Hello, Jason Lagos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Abishe ( talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! Jason Lagos, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Abishe ( talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Jason Lagos: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe ( talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello, Jason Lagos. Thank you for your work on Equestrian Statue of Leopold II. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Lovely article. I'd like to nominate it for WP:DYK. What do you think? BorgQueen ( talk) 21:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello BorgQueen,

Thank you for your comment and proposal. Certainly, please do! If there is a need for further improvement of the article, I would also be happy to help. Jason Lagos ( talk) 11:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Great! As for the hook, how about: ... that the Monument to the Martyrs of the 1830 Revolution in Brussels is surmounted by an allegorical figure of Liberty inscribing the days of 23, 24, 25 and 26 September 1830 in her golden book? BorgQueen ( talk) 11:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It sounds good to me! Jason Lagos ( talk) 11:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll be nominating soon. (Sorry I got distracted a bit, hence the delay.) BorgQueen ( talk) 03:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. BorgQueen ( talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks again! Jason Lagos ( talk) 23:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

On 8 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monument to the Martyrs of the 1830 Revolution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Monument to the Martyrs of the 1830 Revolution is surmounted by a statue of Liberty (pictured) inscribing the days of 23, 24, 25 and 26 September 1830 in a book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monument to the Martyrs of the 1830 Revolution. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Monument to the Martyrs of the 1830 Revolution), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! BorgQueen ( talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks once more! Jason Lagos ( talk) 13:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Jason,

im wondering if you have anymore information regarding John Cockerill and family? Do you have a preferred method of contact, such as email?

Thanks in advance, Tyler Cockerill Tyler Cockerill ( talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi John and thanks for reaching out.

I do not believe I have more information than what is freely available on the internet. What specific details are you looking for? Jason Lagos ( talk) 14:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Jason Lagos!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Jason Lagos,

I think it could be useful to create a portal of all thing Brussels a bit like Portal:London (There used to be one but it was deleted as it was abandoned early on and was missing a lot of stuff). This is quite a big job and I was wondering if you could help me with this endeavor. As I see you are quite active on the Brussels side of Wikipedia.

Don't hesitate to asked me more questions of you have them.

Have a nice day,

JhowieNitnek. Jhowie_Nitnek ( talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi again Jhowie and thanks for your proposal. Although I would be more than happy to support your efforts, I would be cautious about attempting this. Not only is portal creation a big endeavour, as you mentioned, but Wikipedia is actually quite strict about portal maintenance and traffic. In short, the creation of portals should be limited to topics that will garner significant interest and dedicated maintainers, to prevent their removal. I can only imagine that the failure to meet those requirements was the reason why the old Brussels portal was abandoned and merged into Portal:Belgium. Wishing you a good night, too! Jason Lagos ( talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would expect an experienced editor to be more familiar with wikipedia policies before calling edits based on them non-constructive. I'll go through the reasoning for them here in detail:

[[Gudula|Saint Gudula]] to Saint Gudula is per Wikipedia:NOPIPE. I see absolutely no reason to pipe that link. I agree. I must have reverted that one by mistake.

'The Duke of Brabant' to the 'duke of brabant' is per MOS:JOBTITLE. Given this is not referring to a specific duke I see no reason to capitalise 'duke'. I disagree. "Duke of Brabant" refers to a specific substitute title in this case, not to a generic duke from Brabant.

[[Place Royale, Reims|Place Royale]] in [[Reims]] to Place Royale, Reims also per NOPIPE. It's ridiculous to pipe the link in that fashion when the un-piped link tells the reader all they need to know. Linking Reims separately therefore falls under MOS:OVERLINK. I disagree. "The Place Royale, Reims" does not read as well as "the Place Royale in Reims".

[[Louis XVI style|Louis XVI-style]] to Louis XVI style, again NOPIPE. There's absolutely no need for a hyphen there as it's not a compound adjective, but an actual name for an architectural style. Again, I disagree. "Louis XVI-style" is used in a compound manner in this sentence.

'and the [[Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium]]' I removed this because it's a duplicate. The building is mentioned and linked at the beginning of the same paragraph. Mentioning it again is redundant. OK - I did not notice the duplicate link.

I also take issue in your edits to Palace of Charles of Lorraine with your piping of links to place names to include the Dutch versions. I can't see any reason for this in the Belgian naming conventions guidelines, and it seems much more prudent to use [[Mont des Arts]]/Kunstberg for example, as this preserves the bilingual aspect without needing a pipe. Ecrm87 ( talk) 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This is a convention used throughout Wikipedia (since 2007) for all Brussels-related articles. reply

Hi Ecrm87, just to be clear, I agree with most of your efforts. I do maintain, however, that these specific changes (except for two) were not constructive. Please find my replies above (in green).-- Jason Lagos ( talk) 00:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree regarding the duke of Brabant issue. The sentence reads: When at the start of the 13th century, the Duke of Brabant preferred Brussels to Leuven. There's no specific date and no specific duke, therefore the reference is generic and shouldn't be capitalised. I am sorry but this is clearly used as a substitute title for a specific Duke of Brabant and does not denote a description (e.g. "The palace is home to the Duke of Brabant" vs "the palace is home to the dukes, kings and emperors that ruled over Brabant").

I accept your reasoning about the Place Royale, it does read better with the pipe. OK

Hyphenating the Louis XVI style is simply not the correct usage. It is not common practice to hyphenate Gothic Revival-style or Renaissance-style when discussing architecture, therefore adding a hyphen goes against all established practice and consistency. There's been a debate about this in the past on the Talk pages there and the hyphen was removed from the article title for the above reason. Of course, the term is not usually hyphenated, as in the article title. The point is it should be when used in a compound manner, as it is here (e.g. "the chair is in Louis XVI style" vs "the Louis XVI-style chair"). The opposite would be grammatically inaccurate.

I have read the Belgian naming conventions guidance and I can't find anything there mandating that a linked be piped to include the Dutch version. If anything the guidance actually leans in the other direction as it instructs to prioritise the French. Given that piping the link explicitly goes against NOPIPE and that the Dutch version is properly included afterwards, I can't see any other proper way of doing it. Ecrm87 ( talk) 11:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) All Brussels-related articles (since 2007) have been written like this. The conventions do not explicitly mention piped links. They do aim, however, at keeping language neutrality. As you probably know, language is a highly contentious topic in Belgium. Unlinking the Dutch word (or the French one for that matter) or changing the word order has led to heated debates in the past. Reevaluating this long-established convention will undoubtedly push one crowd to argue why their language is not the one linked or why one language is "favoured" over the other, which is an issue not worth reviving in my opinion. reply

Regarding the duke of Brabant, even if the usage were ""The palace is home to the Duke of Brabant"", then duke should still be decapitalised as per MOS:JOBTITLE. The guidelines are pretty clear about this. Not if used as a substitute title for a specific duke, which is my point. Your point is that it is not referring to a specific duke, but as the sentence currently stands, it is. The reader clearly understands this. Not mentioning the person's name does not make the word generic or descriptive. A simple solution might be to pluralise the word to make it generic, which would render the decapitalised form logical (i.e. "When at the start of the 13th century, the dukes of Brabant...")

You're missing the point with the Louis XVI style, it's not about grammatical usage it's about usage of an architectural term. It's not usually hyphenated at all. I've checked various references in architectural journals and encyclopedias and no hyphen, even when the sentence is structured identically to the one in the article. I find it hard to understand how an architectural term could change English grammatical rules. We would say "a Gothic-style church", "an Art Nouveau-style necklace", "a modernist-style clock", etc. But if you could quote some instances in the various journals and encyclopedias that you mentioned pointing the opposite, I will concede to removing the hyphen.

I'll defer to your judgement on the Belgian naming conventions, as I can see why i might cause controversy. OK, thank you. Ecrm87 ( talk) 18:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply