User talk:JLogan/Archive 3

 Userpage | Commons | Wikinews | Talk EN | Recent Contributions | Created Userboxes 

• Okay, I will might reply on your page or mine, usually depending on how long I think the conversation will be (no particular reason aside from that) so don't forget to check back if you don't hear from me (usually within a day or two at most).
• My timezone is Western European Time, that is UTC 0, even though Spain is on CET and is further west than I - never understand timezones..
• I am based in London and although I speak a little French but I doubt I'd understand unless you are asking how to get to the train station, what the Russian President's name is or if we should go to your place or mine. So English please (that's British English!).
• Please be polite, comments and criticisms welcome.

EU=federation

• article in a peer-reviewed economic journal

• Springer Science+Business Media

• full text of article

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources

--88.82.47.23 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First, please don't delete anything from my talkpage. Second, I do not see any problem with its inclusion, might not be a prime article of choice but I don't believe it is unreliable. Take it to the article talk page if you think the list should be reviewed.- J Logan ^t: 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've responded here to your message. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro coins

Template:Euro coins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Shudder

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=yLaWTkEUOH4. RCS (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, the conspiracy theories on all this would be funny if the people talking about them weren't serious. Paisly wrote a piece about seat 666 in the European Parliament (when the Strasbourg building was built) would be occupied by the antichrist, as it was then empty. I looked it up the other day, I think it was an old Italian bloke sitting there now, some antichrist. And then we have the Brussels seat... Oh but I don't want to go into all that. I suppose one plus point of all this is that someone finally acknowledges the EU is important, even if it is for the wrong reasons....- J Logan ^t: 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But that specific poster is peculiar.. The painter must have seen the symbolism of placing upside-down stars above the Tower of Babel. And Arsène Heitzes inspiration when he made the flag doesn't exactly coincide with the secularism of the EU. They make it easy for (at least YouTube) eurosceptics and christian fanatics to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories, without any connection to reality. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EBZX_YKNnhE Very convincing...not - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Or it was just stylisation! What motivation would there be for that anyway? Why would you deliberately portray that in a poster for a new building? The original idea of the flag may not have been inline with the secularism of the EU but its no strange idea that the centre of Christian faith might be inspired by Christian symbolism (positive symbolism at that). Do remember that Europe isn't defined by secularism for all - the Catholics build a very strong connection.- J Logan ^t: 10:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell SSJ, that video you put up, they learnt all that from Wikipedia didn't they! Haha! (though it seems odd how little they understand it though, maybe we need to clarify a few things)- J Logan ^t: 10:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The job of the people who make these things is to come up with, and recognise symbolism. Though of course there's probably no satanists and eurosceptics in the EU's poster department. I know that reflecting Europe's Christian heritage in EU contexts isn't necessarily bad thing, but the fact that the EU flag is a Book of Revelation ripoff could theoretically prove controvercial among muslim populations in Turkey and the Balkans. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed too that they used what sounded like full sequences from the EU article. :D I was however surprised by CNN's politically correct report on the Lisbon Treaty. It seems like they've got an even weirder stance than that of The Sun. Somehow i guess they hadn't claimed that the EU would become an "anti-american superstate", and that the European Council is unelected, in their international channel. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was horrified when I first saw those reports, I thought CNN was mean to be a tiny bit more respectable than Fox but lord I am so glad that data didn't come from us. Maybe we ought to advise CNN reporters that we know more about what's going on than them?

I'm not sure the poster department will like you calling them Satanists! I think in terms of the flag it is coincidence, this always happens when they are so eager for their life time to be the time that they see connections that aren't there (how many times has the world meant to have ended so far?). In fact, the description of the evil empire they go on about seems to me to correspond to another particular world power right now.... Like it matters though, if it is all true then they should be grateful as without the EU they wouldn't have their lord coming back would they. This would probably be the first time an evil empire has come into being by regulating glass sizes and fish quotas though - gosh its terrifying!- J Logan ^t: 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

EU=History

I agree that the position of the EU Growth map you deleted was not brilliant, but curious as to why you think it was low quality; the animated version is too fast and it is not useful as a tool for visualising the history of the EU because countries are not even classified/described by colour to explain their accession status. I cannot see how one can really learn too much from the current map - it's a crude graphic that surely only looks 'good' because it is dynamic! Reply welcome.Cantiana (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality as in its image quality. And I find the static images really don't convey much as there are so many successive enlargements it is hard to tell who joined when and what it means. If you think we could improve the maps, I suggest you bring it up on the article talk page and we can look at how to resolve the issue.- J Logan ^t: 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Position of European flag in Council of Europe infobox

Since you seem interested by the topic, I'll repost my reply here as well as on the article's discussion page. I'd be interested to know if you would agree with an improvement of the presentation of the Council's visuals. After all, the less confusion there is between the different institutions working in and for Europe, the better for everyoneCoEComm (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC):

Yes, it is the flag of the Council. And I am not proposing to remove it completely (I resorted to the maybe slightly rash measure of removing it temporarily (!) to attract attention to the problem). I know that the confusion is inherent in the emblems of the Council. Therefore it shouldn't be made worse by having the flag first and much larger than the logo, which was specifically designed and adopted to counteract the confusion. All I would like is for the presentation to be as unambiguous as possible, especially since the infobox is the first thing readers look at. Can the placement and the size of the flag be changed?CoEComm (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

D4 photos

Hi Jlogan, this is my first attempt at Wiki-anything. I hope it works. I wondered if you had your images of the EP-D4 building at any higher resolution. Would you please contact me on amy.johnson@redbeemedia.com. Many thanks, avj82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avj82 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 February 2008

I have replied by email.- J Logan ^t: 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

EU FA Review

Man I think we have to accept that FA for the EU main page is a lost cause for as long as you know who is around. Its next to impossible to get anything done/changed that said person doesn't agree with. I stupidly assumed that they'd learn from their time off and come back with a bit of a different attitude instead of the typical unyielding one. --Simonski (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I will have little time to work on it during FA review, have been working to meet a stack of real life deadlines for some time now. I hope we can get through, at least we might get some ideas. Although so far the review does not seem very constructive... Arnoutf (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the reviewers are busy people and have attacked the most obvious shortcomings first. Sandpiper (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Frits Bolkestein EC.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Frits Bolkestein EC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ilse@ 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ERASMUS Image

Hi Jlogan, I´m thinking about to add this image of ERASMUS students to the EU article. It would be integrated in Education and research. Not only that I was an ERASMUS student myself (Madrid), I think it would be a useful visualization of the content. Lear 21 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think those kind of photos are very typical of Erasmus and I'd have no objection. I'm not sure I'd be arguing to much that it is good visualisation of it (really doesn't elaborate the content much) so don't be surprised if you face resistance. Personally, I'd rather get to improving the content on that page - a more fruitful exercise.- J Logan ^t: 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

EU page introduction

Hey Logan, this introduction debate is clearly going nowhere fast. Since its about as important a part of the page as it can get I think we need to sort it pronto. I think you're seen as an impartial editor so perhaps you could wade in with your thoughts here? --Simonski (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tried to read through but I have no idea what anyone is arguing about any more and simply don't have the time to try to work it out. If you give me the jist of it I can intervene but I'm afraid time wise my hands are tied. Sorry, just a busy patch right now.- J Logan ^t: 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem man. If it helps I've now summarised the two main issues coupled with a wee edit break, maybe it'll be easier to see the problem now. I think its going to be the GDP issue that will be the sticking point, as there seems to be agreement that we should be more neutral with regards to the intergovernmental/supranational issue. It was maybe a mistake to allow the sui generis thing to be taken out come to think of it, it is the most commonly used description after all... --Simonski (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most commonly used in technical law books trying to define the EU? We are not writing a technical law textbook, but one for the general public. I have never heard the term in the media. Put such detail in later, yes, but the intro needs to be understandable in plain english. We are not here to confuse people. Sandpiper (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its a term the media (at least the mainstream media) will use, you're right there, but I guess thats because Average Joe sitting there watching the 10 o'clock news would be like 'wtf is sui generis'. It was my opinion though, and maybe I'm wrong, but I had always assumed that encyclopedic material was not generally to cater to Average Joe, but to provide factual information, regardless of how complex the information is. I should have emphasised though that I am not going to cry over the loss of the sui generis sentence, particularly when my own personal view is that its just a cop-out way to describe the EU when somebody asks what it is :)

Anyway, we'd best return to the EU page rather than clutter up Logans page here. On a side note, I'm sure that 'sui generis' is also widely used in political theory as well, so don't just pick on us lawyers! Infact I'd venture a guess that some political philosopher coined the term or something. --Simonski (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Anna Diamantopoulou EC.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Anna Diamantopoulou EC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

supranational and intergovernmental, usage in EU introduction

I am curious to know what is your position on the issue essentially raised by Lear (inadvertently). The style guideline on introductions says that technical words should not be used unless their meaning is defined at the same time, not merely by linking them. This is one of the big differences between Lear's suggestion and the version we have now (maybe, was at time of writing). Also, which version do you consider better describes the EU as a whole, considered simply on the wording of the intro without the rest of the article (as the style guide suggest we should judge it). Sandpiper (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff the guidelines, its an intro - we don't have the room. Expand on it in the body maybe? Not sure about any of the intro proposals, its just moving commas around as far as I'm concerned and I don't have the time to keep track of everyone's essays. if you really want me to drop in an opinion on the talk page just ask but otherwise I think I'll only be engaging on that topic for a strawpoll.- J Logan ^t: 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It happens that I was plesantly surprised to find the style guide agreed with my own opinions. I see absolutely no point putting something in an introduction which is calculated to baffle readers of the article. This is not informing people, but playing schoolyard tricks on them. Either a concept is worth writing in language which people can understand, or it just isn't worth wasting words on in an introduction. Because if the words will not be understood, then thay are wasted, and we don't have room for them either. How well do you react to opening a book and finding the first paragraph is incomprehensible? Sandpiper (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, I've never found anything incomprehensible :p (well, in English at least). I don't care much though, so long as it is accurate as its very important we get it factually correct.- J Logan ^t: 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Very few of the debates we have over the EU article have been about facts, rather which ones are important. If you write an article which can not be understood, then in effect you have left out those facts and failed to write a complete article. As to books, given a choice of two textbooks, both containing the same facts, would you choose to issue all schools with the one generally considered most easy to read and understand, or the one considered most difficult to read and understand? Sandpiper (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First I'd choose the one that is correct, then easy to read. Might be simple but if it is not factually correct then the point is lost. And I don't mean which ones in terms of single market or when it was created, I mean its nature and basic points about the treaties which have been a tad off of late.- J Logan ^t: 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you are wriggling somewhat. I did say, both contain the same facts. Thus each is equally correct. So which would you support, the hard to read one, or the easy to read one? Sandpiper (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, easy - but only if it is equally correct which is what I mean. What is proposed as easy to read isn't always correct.- J Logan ^t: 11:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is only a matter of working at it untill it is, but thankfully very few wiki articles (certainly including the EU) are good enough that the tiniest change will reduce their accuracy. Though come to think of it, changes to the article frequently do reduce its accuracy, but because the language becomes less clear and open to misinterpretation. Sandpiper (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Eurobarometer

Had a look ? Cheers, RCS (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, wish I could think of a place to use it really. On the institutions page, new heading of "public perception"? Or might that be a bit of a minefield. Don't really have the time right now anyway, still need to sort out the new Strasbourg page - getting bogged down in real life crap to work on anything significant. I'll be back on ball soon.- J Logan ^t: 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather think it should be put into the article on the EP itself, don't you ? Cheers, RCS (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really notable though? I mean, where on earth would we put a sentence saying that the public think the EP is important and it shoudl concentrate on this or that. Its a bit of a loose thread.- J Logan ^t: 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EU FA review (again)

Hi Logan, I was thinking, we should probably just forget FA review at the moment, not only does nobody seem to really have the time at the moment, but with the intro shinanigans I don't think we can seriously expect the reviewers to even consider it at the moment. Anyway, I left a comment about it on the EU talk page, was wondering if you could give your views on it there! --Simonski (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Flags of Europe

Hi J, is there some way you could add the flag of the European Council of Jewish Communities ? Not only is it inspired by the logo of the Council of Europe (with which the ECJC often cooperates), but since the pages includes the flag of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, this can just as legitimùately be put in too. Thanks, RCS (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that just a logo? I don't see any "flag" anywhere.- J Logan ^t: 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, maybe you are right, i didn't see it flying from a pole anywhere... RCS (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - April 13th

London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 is happening next Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm) in Holborn. Come along!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in ...

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hymnus Europae by Miguel Ríos?

In this edit you state that the Latin version of the European anthem was performed by Miguel Ríos. Do you have a citation for that? I know he has sung a Spanish version of An die Freude but I was unaware he had performed the Latin lyrics. Shinobu (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, can't help. I copied that information from the European symbols page: see here. - J Logan ^t: 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently it was added by a Spanish anon. The anon doesn't seem to be active on Wikipedia, as it was his only edit. I think that depending on how you read the statement in its original context, it could easily refer to the Spanish version. Again, thank you for your time. Shinobu (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:António Vitorino EC.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:António Vitorino EC.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Meglena_Kuneva_EP_hearing.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Meglena_Kuneva_EP_hearing.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? Rettetast (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:TF Slovenia

Hi. Just curious: What does the "TF" signify in the category name above? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce.- J Logan ^t: 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So, is "Taskforce Slovenia" a kind of WikiProject? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a taskforce of WikiProject Europe. See WP:TASKFORCE.- J Logan ^t: 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks! Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

London Meetups - Sunday May 11th

We're hoping to have regular meetups in London. If you're interested, keep an eye on Wikipedia:Meetup/London. The next one is on May 11th Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal problem

Hi. I've been monitoring a selection of articles which interest me and have noticed that there is a significant amount of IP user vandalism. I've tried to make sence of all the policy material on wikipedia but I'm afraid I'm not up to the chalange. Could you give me a few pointers as to how I should procede in cases like for exaple this one: [[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Only two instances from that IP, there is a lot of that, we can't go round taking action against such things. Only really bother if the same user is going it numerous times. If repetition starts, give a warning. If it continues, contact an administrator for advice.- J Logan ^t: 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

EP, Strasbourg

Hi! It´s done - finally!! Sunday I attended the "Tag der offenen Tür"/"journée des portes ouvertes" of the Euro-Parliament (it was on May 4th this year as first of May was a thursday) and I took "as many photos as I could". I´m not sure though if you will be very happy with me as the quality of the pictures is maybe not quite as good as you hoped (for contents). I could not get to the visitors ...? tribune (? - is that French?)... balcony (for a better overview of the plenary hall) because as most other important places were open to the public that day, those they are confined to usually were closed then! But I could take pictures right inside it instead. As you can see I just did not manage to organise any other way until this opportunity finally came up! But if we still would like more and better pictures there might be more chances! I will give you more details in my discussion soon at the place where you came p with your request. Greetings, --85.180.217.116 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Stephele ?????Nicht mehr interessiert??Stephele--84.176.138.245 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, sorry for delay, been tied down a tad. p place is your talk page isn't it?- J Logan ^t: 20:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - we meet over there if that´s OK for you - the "p" is a fault though, don´t know where that came from?! Don´t mind the delay! I came back from the "public day" quite enthusiastic and thought I could quickly show you what I got - and that you would be happy that I "did it" (- as there still is nothing else or new in the Commons). But then I had again lots of other things to do and little time online... I will give you a description of my pics first of all in the old place. Greetings, --134.176.67.99 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Stephele

AEN

Hi! The problem with sourcing this one is that it's a rather obvious bit of facts (the Italian party merger and the low public support for the Polish parties can easily be source, though) which is unlikely to merit mentioning unless someone really publishes an analysis of the events of the election on parliamentary groups, and I've never seen something like that (or at least not yet). Any idea what we could do? —Nightstallion 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is guesswork though, fine for journalists to speculate about who will win what but not an encyclopaedia.- J Logan ^t: 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculating, it's just remarking that two of the Polish parties are down to 2% in the polls and that the Italian party will merge into an EPP-member party by 2009... —Nightstallion 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

2% down and then saying they are "unlikely to be present in the European Parliament after the 2009 election" is speculation. Other bits could be cited. No rush though, plenty of problems in that article that need to be cited and sorted.- J Logan ^t: 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So it's okay to leave it in for now? Naturally, as soon as I find sources, I'll put cites into it, but it's hard to find analyses for the election next year so early. —Nightstallion 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with it now, aside from any facts that aren't cited. But certainly there's no real speculation now.- J Logan ^t: 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine. —Nightstallion 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus

A question has arisen concerning classification of groups in the European Parliament. A discussion has opened up in Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of informed, but uninvolved, editors and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner list

Hi! Could you help with this problem? Thanks! —Nightstallion 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue -- is Barrot already justice commissioner? Is Tajani formally commissioner-designate for transport, commissioner for transport, ...? —Nightstallion 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he is doing both jobs, as far as I am aware he is doing justice as a stand in but of course it is just the start of a full time job. So to be honest I'm not sure when would have officially started.- J Logan ^t: 08:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So as soon as Tajani is confirmed, he gets the transport ressort -- but when does Barrot OFFICIALLY take over justice? Will there be hearings before the EP again? I just don't really know how we should update the articles... —Nightstallion 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Buggered if I know. Phone them up and ask?- J Logan ^t: 11:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mh, I'd try e-mail, but that might work. You or I? ;) —Nightstallion 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I can't be arsed, way too much on at the moment, starting to subside but I won't be back here properly for a week or two more. Then I'll get to work again.- J Logan ^t: 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're not too stressed, and if you are, hope it gets better soon. ;) —Nightstallion 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A-ha! Hearings will be held on 16 June for both of them. —Nightstallion 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock the vote 2008-05-11

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. You may wish to take part in the vote here if you have not already done so. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michel Barnier EC.jpg.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Michel Barnier EC.jpg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jacques Delors public.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jacques Delors public.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

In English...
Dear User:JLogan. Thank you for your changes to "Image:PE1979e.png" and "Image:PE1994e.png". A discussion has taken place on "en:Talk:Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament". That discussion came to a conclusion. The conclusion was that the color of "CDI" should be changed from #009900 to #999999, and that the color of of "ERA" should be changed from #009900 to #FFFF00. Please make the following changes:

1. Change the color of "CDI" on Image:PE1979e.png from #009900 to #999999
2. Change the color of "ERA" on Image:PE1994e.png from #009900 to #FFFF00

Thank you for your assistance. I have also asked [2] to do this in case you cannot. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

...et en Francais
Cher User:JLogan. Merci à vous pour que vos modifications "Image:PE1979e.png" et "Image:PE1994e.png". Une discussion a eu lieu sur "en:Talk:Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament". Ce débat est venu à une conclusion. La conclusion est que la couleur de "CDI" devrait être changée de #009900 à #999999, et que la couleur de de "ERA" devrait être changée de #009900 à #FFFF00. S’il vous plaît apporter les modifications suivantes:

1. Changer la couleur de "CDI" sur Image:PE1979e.png de #009900 à #999999.
2. Variation de la couleur "ERA" sur Image:PE1994e.png de #009900 à #FFFF00.

Merci pour votre aide. J'ai également demandé à [3] à le faire au cas où vous ne le peuvent pas. Cordialement, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your French is clearly better than mine! Just English will do thanks. I have a moment so I'll get on it now.- J Logan ^t: 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, because of the change of quality it might be best if the person who just changed it could adjust the colour. They should have the working files and hence save me the bother of reworking them as my base files aren't relevant any more. If the other guy doesn't have the time to do it though I'll take it on.- J Logan ^t: 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to point out that my French is courtesy of http://www.google.co.uk/language_tools?hl=en. The rest of my reply is here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have gone with "...Et déplacer les "non inscrits" vers l'extrême droite, S.V.P., parce que c'est l'ordre dans lequel ils siègent à la Chambre. Cela signifie que nous n'avons pas à décider de l'ordre politique. Pardonnez mon français, je vous remercie..." but that would involve me cheating with Google Translate, so it doesn't count <grin>.

If you are going to knock something up to replace the gif (yay!), use the numbers and colors on Template:EP79Results, Template:EP84Results, Template:EP89Results, Template:EP94Results, Template:EP99Results, Template:EP04Results. The sources for those numbers are on the templates.

The bar-charts/hemicycle argument is unanswerable: bar-charts are easier to understand and can be dynamically coded using Template:Bar percent, (so I wouldn't have had 2 disturb you or Alankazame), but hemicycles are popular and the one's you've produced have been used in other wikis, so people have voted with their clicks. I'm still right, tho...:-)

As for the elections, sooner or later we're gonna have to come up with something like Template:Infobox_Election for the EP elections: that'll be...interesting.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I was deliberately trying to avoid the use of babel, so no doubt it is worse! Still, I always like reading broken English, maybe they like broken French? :). And if you really want to have an argument on barcharts, well people voted with clicks on a race with no opposition, you could make some bar charts and see which are adopted by the other wikis. I don't have the time to do that as well though. I'll get onto the gif replacement from Friday, am going away these two days so can't work on it now. As for the infobox election, well we could use that as it stands, I see no problem except for the absence of pictures. Well, and any reference to governments and PMs etc. On the other hand, considering the possible indirect link to Commission president we may need to custom make. I don't see it as vital right now though, we're fine without it - we have out own templates.- J Logan ^t: 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your new version of the deprecated gif, and it's brilliant! Gives the progression of the groups at a glance and throws up some interesting results...

• 1) although both the Communists and National Conservatives are in long term decline, they're holding up better than the raw data would suggest.
• 2) Neither the Greens nor the Eurosceptics are doing as well as their publicity would suggest.
• 3) The left in toto (Socialists & Communists) is at its lowest ebb ever, whilst the right in toto (Con/CD/NatCons/Eurosceptic) is doing well, but not as well as it did in, say, 1979.

....My God, one could play for hours just from that one diagram. Well done you! Now, if I could only get http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alankazame to change "Image:PE1979e.png" and "Image:PE1994e.png", I'd be deliriously happy. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)