User talk:Oreo Priest/Archive 3

DYK

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article bombardment of Brussels, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW Oreo, just to clarify, I stripped the bit about "a third of buildings destroyed" from the hook because that claim wasn't cited in the article. The alternative was to wait until you responded to my query, but given that I felt the article was comprehensive and deserved pride of place in the lead, I decided it would be better to promote it to the lead myself rather than take the chance that someone else would put it in one of the lower slots. And I figured you would probably prefer it that way too. The trade-off was that it didn't run with perhaps the ideal hook, but then few things are ever ideal on DYK I'm afraid ;) Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Articles

Very enjoyable and informative articles. (Bombardment/Second Walls of Brussels) I'm glad that the number of articles pertaining to Belgium is growing, and that an editor of your obvious ability is envolved. I'm rather new to the "hands-on" history of Belgium so I really appreciated their clarity. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why is the article "Belgium" vandalized so often? Is there a roadsign on "Vandalism Hyway" that leads directly to "Belgium"? And, when the vandalism is so obviously malicious and crude as the most recent two is access to WikiPedia by the offending IP immediately shut down?? Is there a sourcepage for informing someone of the repeated vandalism. How about a lock on the door into "Belgium" with a big Belgian Shepherd (the dog, not the human tender of sheep) behind it. Just curious!--Buster7 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of Francization of Brussels

Hi Oreo, someone wants the title of the above article to be changed. Could you please give your opinion on this as well on Talk:Francization of Brussels#Article needs a new title? Quite fatiguing though, all that commotion going on over there... And good luck with your exams, I assume you're also very busy at the moment! When are you leaving?--Hooiwind (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I spend exponentially more time on wikipedia during the exam period... Exams start this Monday, 6 exams in three weeks, hardest exam period I've ever had. Wonderful idea actually, I'll go for a forced wikibreak as well. Hope that'll help ;) Cheers,--Hooiwind (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to George Thomas Coker, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You added inflammatory material that did not contribute to the encyclopedia nature of the article, the material was of undue weight, further, adding it back with the edit summary "add properly sourced material including anti-Vietnamese remarks" shows a clear attempt to make a point using a BLP which is a gross violation of policy. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You added the phrase "an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker" when the WSJ article you cite as the source does not contain the word "anti-Vietnam War". In looking at the googlebooks page you link to for the quote "One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war." displays a blank page at the alleged citation. For the quote from images journal, you use a lengthy, unduly weight footnote quote which was the exact topic of the arbcom I mentioned to you earlier. MBisanz ^talk 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I struck the above warning after discussing it with Oreo here. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I responded on my talk page to your post. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

6/17 DYK

On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Problem set, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bunting

I just wanted to acknowledge your note re: bunting, the decoration. I'll see if I have some good source material on that. - PKM (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub started at bunting (textile). Found a great picture of the triangular-flag form on Flickr and a so-so picture of US red, white and blue. I'd really like to find a picture of better (read: real! fabric!) US bunting, preferably with a president speaking on a balcony behind it... - PKM (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Frenchification of Brussels

I would be more than happy and honoured to have it nominated for FA. I hope it gets translated soon. Unfortunately, while having been blocked on the English wiki I overcompensated my absence here on the Dutch wiki, which gave birth to nl:Brussel als Europese hoofdstad, nl:Leopoldruimte, nl:Schumanplein, nl:Justus Lipsius-gebouw, nl:Kunstberg, nl:Karel de Grote-gebouw, nl:Leopoldpark, etc. I also stole a template from the French wiki: nl:Sjabloon:metrostation Brussel uitstappen. The latter drew the attention of User:JLogan who has proposed to introduce it on the English wiki as well. What do you think of it? I should never block myself again, it only has an adverse effect :p My exams are finished now, finally. Figured that wikipedia can be quite addictive... Time for summer holidays, I tend to spend time here only when having to study ;-) --Hooiwind (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to peer review this, but, sorry, I don't know enough about it. Marshall46 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it in the next two weeks. Marshall46 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio Londres

On 28 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radio Londres, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Burl-Bur-Burr

Hello OP- I haven't surveyed the British population, but from poking around a bit, it seemed to me that the preferred British spelling is with one 'r'. Note my edit summary from April 12. Here is the AHD entry for bur. I got the same impression from the OED, but don't have that on me to give you the page, and I don't have online access. -Eric ^talk 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you think works best. I based in on a quick, lazy, Google search of define:burr and define:bur, although my Robert & Collins calls it burr. At any rate, both spelling should be in the lead because they both seem to be in use. If you're feeling extra generous, you could gloss over the Wiktionary pages to bring them in line. Cheers. -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I put bur back in with burr because the OED is bigger and heavier than the Robert & Collins. Also added those spellings to the burl entry in Wiktionary, though in the absence of guidance there, I had to wing it with the format. Question: should we copy this over to the burl talk page as a reference for the future burl-curious? I'll watch here. -Eric ^talk 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Westermarck

I've reverted the moves he performed yesterday, and left a note on his talk page to seek consensus in the future. Let me know if he keeps doing it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Fichte =

Hi Oreo Priest, I realize you think the quotes are referenced, but my point is that the website to which you direct us has no references to the actual works of Fichte at all. If the quotes are from Fichte, it would be appropriate to say exactly where they are from. If I have time I will try to track down the sources, but as it stands the section seems very confused. And for such a serious subject of antisemitism, it is a shame that it contains no mentions of Fichte's works, page numbers, dates etc. I believe it is a minimum for Wikipedia's standards, otherwise the material shouldn't be there. - DydimusDydimus (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[Wikisource] Fichte: Crystal Clear Report

I would agree with you 100% if we were dealing with a Wikipedia article, but I think Wikisource is different since we are dealing with a specific work, viz. A. E. Kroeger's translation of Fichte's Sonnenklarer Bericht. Kroeger chose the title Sun-Clear Statement so it stikes me as improper to change it to match modern convention; the title is part of the translation too. — Jimaingram 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I have learned (with the caveat: Wikisource has no codified law, but it has conventions which should be regarded as definite rules): we can argue about how Sonnenklarer Bericht should be translated on the author page, but the page containing A. E. Kroeger's translation must use the title he used for his translation. The title of his translation was Sun-Clear Statement so Crystal Clear Report is out. This is not up for discussion; Wikisource gives Kroeger the final say. A comment in the 'Note' section would be appropriate, but the main title will have to be reverted to Sun-Clear Statement. — Jimaingram 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Flemish--It has a nice ring to it

I support your add re: Flemish at Languages of Belgium...It is a very important FACT that the reader will easily be confused with the randomness and elusive quality that the word Flemish (among others in the region) has taken on. I have grown to appreciate The Nederlanse editors and their Netherlandic positioning. But, just for example, if the shoe were on the other foot, and we Belgians went about and changed all DUTCH references to HOLLAND, their might be a SMALL uprising. Whenever we editors can we should remember the readers, "Will they understand what is NOT written"...--Buster7 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

pt:11948 Justinehénin

Thanks for letting me know. The page was moved! -- Ikescs (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Carl Rungius

I noticed that Carl Rungius is on your todo list— and article was just created. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding it! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for the DYK nom! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maquinna rating

Not absurd, as the "top" rating was given in the context of the BC WikiProject only, where the historical figure Maquinna was a critical element in the early history of hte Coast (native and maritime history both); NB the titel remains influential in the Nuu-chah-nulth sphere today. The rationale was that prominent early figures from the native side deserve equal credit with top non-native figures like Governor Douglas and George Vancouver. This is an article/figure that needs featured-article attention and thoroughness, and should not be dismissed so lightly; on the other hand perhaps prominent early eastern chiefs also don't get a high rating, never mind a top; and why is that, when their white contemporaries do (some of them, that is). I'll leave it at that, except to say that ratings should somehow reflect the provincial perspective, if there's only one there, not the national-relevance scale; seems to hard to gtive a rating for each province but maybe that's worth lookign into. Maquinna should be at least "high". Top was maybe an overreach, but I didn't think so at the time adn tehre are reasons yet why it's still an issue, for those who know the material about him. See related articles like Nootka Crisis and its kindred....Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carl Rungius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- RyRy (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Caribou_North_of_Jasper.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Caribou_North_of_Jasper.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rungius on Commons

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carl Rungius.jpg. If you can answer the questions, we can probably keep the image on Commons. There is now a category on Rungius on Commmons with some of his pics. And several people have improved the article. Let me know how this goes. It made DYK too! — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

de:Marinos Charvouris

Bonjour, merci de ton intervention sur fr:Le Cavalier de bronze. J'aimerais connaître ton avis sur la "nationalité" que l'on pourrait attribuer à Marin Carburi, né à fr:Céphalonie sous domination vénitienne, comme beaucoup d'îles grecques à cette époque. Grec (selon WP en allemand), il l'était très probablement de langue et de culture ; il était certainement aussi italophone et fit ses études de mathématiques à Bologne. Il n'existait à cette époque de nationalité ni grecque (Grèce non indépendante), ni italienne (Italie non encore unifiée). Il reste un doute : il faudrait s'assurer qu'il n'était pas issu d'une famille se sentant "vénitienne" ou "italienne"... Pour l'instant, on le laisse grec ? Cordialement, Ptyx (d) 4 octobre 2008 à 09:56 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.128.59 (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Marin Carburi

One link: http://www.sa-snd.gr/h20-mcharvouris.htm

Here is also a link to a book shop selling a book about Charvouris/Carburi:

• http://www.e-kivos.gr/products.php?action=view_listing&products_category_1=6&products_id=265

I come from Lixouri (C's. birthplace) but even if we are mostly of italian origin (all my Family has italian names), we would never define ourselves as Italian. Since centuries our ancestors spoke a creol language between Greek and Italian.

- J'ai bien compris, j'ai corrigé l'article fr:Le Cavalier de bronze, merci. J'ai trouvé d'autres liens intéressants :

• article « Marin Carburi », Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, ouvrage rédigé par une société de gens de lettres, Michaud, Paris, 1813, p. 118-119

• article « Statue équestre », Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, sculpture et gravure de Claude-Henri Watelet et P. Ch. Lévesque, édité par L.F. Prault, Paris, 1792, p. 188

Cordialement, Ptyx (d) alias Camulogene 13:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

- J'ai, comme vous le dites justement, le projet de créer un article "Marin Carburi" dans fr:WP, en indiquant simplement son origine de Céphalonie. Il existe deux écrits de Carburi lui-même :

• Monument élevé à la gloire de Pierre le Grand, ou Relation des travaux qui ont été employés pour transporter à Pétersbourg un rocher de trois millions, destiné à servir de base à la statue équestre de cet Empereur, par le Comte Marin Carburi de Céphalonie. Grand in-fol., Paris, Nyon, 1777 (cité par Watelet et Lévesque, Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, sculpture et gravure, ci-dessous)

• Marin Carburi de Ceffalonie, Monument élevé à la gloire de Pierre-le-Grand, ou Relation des travaux et des moyens mécaniques qui ont été employés pour transporter à Pétersbourg un rocher de trois millions pesant, destiné à servir de base à la statue équestre de cet Empereur, avec un examen physique et chimique du même roche, L'Esprit des Journaux, Liége, janvier 1778, Tome I, p. 22-32 (d'après : Journal de Paris ; Journal de politique et de littérature ; Avis divers ; Journal encyclopédique)

J'essaierai d'avoir accès à l'une de ces publications, qu'on doit trouver en bibliothèque, à Paris. Je lis l'allemand, mais il va de soi que je ne suis pas l'auteur de l'article en langue allemande. Je n'ai aucune idée préconçue sur le nom de notre ingénieur. D'autre part, j'ai de sérieux doutes sur le poids réel du socle de la statue. J'ai l'expérience de très nombreux monolithes, et je pense que celui-ci pèse envron 250 à 300 tonnes, au lieu des 1500 tonnes habituellement citées (3 millions de livres, comme disent les anciennes sources). Approuvez-vous ce qui est dit dans l'article en allemand ? Est-ce que "Marin Carburi" est, selon vous, la meilleure entrée pour l'article en français ? Cordialement, Ptyx (d) alias Camulogene 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

L'article fr:Marin Carburi existe. Bonne suite ! Ptyx (d) alias Camulogene 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Article fr:Marin Carburi. I wrote the article in German, after searching in Googlebooks. I took the Greek form Marinos Charvouris (all septinsular names are used in their Greek form today), both were and still are used parallel: eg. Azzaro/Atsaros, Dellaporta/Delaportas, Tomassi/Toumasis, Corgialegno/Korgialenios. The question is now if we must change the Charvouris artice in German to Carburi? Greetings, Christo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.9.26.103 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Francisation de Bruxelles

Salut Oreo, ça va? Donc tu es de retour au Canada? J'espère que tu arrives encore à prendre le temps de respirer ! La KUL me bouffe tout mon temps aussi, plus que jamais; car contrairement aux années précédentes, à part de l'examen final je dois faire plein de présentations et d'essais. En plus, les cours sont enseignés pour la plupart en anglais ce qui complique les choses (pas vraiment à cause de la langue, mais vu qu'on doit collaborer avec des Chinois qui sont quasiment incompréhensibles). Je crains donc que le temps me manquera pour me mettre sur la traduction de Francisation de Bruxelles, au moins ce semestre. Désolé... --Hooiwind (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth did I write the above in French? To answer your question: generally Flemish universities have the same system, with a 100% final exam. In the masters we have to write a thesis (about 15-24 credits), classes are often a bit smaller and presentations and papers are more common. I've never had more work than this year. I'm graduating in June, and don't feel like studying any more in the future apart from practising my alfabet and my Dutch in the ABC islands or so. ;-) --Hooiwind (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oreo. I'm sorry if I did something I'm not supposed to do, but I don't quite understand. Should I put the dead link back and just wait for somebody with a Wayback Machine to notice it's dead? How is Canada treating you? --Hooiwind (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it [1]. I finally understand I should really use the cite web template. From now on I'll keep that in mind. Good luck with your exams! Mine, as you probably now, start in January and will ruin my Christmas holidays :) --Hooiwind (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's better now. I fixed it in all languages. Have to go to class now! --Hooiwind (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all: best wishes for the new year. Good luck with your graduation and whatever you'll do next! As for the same held true, that was indeed not clear. Mea culpa. In French the translator already fixed it (avec une situation inversée chez les francophones), I now edited the English and Dutch versions. Hope it's better now. Adios, --Hooiwind (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Voilà :) Complexity is indeed not a virtue in its own right. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ça y est. The French translation is completely finished and the refs have been put in the standard format. I actually like the French version better than the Dutch one (layout is better, looks more professional). I've taken it to the comité de lecture for the ultimate confrontation. Let's hope for the best. Thought you might want to know. Fingers crossed! (and now I should soooo get back to my books) --Hooiwind (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect that much opposition ([2]); I wouldn't call it hostility, that would be unfair and childish, but this article is indeed being very strictly scrutinised. Which is good, of course, but not always pleasant as an editor. But since it needed to get into the spotlights (that is, by nominating it) to attract this attention (it was too isolated [3]), I'll see it from the bright side. I'm more disappointed in the fact that it got FA status in the Dutch wikipedia while it is (was) not even that good after all (which is hard to see if you wrote it yourself). I've got the feeling they're just FAing amap over there; I notice I tend to focus my efforts on the English and French wikis lately, where standards are higher. I reckon it's a kind of a culture shock then ;) We should make sure we import the conseils into the English version as well before we ever nominate it for any sort of rating. We've got work to do. ... Oof, thanks for listening :D --Hooiwind (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

amap = as many as possible. Just FYI ;) --Hooiwind (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bronze Horseman (poem)

Thanks for your feedback! I'd be pleased if you nominate my article for DYK. And look out for more Pushkin poetry articles in the coming days... I feel a bit of a Pushkin binge coming on :P Zorba the Geek (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can go with that. I've added an extra online source by a well-known critic to back it up. Thanks! Zorba the Geek (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, there'll be plenty of other opportunities... thanks for trying though! Zorba the Geek (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for The Bronze Horseman (poem)

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Bronze Horseman (poem), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling restoration

Please don't treat my brief summary of a whole chapter as if it is a quotation. I have already removed the quotation marks once and told the previous un-named editor. Are you the same person? I hope not! Amandajm (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How very odd! The previous editor said there was a problem, which was why they fiddled with it. But there was no apparent problem on my browser. I'll have to keep an eye on it. Would you mind watching it from time to time as well? Amandajm (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I followed your link, I saw only the blue box, as you described. But when the previous editor told me that something wasn't working, I could see the whole thing without any problem. I don't know what the problem was previously, but it didn't show up for me. Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact tagging

Could you motivate the fact-tagging of the wine section in medieval cuisine? It's unclear what you're doubting and why.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved your reply to talk:medieval cuisine. I recommend that you always bring up article-related issues there, so that it isn't filed away in user talkpages.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Golden Boy (Manitoba)

Hi. I reverted your removal of the merge tag. There's also a tag on the other article and a place for discussion, so your edit just left things halfway. It's better to respond in the discussion for more information than to just reject the editor's suggestion through your edit summary. Regards. —Michael Z. 2009-01-23 23:29 z

My mistake. I looked only on the article's talkpage and saw nothing. I wasn't trying to do anything unilateral. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta, I assumed it was a mistake like that. The merge notice has a “discuss” link which often leads to the right place (not always). —Michael Z. 2009-01-23 23:59 z

Elvis Presley

Just querying why you thought a citation from a national British newspaper was not notable, when other similar sources are used in the same article, and elsewhere. Please reply here if you wish to respond, as my talk page has problems. Thank you. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was a good source, it established other people's criticisms of Elvis. But, when the article brought up his alleged, [though apocryphal] racist statements, it said: "Forty-five years later, the same racist remark was still being quoted as if it were a verified statement by Presley, to his detriment.<ref>See: Kolawole, Helen (August 15, 2002). "He wasn't my king". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2007-10-14</ref> My problem was that the claim seems to be about the Guardian article itself, including the precise date (1957-2002). Alternatively, it could be read as saying that this article establishes it is used often, which it doesn't.

I guess if you wanted to show that the same claim is still made, it could be rephrased as something like: "Nonetheless, the urban legend persists.<ref>See, for example: Kolawole, Helen (August 15, 2002). "He wasn't my king". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2007-10-14</ref>" Up to you. -Oreo Priest ^talk 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying - I agree with your reasoning. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Historical tallest buildings in Canada

Thanks for pointing that out, I've posted at Talk:Trader's Bank Building (Toronto). - SimonP (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Figures US Casualties-For all Wars

Hi I believe you will find these links of interest re: US War Casualties Official figures

[4](Note does NOT include US Coast Guard)

[5] US Coast Guard figures

you may want to crunch these numbers- I always try to use only official data and avoid secondary sources.

I avoid the Civil War, it's hard for me to keep a NPOV since my ancestors marched with Sherman ,"Uncle Billy"--Woogie10w (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Note well that the figure for Confederate casualties is disputed and is only an estimate. The CRS report says 133K but other sources put Confederate dead at 260-289,000--Woogie10w (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Check your roots, some Canadians did come to the US to fight in the Civil War.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Human wave attack

I see you made an edit on Human wave attack, which I agree with. But the whole article is shortly to be deleted and replaced with a stub, unless anyone objects: see Talk:Human wave attack#This article is terrible. You might like to contribute to the discussion. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

the most Rapidly

I agree speed would be relevent....if the examples given showed it (speedy adaptation). But both make reference to a century of adapting. That was my reason for removing "most rapidly". Maybe you could undo your change or rephrase the examples so as not to give a one hunred year timeframe and refer to it as rapid. --Buster7 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am still not happy with the change. The passage of time is still the issue. Had you changed it to "most consistent" or "most coherent" or even "most unifying" (as examples)that would have changed the action from speed to acceptance, compromise, acceptence. As the sentence now is structured, the focus is still on "fast". I assume you agree that the change was NOT fast?--Buster7 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you might support a change to "steadiest" rather than fastest. I think steady is the meaning that you may be searching to convey... calm, reliable, constant...firm in position and sure in movement/transition. It may take 100 years but..."steady as she goes".--Buster7 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Great...I support your edit. Cheers--Buster7 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FdB

Hi Oreo, long time no see. How are things? I see you started working on FdB again! It's almost finished. I'll try to go through it once for a final check. I should also rework the Dutch version completely so it encompasses the improvements that have been made in the French article, but it's a huge job and I'm not very eager to get it done (with all those damned citation templates that never work). In the mean time I've translated the introduction to Afrikaans (af:Verfransing van Brussel), just for the hell of it. Just FYI: the French article will appear in "Lumière sur" on the main page next week on the 19th ([6]). Enjoy the holidays! (I presume)--Hooiwind (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, cool. Give me some time to go through everything before nominating it though! (Better we check those refs beforehand) Finally figured why I hate myself so much. I'm trying to translate the Afrikaans thing of yesterday to German ([7]) - forgot how impossible that language was (ein, eine, einer, eines, einen, einem...). By the time I'm finished with that I'll join in on the English article again. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I have no clue how procedures work on English wiki... This explains a lot though. I guess A and GA are more or less the same, the difference being that the latter is assigned by an external review. I think the article is not ready for A yet; after we're ready and happy with the result, we can go through GA first. There we'll probably get an idea of our chances for FA. And the españoles can wait a bit :) --Hooiwind (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe lol; the Spanish have already inserted the first paragraph in their article on Brussels: "Bruselas tuvo una transición (afrancesamiento) que se efectuó durante varios siglos, pasando de ser una ciudad casi enteramente neerlandófona a ser una ciudad mayoritariamente francófona (57% de la población tiene el francés como lengua materna frente a un 7% que tiene el neerlandés como 1ª lengua), que tiene como lengua mayoritaria y lingua franca el francés. Esta transformación empezó en el siglo XVIII, pero tomó su amplitud cuando Bélgica se volvió independiente y Bruselas desbordó más allá sus murallas.[7]" Sounds much cooler in Spanish ;p --Hooiwind (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dutch-speaking political parties results - Brussels-Capital Region - 20070610 - map-fr.svg

C'est fait : File:Dutch-speaking political parties results - Brussels-Capital Region - 20070610 - map-en.svg
Sémhur 08:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BHV

Ooolalalla... make yourself ready. Sit down, have a coffee. Well, it depends on which election. Before I kick off you should keep in mind that what has been deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court is not that French-speakers can gain votes outside their language area (a one-way privilege) but that elections (for the Chamber of Reps) are organised per province, except for Flemish Brabant. This exception is unconstitutional. Solutions therefore include: splitting BHV to merge Leuven with HV to create an electoral district of Flemish Brabant OR extending BHV to the whole of Belgium (so one electoral district for the entire country) OR organising elections per arrondissment (that would leave the situation in Flemish Brabant and Brussels unchanged and would cut up the other provinces into several arrondissements). The French-speakers prefer the last option, the Flemish the first.

• Europe + Upper House
• NL-FR division of seats = fixed
• electoral district = one per language area: so Flanders+Brussels vs Wallonia+Brussels+Halle-Vilvoorde
  For European elections and elections for the Belgian Senate (first chamber of Parliament) elections are held per language region. This implies that Dutch-speaking lists can present themselves in the Flemish Region and in Brussels. French-speaking lists, however, can also gain votes in Halle-Vilvoorde, where French is no official language. Then the D'Hondt method is applied to the total of votes in the two areas (French or Dutch-speaking). The uproar this causes is largely symbolical since the division of seats between Dutch and French lists is fixed in both the EP as in the Senate. The Flemish consider this extra-territorial voting right for French-speakers as a relict from the past, whereas the French consider this to be their natural right (in fact, they should have this right everywhere in Belgium—if you allow me to polarise).

• Lower House
• NL-FR division of seats = not fixed
• electoral district = one per province (10 provinces), except for Flemish Brabant, which is reduced to Leuven alone, with Halle-Vilvoorde being merged with Brussels as the 11th electoral district
  For the Belgian Chamber of Representatives (lower house, but endlessly more important than the Senate) the situation is somewhat different as elections are held per province (always unilingual, either Dutch or French—Brussels is not a province). The exception is Flemish Brabant, which is divided in two parts: Leuven (unilingual Dutch) and BHV (bilingual). BHV however, as you know, encompasses 35 unilingual Dutch municipalities (including those with facilities). Votes for Flemish lists are "apparented" with their counterparts in Leuven, votes for French lists are summed up with those for the same party in Walloon Brabant (but the lists remain seperate, with different candidates). Then the D'Hondt method is applied to see who got over the treshold of 5%. In this case, since the division of seats is not fixed, one could argue French lists "run away" with votes that should have gone to Flemish lists.
  
  However, if BHV were split, if Flemish Brabant becomes an electoral district, and apparenting is abolished (so no French lists in Flemish Brabant and no summing up of votes between Flemish Brabant and Brussels, or between Walloon Brabant and Brussels), then (ironically enough) the total number of Flemish representatives in the Parliament would diminish (since, with the D'Hondt method applied to Brussels alone, no Flemish party would be large enough and all Flemish votes would be lost). Therefore, what the Flemish want is a split of BHV, a merge of HV with Leuven (to form Flemish Brabant) with apparenting being kept between Brussels and Flemish Brabant and Brussels and Walloon Brabant for Dutch and French lists respectively. Remember that the Flemish never wanted to cut Brussels loose from Flemish Brabant in the first place (so they are not willing to bear the consequences either). This would not alter the division of votes between the language groups, solve the unconsitutional aspect of discrimination of Flemish Brabant, while abolishing the right of French-speakers to vote for French parties outside their language area (the thing that annnoys the Flemish, by principle). But then there is also another scenario: the electoral "merging" of Flemish Brussels with Flemish Brabant (so the same lists in both areas) and of French Brussels with Walloon Brabant. The division of seats would then be assigned according to the number of inhabitants (as for the Senate and the EP). In order to do this, however, we would have to count the number of Flemings and French-speakers in Brussels; which is ruled out immediately. So although the Flemish would not gain a single seat (nor lose any), they have (with quasi-unanimity) voted a bill in Parliament (over the heads of the French minority) on the solution they want (split of BHV, merging of HV with Leuven with keeping of apparenting). For the European and Senate elections French-speakers (from either Brussels are anywhere in Wallonia) would no longer be able to gain votes in HV, and for the parliament elections French-speakers from Brussels would no longer be able to gain votes (and seats) in HV either. Understand? ;-) --Hooiwind (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that BHV is also a judicial arrondissement, so when split French-speakers would no longer have to right to go to court in French. Olé. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pff, I wrote an entire explanation but lost focus again. I don't quite understand how everything works either. See here for more info:

C'est en 2003 que les arrondissements électoraux provinciaux ont été introduits pour la Chambre des représentants. Deux exceptions sont cependant prévues : l'arrondissement électoral de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde et l'arrondissement électoral de Louvain ne coïncident pas avec une province. On compte donc au total 11 arrondissements électoraux. Le nombre de sièges est déterminé sur la base du nombre d'habitants de l'arrondissement électoral. (I happen to know that Leuven gets 9 seats for instance).

Les règles sont différentes pour le Sénat. Pour l'élection des quarante sénateurs élus directement, la Belgique est divisée en 3 circonscriptions : la Flandre, la Wallonie et l'arrondissement de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde. Les électeurs de Flandre forment avec les électeurs de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde qui votent pour un parti néerlandophone, le collège électoral néerlandais. Ils désignent 25 des 40 sénateurs élus directement. Les électeurs de Wallonie constituent avec les électeurs de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde qui votent pour un parti francophone le collège électoral francophone. Celui-ci désigne les 15 autres sénateurs élus directement. (so division NL/FR is fixed).

Pourquoi répartit-on les sénateurs en groupes linguistiques ?

Chaque assemblée se répartit en deux groupes linguistiques. Cette répartition en groupes linguistiques est importante. En effet, certaines lois dites “à majorité spéciale” requièrent, outre une majorité des deux tiers au total, une majorité au sein de chaque groupe linguistique.

Au Sénat, les vingt-cinq sénateurs élus par le collège électoral néerlandais, les dix sénateurs désignés par le Parlement flamand et les six sénateurs cooptés néerlandophones -soit quarante et un sénateurs- forment le groupe linguistique néerlandais, tandis que les quinze sénateurs élus par le collège électoral français, les dix sénateurs désignés par le Parlement de la communauté française et les quatre sénateurs cooptés francophones -soit vingt-neuf sénateurs- forment le groupe linguistique français.

Répartition des sièges A LA CHAMBRE

Les partis qui n'atteignent pas 5% du nombre total de voix émises n'ont droit à aucun siège dans cet arrondissement électoral. La répartition des sièges entre les partis s'opère sur la base d'un système de calcul assez compliqué, le système D'Hondt.

Selon la méthode de calcul D'Hondt, on divise, pour chaque arrondissement électoral et pour chacun des partis, le nombre de bulletins de vote portant des voix en faveur de ce parti, successivement par 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Les résultats de cette division, les quotients, sont ensuite classés par ordre de grandeur jusqu'à obtenir, pour l'ensemble des partis, autant de quotients qu'il y a de sièges à attribuer. Le dernier quotient pris en considération est appelé « quotient électoral ». Le nombre de sièges obtenus par chacun des partis est égal au nombre de quotients supérieurs ou égaux à ce quotient électoral.

I read somewhere that apparenting has been introduced between Leuven and BHV to give the impression of a Flemish Brabant provincial district without splitting BHV. The French-speakers then negotiated the apparenting between BHV and Walloon Brabant as well. Not this apparenting is unconstitutional, just the fact that Flemish Brabant does not exist as a district. This implies that Leuven has its garanteed number as seats, so has Walloon Brabant, and so has BHV. Leuven = per definition Flemish seats, Walloon Brabant = French seats. But BHV has no fixed division between NL and FR. The thing is that the FR should not have the right to gain votes in HV and sum them up with Brussels to get the maximum number of seats in BHV. All inhabitants of HV should (if provinces equal districs) be summed up with the population of Leuven to determine the number of seats for Flemish Brabant which would then be divided with the D'Hondt method. This would of course favour Flemish lists, if it were not for their too small number in Brussels (without apparenting with Flemish Brabant no Flemish-Brusselaar would be represented in Parliament). So what the Flemish want is a mere "toepassing van de grondwet": Flemish Brabant = seperate district (Leuven and HV combined), just as Walloon Brabant already is. French lists would have to get above 5% in Flemish Brabant alone (without the help from Brussels) in order to get seats. Electoral districts would then follow language borders. Apparenting could be legitimately kept between Flemish Brabant and Flemish lists from Brussels, and between Walloon Brabant and French lists from Brussels (since Brussels is not a province but a capital-region). Actually the French speakers agree on this but they refuse to give up their right to live outside their language territory, their provinces or the capital-region and still vote for the same lists (which is not possible for people living elsewhere). This however would not alter the TOTAL division of seats between the Flemish and the French in Parliament, but simply apply the constitutional requirement of province = district and abolish the (highly symbolical) "privilege" of the French-speaking "pied noirs". The fact that the French-speakers can't agree on this proves that they consider this privilege as their natural right, perceived as a colonialist attitude by the Flemish. Do you see what I mean?--Hooiwind (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitutionality

I can't really answer the part of your question on the allocation of seats, I already told you everything I know. I'm no legalist either... But I can tell you this (and from a political point of view, this is crucial): the unconstitutionality argument was defined by the Constitutional Court of Belgium, not by me. See Arbitration Court, decision (arrest) 73/2003 of 26 May 2003: in Dutch - in French. Page 27 sums up the arguments of the plaintiffs. I picked some I understand.

• (1) as defined by the constitution, seats should be allocated by number of inhabitants (as everyhwere), not by voting behaviour (as in BHV)

L’article 63, § 2, alinéa 1er, de la Constitution dispose : « Chaque circonscription électorale compte autant de sièges que le chiffre de sa population contient de fois le diviseur fédéral, obtenu en divisant le chiffre de la population du Royaume par cent cinquante. » (page 31)

Court rules: B.8.5. Les moyens qui sont pris de la violation des articles 10 et 11 combinés avec l’article 63 de la Constitution sont fondés.

• (2) as defined by the constitution, districts equal provinces (as everywhere but in FB)

B.9.1. Le deuxième grief porte sur le fait que la province du Brabant flamand, contrairement aux autres provinces, ne forme pas une circonscription électorale pour l’élection de la Chambre des représentants. (page 31)

Court rules : B.9.9. En considération de ce qui précède, le second grief doit être rejeté. (page 34). Court argues that it is not its competence to ensure the paix communautaire.

B.9.8. Pour ces raisons, il peut être admis que la répartition en circonscriptions électorales opérée par la loi entreprise soit maintenue pendant le délai de quatre ans prévu par l’article 65 de la Constitution prenant cours au moment déterminé par l’article 105 du Code électoral.

So the court validates the different treatment for FB for a period of four years (which has ended by this time, btw, so no new federal elections can be organised until a solution is found)

• (3) candidates on Flemish lists from Leuven can get votes in BHV, and vice versa — nowhere else can people get votes in (or vote for lists from) another district
• (4) while Flemish lists have to gain votes in Leuven as well, French lists can only gain votes in BHV.
• (8) this leads to a situation where the treshold of 5% for French lists is LOWER then for Flemish lists (because Leuven counts as well)
• (1 again) this would put in peril the garanteed number of seats for Leuven (since the Flemish may loose seats in BHV due to this relatively higher treshold)

Court rules : B.13.3. Sans se prononcer, ni sur le système de l’apparentement en général, ni sur la justification de son maintien pour les seules circonscriptions de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde et du Brabant wallon, ce maintien manque de justification dès lors que doivent être annulées les dispositions permettant le dépôt de listes communes puisque les listes néerlandophones ne peuvent déposer de listes communes à Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde et à Louvain et qu’elles ne peuvent davantage bénéficier de l’apparentement que la loi réserve aux seules listes francophones. La différence de traitement entre les unes et les autres listes n’étant pas justifiée, il convient d’annuler l’article 132, alinéa 2, du Code électoral, tel qu’il a été remplacé par l’article 6 de la loi du 13 décembre 2002 « modifiant le Code électoral ainsi que son annexe ». (page 35)

In conclusion: if the law says that elections for the lower house should be organised by province and seats should be allocated by number of inhabitants, they have no reason to make an exception for FB. So a solution has to be found. Both sides agree on that. Either FB becomes an electoral district, just as all other provinces (whether or not they keep apparenting with Brussels). This entails splitting BHV (Flemish solution). OR instead of organising elections per province, they could return to organising them by arrondissments (Walloon solution). This would keep BHV as it is but not solve the Flemish issue of removing this French-speaking "privilege" (no matter how you put it, it is a privilege, since it only works one way - discriminating the Flemish - and only in HV - discriminating non-BHV francophones). The thing the Flemish find unfair, is that a bilingual electoral system is applied in a Dutch-language area as well. Since no French territory is affected, this is thought of as discriminating. Whether this in reality costs them any seats, is only of minor importance. It's a matter of principle.

And you may be right about my POV. I thought it was obvious :) This is a talk page though, I'd not put it that way in an article of course. --Hooiwind (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A page for me

Thank you for the kind heads up on my not having a page. Best regards. Wakablogger2 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Grand Cru

Hi Oreo Priest, I agree with you that "marketing" is completely wrong. Not only does it not match the facts, but it limits future expansions of "grand cru," which will doubtlessly occur. How about "grand cru (other)"? Best regards. Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Torontois

Hello, Oreo Priest. You have new messages at Torontois's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rodenbach

Hello, Oreo Priest. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redbach

Hello, Oreo Priest. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion at WW2 Casualties

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of F of B

I'm sorry, I've been too busy working and stuff. I'll soon be leaving on holiday, so I won't have much time then either... I'll do my best to get some things done today/tomorrow/day after. Quite unfortunate timing though... Vb did a good job. I'll go through his list first. --Hooiwind (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Faciliteitengemeenten.png

I actually wanted to make an SVG version instead, so anyone could easily translate it, but I can't find vector data for the boundaries of Belgian municipalities, so for the time being, I've translated them: File:Faciliteitengemeenten_en.png and File:Faciliteitengemeenten_fr.png. If I need to change any details, don't hesitate to ask. – gpvos (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dexia Tower

Hi Oreo Priest, my mistake. Thanks for taking the time to drop me a note. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Northern Quarter

Northern Quarter (Brussels) - SSJ ☎ 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dexia Tower

On August 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dexia Tower, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 14:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Namur (1695)

On August 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Namur (1695), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

VRT Toren

I don't know the situation there but I would move that to Sint-Pieters-Leeuw television tower.

List of tallest towers in the world shows that there is no unified politics on Wikipedia about which language should be used but I think in Belgium this opt for television tower would be less controversial.

Moreover I guess there must be several television towers which could be called VRT Toren. Hence I think one should specify in the title which one it is (avoiding BTW to opt for VRT, BRTN or RTBF!) Vb (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand cru

Hi. You left me a message saying I couldn't just remove the deletion template. But in fact the delete template specifically says to do so. I was merely following the instructions.

I see there is a new, *different* deletion template attached to it which says to not remove it.

I have no interest in getting in silly discussions like before, so I will not be participating, but I hope for the best for Wikipedia's sake. Wakablogger2 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Norman Luxton

Hello! Your submission of Norman Luxton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Luxton

On September 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Luxton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the Walloon Movement#Not only a linguistic issue

I translated a long (and deeply inetresting in my view), French sentence into English in this paragraph ("Par le jeu de notre politique intérieure etc."), but I am sure that the translation must be largely improved. Would it be possible you help me, one day? It is a very recent book but very clear and a new way of thiking History of Belgium and Wallonia. Some Flemish authors think the same thing... Thank you in advance if I don't disturb you. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi mate, I've been hanging out with some Aussies in the sunny part of Europe for a while. I see you've been busy, hope I haven't missed to much. I'll try to work my way through Vb's review of FoB soon. I've just filled up some red links that annoyed me in the article (Alsemberg, Strombeek-Bever, Zellik). Would you please take a quick look to correct my English? Thanks, --Hooiwind (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I created Peeters directive. Does what I wrote make any sense? --Hooiwind (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. The article is not ready yet though. It fails to explain the reasoning behind it: that Flanders considers the existence of French-speaking minorities around Brussels as recent (which they obviously are). Since at the time of the fixation of the language border these were only small minorities, the Flemish government — and the working documents of the Harmel Centre ("centre of research for a national solution in the societal, political and judicial questions of the different regions of the country") confirm this — considers these rights as permanent to ease the integration of the minorities into the regional community. However, these rights (permanent or not) attracted a large influx of French-speakers (from the capital), until French became a majority language in these municipalities. So now we have a situation in which it seems that the Flemish don't want to recognise that these towns are French-speaking; whereas 50 years ago it was exactly the opposite. That should be clarified before the article goes into DYK, since now that one sentence makes it sound as if it was comparable to how the Hungarians are treated in Romania (which is a totally different case). I'll work on that in the coming days. --Hooiwind (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

True. Working on it! --Hooiwind (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this Peeters directive way too serious! I guess, once the article is finished, we can move (or copy) some parts to the article on language facilities, cause that article is a mess. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, true. The thing is I want to get to that story of the three rebellious mayors, which is a national issue now (especially on the French side) and which has lead to a "conviction" of the international mayor association of the Council of Europe. I'll try to limit the effort though, I know there are better things to do. Could you proofread the text once I'm finished? Thanks, --Hooiwind (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool you're learning Dutch! Wish I could help! Be careful with translating from Dutch wikipedia though, the quality is horrible (that's why I left) (or no, because I left ;-) ) --Hooiwind (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harvey Locke

Hello! Your submission of Harvey Locke at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hêbê Debate at the European Parliament: Wikipedia - Truth by Consensus?

Oreo Priest! I see that you are a prolific Wikipedia editor! Do you live in Brussels by any chance?
I ask, because there is a debate planned on the usefulness and reliability of Wikipedia at the European Parliament in Brussels on Monday evening, September 28th. If you are interested in either debating the subject or simply attending as an audience member, you can register on http://www.asbl-hebe.eu.

For more info, I'd be happy to help, just email hebe-debates@asbl-hebe.eu.

We would be happy to have you there!

Kindest regards,
HêbêDeb (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harvey Locke

On September 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvey Locke, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Vandalism

Hello, Oreo Priest. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Peeters directive

On September 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peeters directive, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cmadler (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)