evenly split. But if you are up for the fight, definitely - go for it! It can't hurt. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Eric: who was interested in this question some years ago.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bourg is back! Or is it the burg? Hi to you both. Josh, not to be boorish, but you mean Luxembourgish, no? I would be one American voice supporting this, though I can't help liking Luxembourgeois (Brigade: why don't I see this in my 1985 OED?). FYI, before I saw the link in Josh's sandbox, I ran this n-gram out of curiosity. Eric talk 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I definitely did @Eric, my bad on the typo! I think Luxembourgeois could make sense, but I agree with @Brigade Piron, "Luxembourgian" is probably the worst possible choice, and any move away from that is a good move. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think go for it then! I'd personally advocate "Luxembourgish" and work from there. But it's the first step that is most important. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I expect to make the mass nom at some point today or tomorrow. Pinging @Eric to let them know. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, did I miss it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I expect to make the mass nom at some point today or tomorrow. Pinging @Eric to let them know. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think go for it then! I'd personally advocate "Luxembourgish" and work from there. But it's the first step that is most important. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I definitely did @Eric, my bad on the typo! I think Luxembourgeois could make sense, but I agree with @Brigade Piron, "Luxembourgian" is probably the worst possible choice, and any move away from that is a good move. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bourg is back! Or is it the burg? Hi to you both. Josh, not to be boorish, but you mean Luxembourgish, no? I would be one American voice supporting this, though I can't help liking Luxembourgeois (Brigade: why don't I see this in my 1985 OED?). FYI, before I saw the link in Josh's sandbox, I ran this n-gram out of curiosity. Eric talk 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Eric: who was interested in this question some years ago.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Hey man im josh, thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. I fear that this is rather an impossible task given the resistance of a large number of US-based editors, but I wish you luck. Among all possible choices, "Luxembourgian" is certainly the least used and frankly the least logical choice. I think the other two are pretty much evenly split. But if you are up for the fight, definitely - go for it! It can't hurt. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
edit- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive
The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025
edit
|
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) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United Nations contingents in Korea
editA tag has been placed on Category:United Nations contingents in Korea indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
edit- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
- In the media: The end of the world
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
The European Destubathon
editYou are invited to participate in The European Destubathon in April. Almost $3000 in Amazon voucher prizes which can be used to buy books for content, though it can also be treated as an editathon if you're not interested in competing! Minimum content to be added to each article just to ensure that they're over a stub. Entries at the end of the contest will be tipped into the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge and European Challenge. Previous contests were really enjoyable and I'm hoping this one will be too! Sign up if interested. Thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025
edit
|
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) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 March 2025
edit- From the editor: Hanami
- News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia
- In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual
- Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?
- Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...
- Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!
- Essay: Unusual biographical images
- Obituary: Rest in peace
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Le Belge (locomotive), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mons.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 April 2025
edit- Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas
- Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PawełMM
- Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go...
- News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view
- Comix: Thirteen
The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025
edit
|
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) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Malawi
editHi BP. I went to the Malawi Wikiproject and made a posting.... but no one answered. I went through the other older members and you seem to be the only one still active. Are you still interested in Malawi? I'm a recent convert but making some progress in Scotland. Understand if you have changed your focus. Happy editing. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Victuallers sorry for the delayed reply. I don't do a massive amount of editing on Malawi although I did once push Chilembwe uprising to GA and have done a few other (mostly) history-related bits and pieces. Happy to assist with any project if I can but I'm afraid most of my time is now spent on Congo-Kinshasa and Burundi which I know better. Good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 27
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Wallonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mons.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 May 2025
edit- In the media: Feds aiming for WMF's nonprofit status
- Recent research: How readers use Wikipedia health content; Scholars generally happy with how their papers are cited on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Sysop Tinucherian removed and admonished by the ArbCom
- Discussion report: Latest news from Centralized discussions
- Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
- Disinformation report: At WikiCredCon, Wikipedia editors and Internet Archive discuss threats to trust in media
- News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan
- Comix: By territory
- Community view: A deep dive into Wikimedia
- Debriefing: Barkeep49's RfB debriefing
The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025
edit
|
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) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:John McCracken.png
editThanks for uploading File:John McCracken.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2025
edit- In the media: Wikimedia Foundation sues over UK government decision that might require identity verification of editors worldwide
- Disinformation report: What does Jay-Z know about Wikipedia?
- Technology report: WMF introduces unique but privacy-preserving browser cookie
- Debriefing: Goldsztajn's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: Max Lum (User:ICOHBuzz)
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 2)
- Comix: Collection
- From the archives: Humor from the Archives
John McCracken (historian)
editYou recently reverted an addition of a photo of him citing no evidence. I understand that. However there is evidence here. This evidence is refed in the image description and the article about the partnership. Could you advise how I could make this evidence more obvious? Its the first time I have gained permission for a complete archive and I'm unsure of how to record it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I'm no expert, but I think at a minimum you'd need to add: (a) "Scotland Malawi Partnership" to the "Author" field (if it isn't theirs, they can't give it away) and (b) {{Cc-by-sa-4.0|Scotland Malawi Partnership}} tags (as they insist on specific attribution). The problem is that people are always uploading items with dubious OWN or CC tags and, without any obvious way of verifying this, I think you may find others make the same assumption I did.
- It may also be worth creating an "Institution" template for all Scotland Malawi Partnership if there are enough to justify it. For an example of what these look like, see the "Source" line in this item from a Swiss collection: File:ETH-BIB-Der König der Mossi (Moro naba) umgeben von seinen Stammeshäuptlingen anlässlich des Neujahrsempfanges-Tschadseeflug 1930-31-LBS MH02-08-0867.tif. I would suggest asking at the Commons Village Pump as a first step. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025
edit
|
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) 10:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 June 2025
edit- News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!
- In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion
- Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians
- Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past
- Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA2 debriefing
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)
- Comix: Hamburgers