Userboxes This user is a member of WikiProject Europe. This user is a member of WikiProject European Union. This user is a member of WikiProject International relations. en This user is a native speaker of English. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Archives
1. First Archive, gosh how exciting! 2. A new and bigger one! Not that the first one is inferior to the first just because of its size or age.

European Merit	European Merit
	Geography

 Commons | Recent Contributions | Created Userboxes 

I might reply on your page or mine but I'll probably forget to check yours.

Contents 1 EU=federation 2 Reply 3 Shudder 4 EU=History 5 Position of European flag in Council of Europe infobox 6 D4 photos 7 EU FA Review 8 ERASMUS Image 9 EU page introduction 10 supranational and intergovernmental, usage in EU introduction 11 Last Eurobarometer 12 EU FA review (again) 13 Flags of Europe 14 London Meetup - April 13th 15 Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in ... 16 Hymnus Europae by Miguel Ríos? 17 Category:TF Slovenia 18 London Meetups - Sunday May 11th 19 Vandal problem 20 EP, Strasbourg 21 AEN 22 Request for consensus 23 Commissioner list 24 Rock the vote 2008-05-11 25 Request 26 Political groups in COR and PACE 27 Future enlargement of the European Union 28 Brussels and the EU 29 Big news 30 Thank you 31 Metro map 32 "nearest tube" template 33 Feeling happy ? 34 Quite a find 35 European Institutions in Strasbourg 36 Origins of the ECSC 37 Request for consensus 38 Move protection 39 Do you want your archive deleted? 40 New article needed 41 European Quarter 42 I've never come into contact with you before, but after recently seeing all your contributions to Europe related articles, and seeing your "call a spade a spade" page, I think you more than deserve it 43 ESA History, ESRO 44 Capitalization with city names 45 Eurozone 46 Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London 47 Historic Brussels images 48 Strasbourg ceiling 49 Constructive editing 50 ESA task force 51 Do you talk English ? 52 Easy to get featured list 53 Lux Sq 54 Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice 55 Recording dutch for Brussels. 56 Erik Young 57 International Commission on Civil Status 58 American Committee on United Europe 59 federal!=federalism 60 Large deletion from "History of the European Union" 61 G8 summits 62 Malta 63 "Save our Strasbourg" 64 Daniel Cohn-Bendit 65 Nominate for FA? 66 Noteworthy or not? 67 All images of Belgian buildings to be deleted? 68 Eurodistrict 69 Draft report 70 Done! 71 RfD nomination of Spanish European Commissioner 72 Notification of DYK 73 Poll gives second Lisbon referendum chance of passing 74 Have you seen that? 75 Renewed discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area 76 Late Happy New Year ! 77 Missing, presumed busy IRL: one JLo. 78 Pioneers 79 No content in Category:European peer review programme 80 Charlemagne building 81 Flag of Europe 82 THEY MUST BE CRAZY!!! 83 DYK for International status and usage of the euro 84 Plans unveiled 85 Replaceable fair use Image:Chris Patten EC.jpg 86 Orphaned non-free media (File:Sandra Kalniete EC.jpg) 87 Orphaned non-free media (File:Walter Hallstein 1963.jpg) 88 Heard on Radio France Internationale 89 EP photos "free of copyright" 90 Very important 91 News 92 I don't have answers, I have suggestions to your questions: please let's discuss it. 93 Sixth European Parliament 94 Please, JLogan: let's try to discuss with moderation. Thank you. 95 Now they did it 96 EU Motto: Join us or die! 97 Maerlant convent 98 Does Alliance for Europe of the Nations still exist? 99 Jerzy Buzek 100 File:EP_Groups_1979-2009.png 101 MEP totals differ 102 Just a little inspiration.. 102.1 break 102.2 (break 2) 103 Marta Andreasen 104 Brussels naming conventions 105 FYI 106 Article on Lisbon Treaty signing 107 John Hume 108 Somebody's office has been very busy lately. 109 "President of the European Union" (sic) 110 A little notice 111 "Objective: Strengthening the symbolic value of the Roundabout"

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reply

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

[edit] 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 - S Solberg 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. - S Solberg 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. - S Solberg 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

No problem, it is fun seeing their growth isn't it, can't wait till 2009. Btw, you been following the recent proposed changes to group limits? I keep meaning to write something on that but never get round to looking into it properly. - J Logan ^t: 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political groups in COR and PACE

I know that you are an expert about political groups in supranational institutions. I would like you to see my posts at Talk:Committee of the Regions#European Alliance and Talk:European Democrats#European Democratic Group respectively. --Checco (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look.- J Logan ^t: 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future enlargement of the European Union

On 8 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future enlargement of the European Union, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brussels and the EU

Just to let you know I just translated your article into Dutch: nl:Brussel als Europese hoofdstad, or Brussels as European capital. Next project I'll work on is Espace Léopold. Very good articles, congratulations.--Hooiwind (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see you moved the interwiki links of Leopoldswijk and Quartier Léopold; you're right, they don't belong there but they belonged even less in the other article, and I didn't know where to put them. Once again, a new article is born.--Hooiwind (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for translating these. The interwikis kind of belonged there as that article was formerly talking about the EU district, which overlays Leopold a lot. But yes, a new article, always a good thing (well, nearly always). - J Logan ^t: 10:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I introduced it on the Dutch wiki a few days ago but it has been nominated for deletion this morning. Personally, I think they're rather useful as a means of orientation. Many people tend to orientate themselves more often on subway stations instead of city maps. This kind of templates has been used on the French wiki for a long time now and is also used on pages as fr:Tour Eiffel. I don't think it belongs in the lead though.--Hooiwind (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think there is a problem with the double image in Espace Léopold#Willy Brandt and József Antall. With both Safari and Firefox the images overlap with the text, and I just cannot get it right.--Hooiwind (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big news

BIG news: The SPÖ states that in the future, it wants referendums on EU treaties. [4] —Nightstallion 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, not that big. Lets see what actually happens.- J Logan ^t: 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For Austrian political news, it's very big -- up to now, SPÖ/ÖVP/Greens were united on the stance "no referendums on EU matters". This opens up a new ground. Besides, it's a sign that the SPÖ is giving in to the Kronen Zeitung. (Not good, in case you're wondering.) —Nightstallion 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually has to happen though, and besides - might be ages before we get another treaty. Noted though.- J Logan ^t: 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer to get Lisbon into force as soon as possible and then start a bottom-up democratisation process in the EU, but I'm not sure how likely that is. :( —Nightstallion 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom up is hard enough even at a national level. And I have to admit, Lisbon is a really crap treaty - the only thing worth forcing through as far as I'm concerned is the extension of co-decision. The rest is window dressing, can be brought through without a treaty or will make things worse. What we really need is a treaty the people want, rather than need, can read and is short. For example, a "democracy" treaty which extends the powers of Parliament, introduces direct democracy, makes the Commission directly elected by Parliament without the Council and gives some real blocking powers to national parliaments acting in majority. Add in something to slow down enlargement and increase transparency while abandoning every other element and they'll be onto a winner. Then, after doing something popular, they might be in a position to carry through the rest (most of which would have already been brought in in practice anyway as there is enough flexibility in the treaties as they stand).- J Logan ^t: 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the message on my talk page: I assume you mean my creation of the GB constituencies prior to the introduction of PR. Sorry for not replying earlier, but I've been over at Commons. I've created (well, redrafted using Hix's data) a Hix-Lord diagram for the first half of EP6, and it looks like this:

Vertical axis is europhilia: 0% = anti-EU, 100% = pro-EU. Horizontal axis is economic left-right spectrum: 0% = extreme left, 100% = extreme right. Hix's analysis throws up some interesting points: UEN are more centrist economically speaking than its reputation suggests, and the UKIP contingent of IND/DEM are acting strangely. Have a look, tell me what you think: the rationale for the positions of the squares can be found on the Commons description page. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, we should make good use of these charts to get some analysis on the pages as it is a bit wishy-washy on the ideology. Though what we could do with is a standard left-right / authoritarian-democratic chart for traditional details. Great work on this though, I'm sure it will be of great use. Thanks to you the EU pages are actually showing detailed useful information rather than just acting as an outline and echo of others.- J Logan ^t: 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The question of which compass is most appropriate for EU matters is the subject of some academic debate, but Hix-Lord is currently the front runner.[5] Interestingly, compasses predicted to be of use in the future include left/right/east/west and left/right/secular/religious. But as we have Hix/Lord models going back to 1979 courtesy of Hix/Noury, I'll stick with that or now <grin>. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metro map

I've begun with a clickable map here. Is that what you thought of? If you like it, please help me out with the tedious job of inserting all station lables. Do you think we should have them in both French and Dutch (or a mix of English translations and commonsly used French titles)? And is 750px too wide? - SSJ ☎ 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "nearest tube" template

Since you asked for feedback, I am letting you know why I reverted your "test" addition of this template to Hyde Park.

Nothing much wrong with your template in principle, just that on this article it does not belong in lead. One expects to find this sort of information in an appendix, and the Hyde Park article already has a "transport" appendix giving a better version of the same information.

I suspect (but haven't checked yet) that the same might apply to most other London places.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: Template talk:Nearest tube - J Logan ^t: 08:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feeling happy ?

[6] More to follow, but i ain't got much time... Cheers, RCS (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of red links, though. This will keep you busy :-). RCS (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quite a find

While trying to put some dates into the article, i discovered that the International Commission on Civil Status actually predates the Council of Europe by a few months and is thus the first genuine post-war European institution. Funny we know so little about it ! Cheers, RCS (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Institutions in Strasbourg

J, could you please check the article for grammatical and syntaxic errors ? I'm no native speaker, as you know, and as it stands, i've written 90 % of it. Thank you so much, RCS (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Checked and corrected (a few days ago but forgot to reply here).- J Logan ^t: 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the ECSC

Hi, since you are one of the most active in the EU domain, I was wondering if perhaps you had any information on this:

• Ruhr Delegation of the United States of America, Council of Foreign Ministers American Embassy Moscow, March 24, 1947

From the sound of it you strongly get the impression that the ECSC was in reality the brainchild of General Lucius D. Clay. Have you seen any secondary information on U.S. coaxing towards the creation of the institution?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 10:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not expert on the ECSC but what I have read has made no mention of US involvement beyond their general encouragement of European integration which is of course well documented. I do not believe it would be his 'brainchild' from what I have read but it sounds worthy of mentioning.- J Logan ^t: 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for consensus

A question has arisen concerning the name of the article "Anthem of Europe". A discussion has opened up in Talk:Anthem of Europe. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of editors informed by a previous discussion of a similar nature about the article "Flag of Europe" 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) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded.- J Logan ^t: 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection

I've set up this request. [7] I tried to emphesise that this a strong consensus. Please add any comment if something's missing. - SSJ ☎ 05:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you got everything and we have what we need now. We can up the protection on the remaining unprotected pages if he starts on them.- J Logan ^t: 09:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you want your archive deleted?

JLogan, your user talk archive is coming up in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category. Do you want it deleted? - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, since when did user archives come up for deletion like this?- J Logan ^t: 20:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article needed

I think we'll soon need an article on the enhanced co-operation procedure, as it seems it may come into effect for the first time rather soon, compare this article on divorce rules in the EU... —Nightstallion 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, will have a stub up shortly. Its a good start, but we'll need more data than this though.- J Logan ^t: 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, needs linking into pages though and expanding.- J Logan ^t: 12:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I think there's not much more to say about it as long as it isn't used -- once it's in use, I'd like to have a list of all measure adopted under enhanced cooperation on that page. —Nightstallion 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would still be one, I doubt they'd be a second for years even if the divorce one goes through. And if they sort out Lisbon, then that wouldn't even happen. So if we just make sure it is linked in from all the relevant pages - I think we could do with structuring multi-speed Europe articles a bit better though. Some nav box relating to multi-speed issues current and historic?- J Logan ^t: 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The "opt-outs" article would also qualify. What do you mean, though, if Lisbon enters into force then the divorce thing won't happen? —Nightstallion 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Under Lisbon, QMV would apply and hence Sweden wouldn't be able to veto, they'd be over ruled and hence there would be no need for enhanced co-op.- J Logan ^t: 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. But the matter will come up for voting *this* year, won't it? —Nightstallion 08:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But think how much they've put off to post-Lisbon. They're debating enhanced co-operation because, despite all the talk of getting it past the Irish, they know Lisbon won't happen on time, if at all.- J Logan ^t: 09:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mh, you may be right. I hope it will happen, though... —Nightstallion 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Quarter

Hello! I've made a labelled map of the European Quarter, and placed it here. Madou tower is a Directorate-General, and there's so many other of Directorate-Generals; I'm not sure if we should include them. Do you know if there's a map showing where all of them are? - SSJ ☎ 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've never come into contact with you before, but after recently seeing all your contributions to Europe related articles, and seeing your "call a spade a spade" page, I think you more than deserve it

		The Geography Barnstar
		I've never come into contact with you before, but after recently seeing all your contributions to Europe related articles, and seeing your "call a spade a spade" page, I think you more than deserve this award. Well done. Jkliajmi (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

eu:Txantiloi:Geografia izarra

Wow, thanks! Much appreciated.- J Logan ^t: 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESA History, ESRO

Hi.

I'm about to add a tonne of new info about ESA history to its article. I have a problem though. ESA is the successor organisation of ESRO which currently just redirects to ESA. It would make my job a lot easier if I could just create an article about ESRO first and then do the main article thing with ESA. My question is: Will there be problems if I do that?

Bare in mind that the whole thing may take about week to complete. Thank you for your help.U5K0 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization with city names

Hello J- Please see my post here: Talk:Brussels#.22City_of_Brussels.22_capitalization. -Eric ^talk 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurozone

I agree, "sometimes derogatory" are the right words. Thanks. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

[edit] Historic Brussels images

If you are interested, please download Google Earth, click on this link, zoom in on Brussels and check out all those historical photographs from pre-war Brussels. Many are from the European Quarter. For example, Luxembourg Square. All public domain and pretty high-quality! We should really upload these. It's incredible. (Why the hell has Brussels become so ugly!?) Also, www.ecli.net has many more old photographs of Leopold II-era parks, monuments and events. - SSJ ☎ 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, great find. The Leopold Park and Berlaymont (fyi: I'll be going over that article this week) ones for sure, though where exactly is the licensing information? - J Logan ^t: 09:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the sources are spread.. Presumably scanned by the something like the City of Brussels library. Found it on this blog. Do you think PD-old applies? - SSJ ☎ 11:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to be sure, EU copyright is 70 years I think, the image doesn't appear to have a date but looks late 19th century, which means we may be in the clear if the photographer died around the 1930s - the image is professional and from a height so he/she wouldn't have been very young and equally life expectancy was shorter - add in the death count from the Great War and it is probably PD Old applies - but we need evidence. They must have some copyright/source information - if not we'll have to contact.- J Logan ^t: 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[8], [9] - some dates and high-res versions. - SSJ ☎ 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They're good, but only for Brussels in general. Right now I'm concentrating on the European quarter and most old photos seem to be of places that haven't changed much. I haven't looked into the other Brussels articles much but if you know of places to use them then great, but right now I'm only seeing the two I mentioned above as being of immediate use and we still lack dates/copyright for them. We could do with some free 50s-80s images as well but they're of course harder to get. I'm going to concentrate on text now (when I have enough free time in one go) - it would be helpful if we could mobilise more people to work on these, get a committed group on Brussels articles (I would suggest a taskforce, though WP:Belgium is too undeveloped to run itself it seems, like WP:EU), and indeed on EU articles (I might try to restart the collaboration system again). On a side note, as I said before I'm going to deal with the Berlaymont article soon. I have a book on the EU quarter - aside from Berlaymont, what article (including ones not yet started) do you think I should concentrate on after if I have the data?- J Logan ^t: 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a taskforce and new structures would attract editors. I've seen many Belgian people editing articles related to Brussels. But there are few who edit the main Brussels article.

What about Breydel? That building has after all played a crucial role. I reckon we shouldn't bother about the smaller, mid-cold war office buildings of the Commission that are scattered around. But aren't there some newly built DGs?

The most exciting thing about the European Quarter is probably its future, so I was wondering whether your book mentions anothing more the just the theoretic possibility of "restoring lost vistas, reducing traffic on Rue de la Loi and improving the metro"? Does it e.g. confirm the probability of the tunnel under a newly Europeanised Cinquantenaire being enclosed, or indicate which buildings could be demolished and how much earth can be moved in order to build bigger and have more open space, green areas and pedestran squares. How feasible is it that Justus Lipsius can be demolished? After all, it does look like a shopping centre, it will be less important after 2013, and texts by city planners online seem to agree that Leopold park should be seen from Berlaymont. - SSJ ☎ 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Breydel, yes good point, I'll try to do something on that, though it would help to get some technical details on it as well as the history that's in the book. As for the future, there is little detail - it was translated in 2007 and the current plans are quite recent. There is discussion on how previous building was disastrous and they've learnt their lesson in forming successive masterplans, but nothing much beyond that. I think we need to keep an eye on press releases and plans for that. There is supposed to be the master plan [www.quartiereuropeen-europesewijk.be here] but you can't access the website. It might be worth contacting OIB for their documents, it was going to do it eventually to see if I could influence it (I already emailed them about including a memorial to EU peacekeepers who have been killed in action) so I'll try to get on that soon. (and btw, I doubt JL will be totally demolished, only a corridor of it and the southern facade, as it is relatively new, even if it is disgusting - I'd say prison rather than shopping centre)- J Logan ^t: 11:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strasbourg ceiling

I can't answer yet, i am still busy gnashing my teeth in anger. Another topic - what do you think of this exchange :

Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The Minister will have taken a close interest in the Irish referendum result – the “no” vote on the Lisbon Treaty. However, is he aware the Council of Europe – this body – may have unwittingly, in part, been instrumental in that result because our recent controversial report on a woman’s right to an abortion was, during the referendum campaign, widely read and greatly disliked by a huge number of people through Ireland who, albeit wrongly, took it as a European policy and voted accordingly?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bildt to respond.

Mr BILDT. – A direct question requires a direct answer: no, I was not aware that that particular report by the Council of Europe played a role in the Irish referendum campaign. On the other hand, I would need encyclopaedic knowledge to be aware of everything involved in the Irish referendum debate. As far as I can tell from the media, everything under the sun was addressed in that campaign, and not necessarily the content of the Lisbon Treaty.

The soucre is here : http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/Records/2008/E/0806231500E.htm.

Cheers, RCS (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised. People seem to have a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between the EU and CoE and that, with a hundred and one things could have affected the result. Next time it is clear they should put Ireland in a vacuum sealed bag first! I wonder what else we can blame it on? Aside from the treaty of course which was flawless.... There is no easy and simple reason to explain the no: maybe next time they should have a follow up question on the ballot paper: why? (a, tick a maximum of three answers and number in order of preference. If other, please state in less than 20 words)- _JLogan^t: 13:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive editing

Constructive editors replace images rather than remove them, like the EC Treaty signing one that you've removed from the competition law articles. I disagree with you that it's not "fair use". Perhaps you aren't clear on the subject matter of the articles (ie. the EC Treaty) or on what "fair use" means. If you could, please either (a) put them back, and take a little more care next time (b) replace them with something that you think is better. But please don't expect other people to fix things up after: be a constructive editor. Wikidea 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure I agree with you either that the EU is a federation. It's just different. It's better than a federation, because it's something new that hasn't happened yet before. Have you come across the case about Van Gend en Loos? Have a read of that. Calling the EU a federation is just pretending its going to be a new big nation state. Really I think we should be brainstorming how we can solve the problem of the nation state. Don't you? All the best. Wikidea 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand all that, but so why don't you write in a fair use rationales, instead of deleting them? Is it because it'd be too time consuming for you? I think this system is newer than the pictures on those pages. Come on, be useful!

I've had a quick look at your federalism treatise. Are you a politics student? Apart from reading Van Gend en Loos, try reading Lord Bridge's judgment in the Factortame case no.2, the Solange II decisions (for Germany, if you can find them on the web) and perhaps a little history surrounding the American Civil War. Actually, I'm not sure why I'm telling you all this. It probably wouldn't make a difference! Wikidea 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESA task force

I've set up what I could using the good old copy-edit technique but I think I probably missed a lot of things in the category infrastructure. I've set up a stub page for the TF but I have no Idea what else needs to be done here. So if you could look over what I've done so far and tell me how to go from here, I'd be really grateful. Also I'd like to know: Do people usually join by themselves or should I contact a few wikipedians who are active in this area? U5K0 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you talk English ?

Sorry, :-), but i dont' understand what you meant here by the sentence : "It is totally separate from the European Union, with a has a legal personality and 47 member states (which contain 800 million citizens)." Cheers, RCS (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easy to get featured list

I worked on List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, doing the things that were done with Member State of the European Union. Suddenly the Brussels list was nominated for Featured list, and that was achieved. Do you think we should rename the EU members article "List of Member States of the European Union" and nominate it as a list? Would that disenable the creation of in-depth sections on the functioning of membership? Does the current singular title make more sense? "Featured list" is a peculiar phenomenon. - SSJ ☎ 14:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's forget featured list and focus on turning the the EU members article into a proper article in the future. - SSJ ☎ 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The enlargement section you wrote is excellent as always; it sums up the history and relating aspects in a good way and the referencing is accurate.

We should definitely not write a section and name it "Pros and cons" or "Benefits". Documented facts about what happens when a poor country joins is probably okay. Regretfully, I've contributed to (but not started!) this slightly unorthodox collection of bulletpoint arguments. We can perhaps try to write NPOV prose out of some of it. I am not sure. - SSJ ☎ 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Economic impact of membership" is a good title we can use. But after such a section is written, it would become very obvious that the political impact isn't covered. The fact that small member states, through the EU system, are involved in large-scale political processes they otherwise would not be part of; e.g. the EU's foreign policy, is undisputed, given the veto rights. I think I've heard before that concrete research shows that Luxembourg has more influence over the workings of the EU than some of the biggest member states. This (if we find sources), as well as population versus voting power should perhaps be mentioned under either "Representation", a future section on "relationship between members" or "Political impact of membership". The political impact doesn't have to be POV; it's generally accepted that membership allows a country to take part in the shaping of legislation. - SSJ ☎ 12:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lux Sq

Search the word "Arlon" in this page. - SSJ ☎ 01:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have used the original ref for that then.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recording dutch for Brussels.

I recorder it. However what format does it need to be and how do you add it? Or shall I send it to you and will you add it? Titirius (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For uploading information, follow this link WP:CMF#Audio.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, I didn't add it to the page yet as it was bit confusing (I'm new, as you've noticed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Pronounciacion_of_Brussels.ogg Titirius (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll deal with it. Thank you very much for your contribution!- _J.Logan`^t: 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Young

Is there any need to preserve User:JLogan/Young? That one get posted again and again in different variations on totally unrelated pages (and not just on Wikipedia, also in Blog comments, forums like the one from The Nation), IMHO the poster needs to search for mental care if he seriously means everything he posts. Keeping his nonsense online would only encourage him to continue vandalism pages by posting his essays. andy (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I think I was being a bit naive back then, had forgotten it was still there.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Commission on Civil Status

Phew, i finally dared starting an article about that organization ! Its only a stub a s of yet, but maybe you'll get round adding some flesh. Cheers, RCS (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, we don't need much of course - it isn't that major. So long as we have something.- _J.Logan`^t: 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Committee on United Europe

Hi JLogan, just to let you know I found an article that you might be interested in. Apparently ACUE were quite successful in influencing European public opinion using bucket loads of CIA money, but less successful in steering the shape of the European institutions they helped promote.

Also the topic European Youth Campaign that the ACUE sponsored heavily seems interesting. One source stated that in the mid 50's they conducted 1,900 conferences and activities in the core countries designed to make young people pro-Europe (and I presume anti communist). Just in case you're interested.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I suppose there was a lot of this sort of thing going on back then, if we get anymore I might be able to tie it into the main articles but they themselves need a developing a bit more before think kind of detail can be linked in. I'll look to see where it could be used though. Thanks.- _J.Logan`^t: 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] federal!=federalism

please don't mix up both.Just stick to federalism.The proposal is about federalism, not federal.These are not sinonimus.--88.82.47.8 (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large deletion from "History of the European Union"

I respect your experience in this area so haven't reverted yet. A deletion of that magnitude really does need to be explained in the talk page. Please do so. --Red King (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Yes, that explanation is fine - I just don't understand why you couldn't put a short note on the talk page. Well perhaps next time. --Red King (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary is a very terse way to comment. It is suitable for maybe a paragraph but anything more needs a comment in the talk. That's why it comes up in bold red figures in the history. Definitely WP:be bold about your edits but be kind about about explanations. --Red King (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G8 summits

I wonder if you might have a view to express in the following context:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25#Category:G8 summit resorts

I have expressed an opinion, but I'm not certain that my views are necessarily more important than anyone else's. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malta

Malta should be include, in the article. Microstates and UE, due to the fact that in the article European microstates it is included as one. --Erick91 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The general point is to discuss those outside, Malta and Luxembourg are mentioned in the intro. Feel free to add them though if you want but simply stating they are EU members sums up their relation to the EU.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Save our Strasbourg"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/09/save_our_strasbourg.html. Cheers, RCS (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Just made use of it on the location page, finally fattened that section out a bit more now!- _J.Logan`^t: 20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, last week (Monday 22), the Strasbourg municipal council passed a motion to support the EP seat in Strasbourg and to ask (demander ≠ to demand) that all the EP activities be relocated to Strasbourg: http://www.strasbourg.fr/services/municipalite/conseils_municipaux/080922_CR_CM.pdf?FileID=documentsprincipaux%2fmunicipalite%2f080922_cr_cm.pdf. Cheers, RCS (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Included that as well. I bet there is something similar from Brussels, and I'm quote sure there would be more from Strasbourg's government. I remember hearing something a while back but can't remember when. Lets see how things develop though.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The former mayoral team (Fabienne Keller and Robert Grossmann) had a rather eurosceptic background, but Roland Ries has a long history of euro-enthusiasm. We'll see, indeed. RCS (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A eurosceptic mayor of Strasbourg? Weird. Anyway, this being Europe, we'll be waiting to see for a few decades yet.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, they dropped the scepticism once they run for the job, but basically both Keller and Grossmann came from a political conservative background that traditionnally considers Europe too expensive, too aligned on American positions and too disrepectful of national French issues. --RCS (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Cohn-Bendit

http://www.lalsace.fr/article/ungersheim-cohn-bendit-relance-le-debat-du-siege-du-parlement-europeen---384659?symfony=c09d69bfdc93d41b012d11b8485ebb18. He suggests turning the EP into a European university for 15,000 to 20,000 students, entirely paid for by the EU. Actually sounds quite good, but unrealistic. --RCS (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Danny for you. I think we already have a point on the university point. Slightly different info you've just mentioned of course. Your French is a lto better than mine though, to avoid me skewing things in a bad translation - or worse, use babel - could you give me the major points on it (unless what you just said is the only important part) or pop it straight up. I'm trying to read though it but I'm only doing French once a week now so am getting rusty.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the major points are the 15,000 to 20,000 students and that the univ. will teach "all matters" (toutes les matières). That's the most precise definition of this project so far. I wonder why he doesn't say 25,000 to 30,000 students or something like that, though. It still sounds pretty random. RCS (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Put it up, thanks. Regarding the number - sounds arbitrary but he was probably making out that the size of the building could support such a number. I wonder though if they are including the satellite buildings connected to the Palace of Europe? Anyway, they'd need more than a bunch of impoverished students to convince France to surrender it. Personally, I think they should offset it by declaring Strasbourg as the EU's "Second city, and social heart" with a "Festival of Europe" held every year or two in the city around the quarter along with several other non-political organisations and buildings being based there to establish a European city without the politics of Europe, making it free from all the negativity of the EU which is impossible right now with a major body at its heart.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate for FA?

Location of European Union institutions now certainly has a fair chance. Will you try? RCS (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell, i did it myself, see here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Location of European Union institutions. Cheers, RCS (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, good point. Worth a shot, lets see how it goes. Thanks for your work on it! Strasbourg would be rather lacking without you.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy or not?

• Open letter by Strasbourg's mayor to Cohn-Bendit concerning the seat of the European Parliament
• (Well-made) StrasTV video defending the seat
• Some courteous bloke putting forward Pro-Strasbourg arguments

Cheers, RCS (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

if they present an argument not yet in the article or the involvement of a new figure then sure. Though I can't read that detail due to my poor French, so I'll leave it in your hands this time. I'll write in the details if you give the facts if you'd prefer but I can't get them out myself and be sure it is what is actually said. Thanks for the research though.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

here you are. ~Cheers, RCS (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the others, if you happen to find English versions we could just put them straight in the external links. Or should we perhaps put them in anyway on the off chance the reader knows French?- _J.Logan`^t: 10:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Added this one into the article. I got the same information from the horse's mouth (well, one of the horses) more than a decade ago. I mentionned it on the talk page, if you remember. RCS (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember it coming up somewhere else, but haven't a clue where. Very pragmatic I'd say, and interesting considering everyone things Brussels is grey and boring (if both are correct, then Strasbourg must cause you to die of boredom - not an image I got when I was there but everyone was partying because France won the semi final).- _J.Logan`^t: 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so boring, but what night-life there is is mostly student's night-life, so it is indeed not very thrilling for middle-aged eurocrats. Night pubs and bars for people over 25 (okay, 30) are indeed rather rare. RCS (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This actually was the real reason why the MEPs shortened their stay in Strasbourg by a full day each session (which lasted until friday a few years ago): boredom. As i wrote on the talk page, it is no wonder that Cecilia Malmström is so especially vocal against Strasbourg: who if not a young woman from a country where alcohol is expensive and the people mild-mannered to the point of softness (a part on that topic) wouldn't be against a city as quiet as Strasbourg? Even suburb riots and islamist expansion are way more spectatcular in Brussels. --RCS (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do remember though its not just the middle aged MEPs but all their younger staff that have to suffer the trips. I think they would be a decent force demanding better nightlife. Maybe if Parliament was there all the time the night life might develop to cater for them - but part time. Well I can understand their frustration. Still, from experience of Sweden I doubt Strasbourg would want all the Nordics drinking all night - due to the price of it in Sweden none of them can actually hold their drink. If they were as naturally inconsiderate as Brits I'm sure they'd have a worse reputation than them when drinking abroad.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when do staffers have the right to have their say in European matters? Come on! You should know better about what authoritarianism there is inside EU institutions. RCS (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh but in practice those staffers have the ear of the MEPs every waking moment. Soft power remember, its not just confined to diplomacy.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All images of Belgian buildings to be deleted?

You'd probably want to check out this - SSJ ☎ 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Have commented. Would be a dangerous precedent, we need to defeat it fast. Damn Belgians and their copyright law!- _J.Logan`^t: 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, the anti-panorama laws are absurd. How on earth would anybody benefit from them? Nobody except wikimedians cares about them or know that they exist. - SSJ ☎ 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurodistrict

Hello J, as i said i won't have time personally to enhance the article the next days, but here is a link to a website featuring several articles on the Eurodistrict: http://www.relatio-europe.eu/strasbourg-europe/eurodistrict. Cheers, RCS (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Once I have the time to read through and translate I'll see what we can use.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft report

Thanx for the link & message. Initial thoughts are:

• Point 1: About bloody time
• Point 2a: I'll contact User:Barryob: we'll need new maps for Spain (45m), Romania (22m) and Germany (82m)
• Point 2b: That'll cheer up the Catalans.
• Point 2f: The idea of a single EU constituency has been floated before in the 90's, and was shot down. It's an...interesting idea. From memory, Welsh Assembly elections are done on a similar basis, voting for a subconstituency and larger constituency simultaneously.
• Point 2g: Standing on more than one list for more than one constituency: are they nuts? What happens if the same person gets elected twice?
• Point 2i: So elections on Saturday and Sunday only? So, we're going to upset the Christians and the Jews. That'll work...
• Point 2j: May? Tricky. There's at least one Jewish holiday in May, there's the possibility of Easter, plus May Day and Beltane. So we've upset Moses, Jesus Christ, Karl Marx and Willow-from-Buffy. Ouch.
• Point 4,5,6: that'll cheer up the expatriate Eastern Europeans.

Still, it's for the 2014 elections, so no need to worry just yet.

Sorry for the lack of work recently, but I'm armpit deep in upgrading EPP-ED (see this for how it looks so far). I've tried drawing barcharts by member state and group (like your election result barchart) but it looks like an explosion in a paint factory (8 groups, 27 member states). I'll try a choropleth map, and hope nobody notices Malta is just too small to depict. Have you been following the Lisbon debate in Ireland? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I tried bar charts, overlapping bar charts, line graphs, cumulative bar charts, and they all looked ick. It is possible to depict the results for all groups and member states on one diagram, but it's not comprehensible at a 250px footprint. It can be done with pie charts where the circle area varies by number of seats and slap the 27 pie charts onto one diagram positioned by geographical location, but you can't do it in Excel in one go, and I'd have to produce 27 pie charts and shrink/enlarge each one manually: t'would have taken me hours. So I gave up and did a choropleth for just EPP-ED. It looks like the diagram on the right.
• Colors and scale were chosen to be distinguishable from a reasonable distance and to cope with the biggest (EPP-ED, smallest support: 7% Denmark) and smallest (IND/DEM, largest support: 13% UK). I have a horrible feeling I should have gone from dark to light rather than light to dark, but it's too late now.
• I love diagrams like this: u can tell at a glance far more than a table can (eg it reveals straight off that EPP-ED's biggest %age support is Eastern Europe). When I get the diagrams done for t'other groups and place them side-by-side, well...wheee!
• Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No porb, I looked at that page and it looks good. We could do with such data, good work. And yes, no rush. This is a report for 2014 and it comes from Andrew Duff as well, who has a habit of living in the clouds.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree regarding 2i (Christians never had problems with voting on Sundays) and 2j; the Jewish holidays affect only orthodox jews, who have been known to be willing to compromise in such special circumstances (see the upcoming Canadian election). —Nightstallion 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The last report I read from the UK indicated that there was little opposition to weekend voting from religious groups, considering its advantages, and the UK would be moving its voting days accordingly.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting segue: what is the distribution of voting days worldwide? Is there a most popular day of the week, or are they evenly spread? Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Done!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strasbourg-Ortenau&diff=244327479&oldid=243185554. Please check and correct the language where necessary. Cheers, RCS (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, J. RCS (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I didn't see that note at all. Great work, I've checked through it and done the odd fix here and there, mainly date formatting. Thanks!- _J.Logan`^t: 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Spanish European Commissioner

I have nominated Spanish European Commissioner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of DYK

A discussion is going on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_4 to nominate articles to appear on WP:DYK. One of the nominated articles is Political foundation at European level, which I have just written. Given that you have expressed an interest in this subject or related ones (Europarties/Eurogroups) over the past year, I thought you might wish to go there and comment, either for or against. This is a neutrally worded message falling under the "Friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poll gives second Lisbon referendum chance of passing

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking48.htm is it worth getting exited again about post-Lisbon universe again? - SSJ ☎ 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh they'll do what's necessary to get it through. We've been rather well distracted of late into thinking it had gone, but don't hold you're breath either way (though what I do think is that with recent events, the treaty is already out of date!)- _J.Logan`^t: 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its out-of-dateness, the only two options at the moment are the Treaty of Nice or the Treaty of Lisbon, and Nice prevents any further enlargement and mandates a reduction in the number of commissioners come Fall 2009. So unless Lisbon passes, somebody is going to lose a commissioner and Croatia is fubar'd. Not good.

I had a look at the latest poll, and it's reminiscent of the ones prior to the rejection: a narrow "Yes" majority but a lot of undecideds, who will inevitably vote "No" when they turn up to vote. I'm not sanguine about a Lisbon II delivering a "Yes", and given Fianna Fáil (the leading party in the Government coalition)'s poll ratings[10] are heading south muy gusto, I wouldn't hold my breath.

As for "they'll do what's necessary to get it through". er, J, I don't think you realise the scale of the problem. All roads to Lisbon lead thru Dublin & the Irish electorate, and nobody in the "Yes" camp is organising sufficient resources to convince them to vote "Yes". The "No" camp can come up with stuff like this [11] and nobody is offering counterpoint. The "No" camp have tons of money to spend and Declan's having the time of his life, feted by the Czech President[12], speaking to Oireachtas committees[13], forming Europartys and Eurofoundations.[14] Hopefully Sinn Féin will one day wake up and realise they've allied themselves with a strikebreaking Thatcherite whose backers want nothing more than Gerry's head on a stick and covered with honey, but - hey - why bother with rational thought when it's so much easier to blame the Union?

A good working definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome. Given the lack of resources of the "Yes" camp, and the propensity of the "No" camp to lie thru its teeth, why think the second vote will be any different to the first?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not Lisbon or Nice like it is black of white. There are numerous of minor or major changes they could make to the treaty which would easily get it passed (though do long term damage) and then there are loads of things in Lisbon which they could push on with without the treaty. If for whatever reason the treaty does die, the idea of reform will hence not be put aside and lots would be done without a treaty as I just said and they'd start work on something different - some mini treaties maybe attached to accession treaties or a treaty in response to the financial crisis. There are a billion and one different things that could happen but I am sure that a majority of the changes in the treaty will be pushed forward within 5 years one way or the other.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As to whether or not the treaty will be passed or not, everything depends on how smart and pro-active the pro-campaign will be. Hopefully more people realise what a hypocrite Ganley (in many different ways) is. The issue of 'retaining Ireland's commissioner' was a factual concern; the European Council will probably agree to let that happen. When a year has passed, after many czech bloopers, Libertas' failure to get an EP seat and Iceland's candidacy, Irish people probably won't pay that much attention to Sinn Féin's "no means no". Hopefully. - SSJ ☎ 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(EDID CONFLICT): The most important thing is that the political parties realise how crappy their campaing was. Instead of putting emphasis on the claim that "increased military capabilities" cannot possibly mean a 'militarisation' of the EU, they need to explain how the EU can be a greater force of good, in line with the UN's wishes, if more (peace-keeping) forces are available. - SSJ ☎ 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT CONTINUED):Woah, don't even think of going there unless you want Lisbon II to fail in a landslide. The Irish electorate value Ireland's neutrality very highly. If you say "EU armed forces can be a force for good", all the Irish electorate will hear is "EU armed forces can be a force..." and stop listening immediately. Even with an Irish opt-out to the common defense commitment, the Irish electorate will still disapprove of any EU activity that feels military, even if Ireland isn't involved. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with your above points in order:

Point	Counterpoint
"...It is not Lisbon or Nice like it is black of white..."	For the next year it is, unless somebody's cooking up another treaty v.v.fast. The next Commission will be convened under Lisbon (if it gets thru) or Nice (if it doesn't).
"...There are numerous of minor or major changes they could make to the treaty..."	True
"...which would easily get it passed..."	Not true. Without an organization on the ground advocating a "Yes" vote, the "No" advocates usually win: it's a free gift. The EU has got to start advocating directly to the public: leaving it to the member states governments isn't working. Maastricht (rejected by the Danes), Nice (Irish), Constitution (French, Dutch), Lisbon (Irish again). Delors took the Maastricht rejection seriously and handled it, but Barroso is just prating pointlessly.
"...(though do long term damage)..."	That's kinda the point, isn't it...
"...If for whatever reason the treaty does die, the idea of reform will hence not be put aside..."	...and it'll go to a treaty, and somebody somewhere will hold referenda, and one of them will be lost, and here we go again...
"...some mini treaties maybe attached to accession treaties or a treaty in response to the financial crisis..."	...and somebody somewhere will hold referenda, and one of them will be lost, and here we go again...
"...There are a billion and one different things that could happen but I am sure that a majority of the changes in the treaty will be pushed forward within 5 years one way or the other..."	I wish I shared your confidence.
"...everything depends on how smart and pro-active the pro-campaign will be..."	They could be Einsteins on steroids, but if they haven't got money they'll get nowhere. The "No" campaign have got money coming out of their nethers, which means press conferences, rallies, posters, everything. The "Yes" campaign has got €3.42. Who do you think is gonna win? Rumsfeld was wrong: stuff doesn't just happen. Referenda don't pass/fail by themselves, people have to give reasons for voting yes/no. What is Wallstrom doing with that money, apart from blogging about Obama? Has one euro gone anywhere to anybody that results in one pro-EU poster going up in Dorset Street? No.
"...When a year has passed, after many czech bloopers, Libertas' failure to get an EP seat..."	Libertas will get at least one Ireland seat, and may get one in France, although he'll get slaughtered in the UK (he'll split the Eurosceptic vote and mess UKIP up).
"...Iceland's candidacy..."	Is that a serious possibility? More to the point, is it a serious possibility in the next twelve months?

Sorry to vent, but I'm crabbed. Apols, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Iceland will probably issue an application early next year.[15] Wallstrom is active, not just on her blog. E.g. [16] More people like her are needed in Irish politics; informed and charismatic people who can debate effectively. She actually doesn't seem arrogant. The reason why she, along with most other politicians in Europe didn't invade Ireland to campaign for a Yes, was that the governement wanted it to be 'a national debate'. That was probably a mistake; if LePen and Nigel Farage came to Ireland, Ganley's claim to be pro-european would seem even more ridicolous. - SSJ ☎ 20:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up over Iceland: I really should read up more. As for Margot's activities...er, appearing before an invited audience with a sympathetic interlocutor in a webcast is way less than she should be doing. Nice person. Wrong job. You are correct that the cordon sanitaire around Ireland during Lisbon I was a mistake: it left the field clear for the antis, who partied like it was Xmas. You are correct that every intervention by a British politician for the "No" side increases the "Yes" vote (I keep praying William Hague writes another letter). Nigel Farage would be a gift, but he's too smart to do that. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Okay...

"everything depends on how smart and pro-active the pro-campaign will be": Granted if you get the best salespeople in the world, you could sell anything to anyone - but having a product people want is also another major factor...

"political parties realise how crappy their campaing was": this is the main issue, that in general governments and parties have no real desire to explain the fundamentals of the EU, as they just want to win the immediate vote. The politicians who neglected to keep the public informed and aware of the facts of the EU over the past half-century are not around to be held accountable to the increasing number of no votes.

"For the next year it is": world doesn't end after a year, and certainly not the EU. Everything drags out with the EU, there is no point looking at the short term.

Response to "...which would easily get it passed...": Oh come on, we have the research. You provide some solution to the two ro three of the top five issues and you can get the Irish to vote yes. So long as they think their concerns are dealt with, the Irish are naturally pro.

"That's kinda the point, isn't it...": above point on neglect - though not an immediate issue with lisbon.

"here we go again..." Yes, but the next treaty may be passable. not every EU treaty has faced problems. The constitution was undermined by its name and Lisbon was undermined by the way it replaced the constitution. A fresh treaty would have an advantage over both - especially if framed as a response to the financial crisis.

"I wish I shared your confidence.": Not so much confidence, I am starting to think that if Lisbon comes in it will only make matters worse.

Wallstrom: a very overt spin doctor who is doing a crap job selling a crap product. The entire outreach activities of the EU are appalling and equally the attitudes of the politicians, cupeled by the flawed democratic system, have created a situation where even a master PR strategy would struggle to correct the EU's image.

Probably won't reply again for ages, way to bogged down to edit properly.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur: we both have too much to do to to-and-fro over this, although I do need to point out that the widely held assumption that the Irish are naturally pro may have been true 20 years ago, but I do get the feeling that it isn't true any more, and hasn't been for a few years now. Will talk to you later about alternate treaties should Lisbon II fail. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you seen that?

Cheers, --RCS (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, good pitcures but I'm not sure where we can use them, as much as I'd like. We need more text to give more space for pictures! :).- _J.Logan`^t: 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the de:Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt to reworke the pictures in order to diminish the percentage of blue coulour. So far they've done only two of them, but the result is quite good. I'll work the staircase into the article, and maybe the model of the room too. --RCS (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See here:

[edit] Renewed discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi,

I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area in the past. So I concluded that you might be interested to know that two editors currently push for a change in the article structure that is in conflict with the standing consensus resulting out of our past discussion.

The consensus was to include the EU entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). — Whereas the change that is currently pushed would result in moving the EU entry to the very end of the article, even after the references/sources table. The result can be seen here: [17].

The standing consensus was not my favorite solution, as I would like to include the EU into the very list (unnumbered), but I content myself with the standing compromise. Whether you agree to or oppose the change, I strongly feel that the article's structure should not be changed without a proper discussion and maybe even a new vote before changing the standing compromise. You might want to give your point of view in the current discussion at

Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area#Positioning_of_EU_.26_Antarctica_etc.

Cheers and take care, MikeZ (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Late Happy New Year !

Dear JLogan, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing, presumed busy IRL: one JLo.

OK, I give up: I figure you've either a) died, or b) have your typing hand trapped under a large boulder. U okay? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have been very very very busy, and also have not had consistent internet since around October time. Only just (yesterday) got it back again and and would be jumping right back in finishing all the things I started, however I think I am about to loose it once more. Very long story, needless to say it includes an awful lot of stress, though I hope get back here once I have been elected president and abolished estate agents and bureaucracy.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneers

http://www.atheisme.org/drapeau.html. Published in 2000. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, look at what's just in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seat_of_the_European_Parliament_in_Strasbourg&curid=9797560&diff=265543109&oldid=264225966. Ciao, ciao. --RCS (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

re Strasbourg, have you been seeing the recent events concerning oneseat? [18]- _J.Logan`^t: 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i have. And i have two explanations too : a) political crisis in Belgium, something that gives Europe a bad name; b) Brussels municipality going down harder on hotel prostitution [19]. --RCS (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Oh I don't think the first would be doing much but the second! Oh dare we include it?....- _J.Logan`^t: 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Read this: http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/prostitution.pdf. --RCS (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember something like that coming up a while ago, do you know what the response was? I'm assuming if MEPs are at it in big enough numbers they'll brush it under the carpet, what with there being no real argument for it that they could argue in public! "No, we don't agree with this, because my wife just isn't that satisfying you know...."- _J.Logan`^t: 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've browsed through the newspapers which have covered the issue recently, mostly Germans (Die Welt, Die Zeit, Focus). They all assume that the city that is meant is Strasbourg, because this is were the MEPs spend nights, but they admit that the letter is vague and general enough. MEPs who wouldn't talk about it and refused to sign the letter state that the subject, if discussed, would shed an unnecessary bad light on the institution. Pöttering being a devout catholic, the journos say, that letter was very hard for him to swallow and a month after he received it he was still struggling to find a suiting answer. Daniel Cohn-Bendit got into a row over this too, with a conservative MEP from Germany, which he accused of trying to distract from really relevant issues in order to push a reactionary agenda. Cohn-Bendit, of all people, he'd better shut up... remembre that book he wrote a long, long time ago... --RCS (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! Not sure where we could put it that it would be notable enough. General info on Brussels night life could be in Brussels and the European Union maybe? I'm sure there is somewhere we could talk about this, maybe pages on parliaments or prostitution in general? Interesting on the Pöttering point, makes me think of Queen Victoria, who refused to ban lesbianism along with male homosexuality because she didn't believe it existed. That or he is such a catholic in person he doesn't know how to say no without revealing he makes good use of call boys. After all, if he was a true Christian (if there are any around these days) he would not hesitate to support it. Anyway, it doesn't seem to fit into the locations debate, especially as it isn't clear as to which city we are talking about. Shame, a bit of talk about prostitution could spice it up and get a few more hits! - _J.Logan`^t: 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No content in Category:European peer review programme

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:European peer review programme, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:European peer review programme has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:European peer review programme, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charlemagne building

Were you aware of the existence of this photo: File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F046067-0010, EG-Gebäude, Haus Charlemagne, Sitz EG-Ministerrat.jpg? You could really use it some time! Cheers, --RCS (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Am poping it around now.- _J.Logan`^t: 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Europe/GA1&curid=21197115&diff=269581138&oldid=268085614. Cheers, RCS (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, if you don't react, this will not be a good article. Now, please! --RCS (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i dealt with the links i provided, but you can't ask me to find out on what date you accessed the links you provided. I mean, this is something you can do in your sleep, can't you? No offence meant, this said (even if it should go without saying). Cheers, RCS (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] THEY MUST BE CRAZY!!!

Go see this, please: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:EU-Parlament_von_hinten.jpg. I'm getting mad. --RCS (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment back then, fight it! Come on, a call to arms! Failing that, overthrow the French government!- _J.Logan`^t: 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not registered :-( --RCS (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, what about the unified account login thingy? Register, so we can add more voices - we risk loosing every EP picture we have! And I'm sure you need to register to overthrow the government too.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, i happen to be a sarkozyste, so you get me cornered here... --RCS (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for International status and usage of the euro

On February 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International status and usage of the euro, 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 02:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plans unveiled

I assume that you've read what's on EurActiv etc.. http://www.charlespicque.be/filearchive/bdc420a7a02812c09fe8380e530a490e.pdf and http://www.chdeportzamparc.com/ are the closest I've come to the sources of the reports. No. 5 won.

What do you think? What was the worst aspect of Rue de la Loi when you stood there; the four-lane traffic or the un-capitalish appearance of the glass and steel buildings? I think all the new buildings look like nice pieces of modern high-rise architecture, but I doubt they will provide new and worthy symbolism for Europe when they're aligned in a seemingly random order along the street. There's no unformity or 'governmental' characteristics. The essence of Washington can be photographed in one shot due to Capitol Hill. All EU office buildings look like anonymous (yet sometimes stylish) office buildings, and and all the institutional flagship buildings (perhaps with the exception of the hated Louise Weiss) look plain disgusting. The shape of Espace Léopold isn't that bad in itself, but it seems impossible for mortal citizens without a helicopter to photograph it from a nice and defining angle. And the surroundings are ridiculous.

The revamp will perhaps give TV journalists who are strutting in the roundabout a bit nicer backdrop, but no one knows or cares whether the stylish and anonymous high-rise buildings in the background were built for EU mandarins. The plans don't allocate a lot for the promised Maison d'europe. It might not be politically correct, but the human mind still responds to grandeur in architecture and city planning. Some references to European history, if not a big statue of Europa and the bull in the Leopold pond. - SSJ ☎ 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Its crap to be honest, it will just be a show case of architects showing off to each other on how whacky they can be. There will be no continuity or character and even if there was some symbolism, its in the wrong place. If you're a journalist or tourist in London for example, and you want to report on what the PM is doing, you stand outside Downing Street, not outside the Department for the Environment because it has a nicer building. From the point of view of someone in the area though, it will certainly be an improvement - however wider pavements may be more useful than a tramline running over a metro line - who's idea was that?! Where will it even go?? Some good improvements though, letsw hope they carry it over to the rest of the district with some symbolism. Maybe now everything is concentrated, we will get more free space in the rest of the area of that? Would be a nice change - they've built infront of this view of Parliament already. Place Jean Rey is a joke too and the car park next to it will be built on. Residents are blocking the only interesting idea - expanding the Pedestrian Mall of Parliament over the railway lines to the north - that would have created a great link. Of course, the only way to really deal with all this is to knock it down and start again - if only that wasn't very very very expensive.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know whether these plans are 'the master plan' or if there's something more? Are the EP and the Council involved at all? The reduction in number of lanes in the one end of Rue the la Loi must surely have implications for either the roundabout and/or the tunnel. I have no idea how much authority there was in the PDF that mentioned the enclosing of the nonsensical gaping motorway hole in Cinquantenaire, but if there is any plan that involves turning the roundabout into a pedestrian square, the 1 meter wide pavements would be widened - according to common sense.

I assume anyone who wants Brussels to be a worthy capital of Europe in terms of city planning, would want the Schuman roundabout to be the climax of symbolism. Though I'm not sure whether drawing attention to the Berlaymont would be the best idea; as long as the media doesn't differentiate between 'the EU' and all proposals coming from the Berlaymont, ordinary citizens won't know why it makes sense not to have a directly elected Commission - hence demonstrating outside the Commission shouldn't make sense. I'm sure the new Residence Palace will become the most beautiful building on Rue de la Loi, but Berlaymont will remain the biggest and most prominent building.

If Lisbon is ratified, the European Council's president MUST be appointed in line with the result of the EP election. And also, the Commission's president MUST be appointed in line with the EP result. There is nothing preventing the Council from giving both hats to one person. Hence, they could say that he/she was directly elected, and kill argument #1 in the art of eurosceptisism. And the Council's appointments are from QMV, not unanimity - so e.g. Jean-Claude Juncker has a chance of winning despite UK leaders suffering from red-topophobia. EPP, ELDR and PES could surely hold congresses with all their respective national member parties and decide to field just one politician each. National ministers aren't directly elected, they are appointed by prime ministers. - similarly, commissioners are appointed by the Commission's president. Suddenly all directorate-generals become like national ministries; under the control of one "commissioner/union minister" appointed by a directly elected EU president. Is the wet dream of federalism within reach? I'm aware that mainstream politicians in Ireland have been fighting to explain to citizens why Declan Ganley's absurd notion about a 'democracy-loving, federal Europe rising from the ashes of Lisbon' would be a bad thing that would override small member states like Ireland. Aside from the awfulness of all things Libertas; Power will always derive from member states, but I think QMV makes it safe enough to have a "consensus-driving" leader of the Council who also controls the shaping of legislation in the Commission. The Council's potential decision to merge the posts of the institutional presidents would certainly not be uncontroversial, but after 5 years of the confusion of powers that's 'accidentally' built into Lisbon, a merged Mr. Europe might well be justified. Am I right? Have you thought about this to? - SSJ ☎ 01:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First, they're already like national ministeries, just unelected. Secondly, the possibility of a joint President is ambigious as a compromise to enable both, it will be a while before the possibility is used. The Council president will never be appointed based on the EP election until it is combined a it was created sperete in order to appease the intergovernmentalists, to strengthen the intergovernmentmental side (as the High Rep was when it was created) and to compensate for the loss of influence over the appointment of the Commission president that the "election" phrase would cause. Maybe later, when they feel ready, the intergovernmentalists will are to combine the posts.

Back to the plan though, this is just one area. The full masterplan is for the whole quarter, not just the western end of the Rue de la Loi, and is yet to be elaborated in this way. And as the Berlaymont is the executive, and the Council as the other main body being opposite, Schuman makes the logical place to be symbolic. And it would be good for them to use the buildings, as it will be a visual que for each institution and hence help people to tell the difference.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would personally not be surprised if the QMV appointment of Council president would result in a joint President as early as 2014. I think most members of the Council are probably more than ready to accept it. Juncker, Merkel and Sarcozy would love it. I don't see who would be categorically intergovernmentalistic other than the UK.

On the plans; it's awesome if there is a master plan being developed for the whole quarter- But the e.g. the Parliament's secretariat hasn't been mantioned anywhere, has it? And what could the Council possibly do to facilitate the beautification? The best thing that could happen to the Leopold Quarter would be to demolish all ugly buildings from the Cold war, but is there really a need for EU office space that could justify that? The Council built Lex and the Parliament has built it's huge and unpleasant fortress isolated in the South. Regional governments probably don't just demolish buildings for the sake of taste. And Leopold park will probably not be revamped, it has some historic buildings. ...and BTW Cinquantenaire will never be extended to the roundabout, which is sad. ...and BTW₂ do you have a link to some more info on what's going to be built on the carpark next to Place Jean Rey? - SSJ ☎ 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Chris Patten EC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris Patten EC.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. 86.54.40.139 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (File:Sandra Kalniete EC.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Sandra Kalniete 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) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (File:Walter Hallstein 1963.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Walter Hallstein 1963.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) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heard on Radio France Internationale

Hello, apparently both Martin Schulz and Dany Clown-Bendit want to change the European Parliament's rule on the "eldest member" in order to prevent Jean-Marie Le Pen (81) to become the next one. Basically, i think this is only silly posturing, because they could have thought of changing this rule already a while ago instead of in the eleventh hour. On the other hand, having a convicted Holocaust denier opening the EP's first session of the new period is a terrible thought. What is your opinion? --RCS (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The position means squat, hardly anyone has even heard of it. But it could be used to make a fuss of course if he wants to say more than he is supposed to. However, I am worried that anti-democratic sentiment is becoming more acceptable when dressed up as squashing fascists. Do they even have time to do this? I supposed they left it so late because they thought he'd stand down or something. I say, they should try harder and stick an OAP at the top of one of their lists rather than change the rules every time the fascists make even a meagre gain using the legitimate system. You make a fuss out of this, you're probably helping Le Pen more than yourself.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what they want to introduce now is the "youngest member" (i kid you not). And the day the youngest MEP turns out to be an aspiring Heinrich Himmler, they'll find something else... Pathetic. --RCS (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He is isn't he, that young Bulgarian chap who was one of the xenophobes that set up ITS.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention of course, if you find a web source, lets stick the debate up as we have very little data right now.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A web source? Plenty: http://news.google.com/news?ned=fr&ncl=1295741674. --RCS (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And in English: http://news.google.com/news?ned=fr&hl=en&ncl=1319830413. --RCS (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done: Father of the House#European Union- _J.Logan`^t: 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record; this: http://www.epp-ed.eu/Press/showpr.asp?PRControlDocTypeID=1&PRControlID=8454&PRContentID=14665&PRContentLG=en. --RCS (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EP photos "free of copyright"

This might be very interesting; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/freetext_page_press/20050818FTX00221-1202/default_en.htm also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOLs7uGKKRU at 2:00. I haven't registered. - SSJ ☎ 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hole on, we went to them before, I emailed them. There is a problem I'm sure. Ah, I've checked my emails on it, another editor emaied them to check it and they said it can't be modified, their reply when I wrote to check this was "Our photos are actuality or historical photos, it's not necessary to

modify them. You can resize them or make a light colour correction if you need. If you really want to modify them you can send me a copy before publication and I'll agree or not with it." (as this I think was because of us defacing politicans in a negative manner or something. There should be a debate in the Common's archives.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[20]- _J.Logan`^t: 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I recall that debate. It's incredible that the AV service has such a loose and twisted definition of 'copyright'. The spanking new video literally says "these photos are free of copyright". I know we tried to avoid the clueless "contact us for a permission" employees by sending an email to Wallstrom, but we could try again, after getting some input from people at e.g. the Commons village pump. Persuation to get someone to join Creative Commons seems to be a specialised art; there must surely be someone on Commons with a simple, friendly and effective formula. If we aftewards add the arguments on how it would help the EU etc., and simply provide a link to http://creativecommons.org/ to show that this is a mainstream lisence, the chance of success would probably be better than last time. - SSJ ☎ 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No stress though, if you don't think it'll work. - SSJ ☎ 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We probably won't get them to change anything formally, just convince them to drop any request regarding modifying - or challenge them over their advertising? I don't know, but I don't have the time to sort deal with it now. I'll see if I can get onto it in a week or two.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Very important

[21] - SSJ ☎ 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] News

[22]. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could forget Maurice for just a moment - is this news for you, or old hat? Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I keep missing these and forgetting to reply. I'm not sure what to do about it, I've been hearing bits here and there but how it include? What we really need to do is a full overhaul of the MEP article to get this data in. But to be honest I don't have the energy for such a big haul - I'm too disorganised and know I won't keep to it. I'd say let it pass for now, it is not a major event but keep it in mind if anyone does get round to doing the article - though if they did I think they would need to be a whole separate article on MEPs expenses. Thanks for bringing it up though, sorry I don't have the concentration right now.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I don't have answers, I have suggestions to your questions: please let's discuss it.

Hi JLogan,

thanks for your contribution to wikipedia:

(cur) (prev) 09:31, 23 April 2009 JLogan (talk | contribs) m (50,633 bytes) (exactly how is an election on the other side of the world going to influence a transnational election in Europe which doesn't even seem to be influenced by its own domestic politics???)

I saw you deleted my contribution to European Parliament election, 2009:

(cur) (prev) 07:13, 23 April 2009 Maurice Carbonaro (talk | contribs) m (50,684 bytes) (Added * Indian general election, 2009 that is taking place right now. Results of those elections may influence european ones that will take place at the beginning of june 2009.) (undo).

In order to try to answer to your (sarcastic?) question (with three question marks) that motivated your deletion of my contribution, please let's switch to a discussion the topic in the European parliament discussion page.

Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth European Parliament

Re: your message on my talk page. I've thrown together the skeleton of an article here. It's not an article per se, it's just a suggested structure and links to places where the detail can be filled in (so please don't say something like "but that's the Capitol, not the Louise Weiss Building!" <grin>) Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please, JLogan: let's try to discuss with moderation. Thank you.

Dear Dear _J.Logan`^t,

I am starting to think that our Talk about the European Parliament election, 2009 it's a bit degenerating to flaming.
Please let's both try our best for discuss it moderately.
Maybe we should switch to our "private" talk pages instead.

I am quoting from your yesterdays revision:

(cur) (prev) 11:48, 25 April 2009 JLogan (talk | contribs) (40,685 bytes) (stop creating new discussions every time you reply) (undo)

This is the revision where you deleted some of what I wrote:

"== Trying to motivate my editing that was deleted by JLogan =="

I understand that talking about politics is a very sensitive topic.
Like it is talking about sexuality and religion as well: for example right now there is a referendum taking place in Berlin.

(Link to British google news with "Referendum Berlin" keywords results)

But I don't think (at least up to this moment) that you seemed very interested in discussing without imposing your P.O.V.s.
If you want me to stop further discussion with you, you are kindly invited to ask it to me adding "please" (for example).
Please consider that you have allready deleted two of my contributions:

1. one in the main article page and
2. one in the discussion page
   

in a way that doesn't seem to me you have motivated yet thoroughly.

In the meantime I am strongly and kindly encouraging you to take a quick look at the Non Proliferation Treaty wikipedia article before engaging in non-constructive behaviour towards me.

Thanks for your attention.
Yours faithfully.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Removing your numerous talk headers is hardly comparable to any notion of removing contribution. It is merely organisation, stop finding things to complain about. 2) You may criticise my POV but this is all about opinions. You wanting to include the link is POV so don't complain about my points when you don't have any backing to your POV claims.

I know I;m not being very civil but this is rather getting on my nerves. Now please stop blowing this issue up or actually respond to my argument without the use of pointless decorations both visual and linguistic.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Now they did it

[23]. Not that i disapprove it, mind.--RCS (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw, seems bloody stupid though. Have they thought about what happens if none of the vice president's get elected? Small chance but the old rule was solid, this is awful. le Pen to be President, change the rules, they form a group, change the rules, they win an election? Abolish democracy? I'm with Watson on this, actually try to campaign against his election in the first place than just lift the bar every time they make a gain.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

JLogan:

I am interested in cleaning up and fleshing out the DG MARE(formerly DG FISH)article, but as I am new to editing I thought it best to ask someone's permission - or at least get some sort of consent.

Should I just dive in?

Deepbluepr (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is open to all. So long as it isn't vandalism or false of course. If you're worried, ensure its all cited.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EU Motto: Join us or die!

Hi

Today it was European Parliament elections around here (Hungary). I checked on the EU article on Wikipedia just for some information and what do I find?

Some cheeky anti-EU fellow edited the EU motto to "Join us or die!"... I reverted it to the real one...

Cheers, Aron Budapest, Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.70.7 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maerlant convent

Hey,

I read your article about the Maerlant Convent. I'm very interested because I'm doing research about the congregation that founded the convent.

In one of your footnotes you mentioned to have documents of the congregation. Is that correct?

Sincerly, liesl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesl81 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

footnote 2 and 3 are mine, the first one which I think you are referring to was included was included by another editor.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does Alliance for Europe of the Nations still exist?

JLo, hi! Long time, no talk. I'm updating Alliance for Europe of the Nations and trying to find out whether it still exists. Any idea?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, buggered if I know. Their site isn't maintained but it was silent even when it was working. Could email them and ask I suppose, theoretically it is still there I suppose but maybe dormant or de facto defunct. - _J.Logan`^t: 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, it never occured to me to just ask them ("Hi! Do you still exist?"). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bada-bing. No reply yet. Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jerzy Buzek

Hello J, just one question :w hat do you think of the Europeans having elected such an old PEP? He's not senile, of course, but at 69 he is the second oldest ever elected (after Pflimlin). Old presidents or old popes usually indicate that a period of transition has started, maybe this is why (Lisbon treaty, etc.) Cheers, --RCS (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:EP_Groups_1979-2009.png

Apologies for the delay. Yep, looks good. The 14 July definitive results[24] are:

• EPP 265 36.0%
• S&D 184 25.0%
• ALDE 84 11.4%
• GREENS/EFA 55 7.5%
• ECR 55 7.5%
• GUE/NGL 35 4.8%
• EFD 32 4.3%
• NA 26 3.5%
• Total 736 100.0%

I want to get this finished and in mainspace, but nothing's stable enough: 'stallion's nagging me about EFD and EUDemocrats. I'll try to get this into mainspace by mid next week, then I'll work out what Rule 29 (now 30) was over the years, then I'll update political groups of the European Parliament late next week. Sorry for the delay, but some freelance work's come in (yay!). How's thing's holding up your end? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MEP totals differ

It seems that the EP now gives two different totals. Compare this [25] and this [26]. 55 ECR and 26 NI vs. 54 ECR and 27 NI. I think the second source was updated later (16 July 2009 at 12:43 CEST). The first does not give a time, but states "However, there may be a temporary difference between the official number of seats and the actual number of Members". If you look at [27] you will see there is a difference in a UK Conservatives seat. What source must we use? Grioghair (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is because of EM-S being kicked out of the tories. People think he has moved out of ECR as a result but not yet. Yet sometimes the EP page lags behind reality for a few days. TO keep things accurate, only give the seats shown on the EP website or it gets very messy figuring out who has moved where.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Just a little inspiration..

Ok, these are not 'requests', just something you could think about:

• [28] Here's finally a good (to say the least) photo of the northern business quarter. Perfect angle. It might have been taken from the Belgacom building, but it's certainly taken from the north. Madou is in the background. - SSJ ☎ 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, [29] - SSJ ☎ 21:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• ..plus [30], which might have been taken at 50°50′22″N 4°22′11″E / 50.83944°N 4.36972°E / 50.83944; 4.36972. - SSJ ☎ 22:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• A more accessible tallrise viewpoint might be Hilton Hotel at 50°50′14″N 4°21′27″E / 50.83722°N 4.3575°E / 50.83722; 4.3575. - SSJ ☎ 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• A 360 degree panorama (just in case you decide to go into the business of making those) from [31] could be perfect illustration for the esplanade, though perhaps a super wide lense is needed if the roofs of the building are not to be cropped off. - SSJ ☎ 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• A more straight on shot of the old station could be useful, for example in explaining the shape of Paul-Henri Spaak. - SSJ ☎ 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am intending to do most though on the last two, I don't think my camera can handle doing a 360, it can barely do a 180 without messing it up. And I have been trying to get the last one for ages but I have a problem, the photo needs to be taken in the middle of the road to get that angle and there are loads of busses. Later in the night when there is less traffic the sun is coming from behind and you glare glare of the glass. Loads of other problems too, but don't worry, I'm going to keep trying, I'm very determined to make the shot work.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, even bigger problem on getting a panorama of the esplanade. The huge sloping (when you're they're its like a lumpy bedspread) combined with the circular walkway means there are so many places for errors to crop up. I could barely stick together two very similar photos, no chance of me getting anything impressive there without better equipment. Got a few good ones on Place du Luxembourg though;

• File:Place du Luxembourg 889 Aligned.jpg
• File:Place du Luxembourg 889 Aligned Cropped.jpg
• File:Place du Luxembourg 889 Wide.jpg
• File:Place du Luxembourg Panorama 889.jpg

Few others, but these are the best.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, those are really nice photos! And what a terrific weather. Too bad John Cockeril is such a random person. - SSJ ☎ 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what happens when you stick the capital of Europe in Belgium. I really think they should replace him with someone European - but then again he does have some cross border credentials. The only statues we have though are Belgian ones, except for the Europe one (which is popular with tourists but they don't put any information up about it - I had to go round all the offices asking if anyone in Parliament knew what it was even called. But now, all they want to do is name buildings. There is a perfect spot for something in the centre of the mall, beautiful place for a monument... or Schuman roundabout, why that is empty I have NO IDEA!!- _J.Logan`^t: 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

These statues are kind of stylish though.. But the rest is awful, such as this spaghetti-haired, corpsy Europa riding some strange rusty raindeer (it can't be a bull). And of course this nonsensical shit. - SSJ ☎ 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The people responsible are clearly hesitant when it comes to giving the EU a symbolic face in terms of sculptures. They keep it vague. I don't thing anyone believes that old-fashoned sculptures would fit in the roundabout or the esplanade, but it must shurely be possible to make something that's stylish, modern, BIG and WORTHY at the same time. My bet is that we'll see something when the EU is reformed and the Rue de la Loi is revamped. - SSJ ☎ 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be an old style one, but there have been modern sculptures of people - and I don't mean abstract. You take an old sculpture, redo the plinth with modern design in mind and change their clothing/looks to modern and they'd fit right in. Parliament more than anyone is keep for a symbolic face, they're in their bubble where the EU is loved, but they're as rubbish as the Belgians when it comes to planning and implementing. We'll only see something when a) there is someone competent in charge (which I don't think Belgium or the EU has ever had) and if politicians feel there is public backing for spending on this kind of thing. That I think will come round from acceptance and hence from democratic responsiveness which will come about from a functioning party system which right now does not exist. You could however get around the problem of spending by avoiding tax payer funds. I.e. (and I've suggested this and they like it but can't be bothered it sounds like) set up a public donations fun for a monument on Schuman roundabout. Those who willingly donate get to vote on which design is built. That way it is funded and influence entirely voluntarily - no one can complain about tax payer money and it is also a symbol of European citizens caring.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Organised funding sounds like a brilliant idea. And you're absolutely right, what the EU needs is a functioning party system. A competent Council President and a more relevant post-Lisbon parliament would surely help. Even if Lisbon doesn't politicise the EP positively to that extent, we'll have a new council president who cares at least more about the city he/she lives in. The drive for beautification of Brussels will be even stronger if the president has opinions that ultimately boil down to federalism (which is likely since we're talking QMV). - SSJ ☎ 19:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Think you're hoping too much. Maybe they'd do something about the horrible Council building but how much has the Commission president accomplished? meh, the Council president is too dangerous for my liking, usurping the power of the Commission President who's mandate the EP is only just bringing under control. they keep saying one face instead of two but they usually create three more in the process. One Council-Commission president with a democratic mandate, backed up by a functioning responsive european party system. Only then will the public accept it and the sceptics be pulled in to the extent we can do something decent.19:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the not-so-much-heralded theory of combined presidency. This paper argues against one. I have only read parts of it, but I think the conclusion boils down to "we need separate institutions". I personally think the EU needs to take a walk on the wild side with this issue; in Norway the idea of separation of powers originally said the parliament must not be in contact with the government. This principle was ignored early on and it has worked out since. Similarly, the EU (including the Council) must trust the EP elections and create a combined president in order to bring accountability and clarity all the way to the top in Brussels. The unification of Sarcozy's glitzy foreign-policy presidency and the Commission's ideologic leadership under the EU flag would be galvanising. I know we've talked about it before, but do we really know what EU governments think about this possibility today? The paper I mentioned is old. - SSJ ☎ 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the EU is still scary. Will it ever work out without a common language? It would be sad if Europe becomes another USA; a collection of funny English accents. I hope and believe that the Esperanto movement will use citizens' initiative ("directive on teacing Esperanto as a 2nd language in schools"). At least it would be fun to follow. :)- SSJ ☎ 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Esperanto is counter productive, just adding another language no one speaks and even if everyone knew it as a second language, it would retard out outward communication with the world which doesn't speak it and make us even more insular. I don't think language is the biggest problem, there are multilingual states. It is fascinating in a topic though, I am currently reading a history of Italian unification and the comparisons and discussions are fantastic. Arguments over whether Italy is a nation, with most people saying it is just a geographical expression, a populous that doesn't care, dialects so different they are different languages (Italian itself was very much a dead language then) and regional difference and rivalrys making unification - can the same government work for the north and south? A particuarly interesting point beting unitary or federation? Regional differences should be representeted in a federation, to make it closer to the people's differences, or a unitary state to overcome and compensate for those differences and create a strong nation. We all know what happened with Italy of course, but different stories with German unification, Switzerland, national building in France, American history... one thing that really retards the EU right now I imagine is that national building is out of fashion. Every other nation has been forced from on high, created by rulers. That is something the EU is not allowed to do and rightly so as that is what it is against. So it makes for fun viewing, I want to see how it turns out, pity I can't fast forward.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any exciting development ahead on the language front in the EU. English is going to dominate, and increasingly influence other EU languages. Esperanto wouldn't be "just another language". Esperanto is the perfect second language, because it's super easy, and it doesn't imply quasi-imperialism by another country. I don't like the fact that European politicians are striving to speak oxford english, and especially so because Britain is eurosceptic. Even though there's no urgent problem, it's embarrasing for many. I bet the South American Union would love a common non-english langue too, and similarly the African Union. The whole point of Esperanto is that it is neutral, which is perfect for 2nd languages. Europe can afford the transition, and might well influence other regions of the world in making such a desition. I'm not sure how the language issue works out in Switzerland, but Belgium is certainly a linguistic failure. What language would an EU presidential candidate from Poland speak in a televised debate? Macaronic French or macaronic English without doubt. I don't like that. - SSJ ☎ 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against English as a language or England in general, but IMO in an ideal future, laughable English accents aren't something we have to hear from the mouths of European politicians. I honestly hate listening to Barrosso's English. - SSJ ☎ 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an almighty ruler would necessarily be 'needed' if the EU were to be completely unified. A classical non-violent unification/nation-building method would be to worship and underline what all Europeans have in common in terms of history etc. Charlemagne and democracy are good topics, but the most hard-hitting examples, such as the Roman empire, are of course representing the opposite of what the EU wants to be percieved as, and alread tabooified by Mussolini. Additionally, not that a sane person would want the EU to use it had it been available, but Hitler has already used the race card in Europe's collective awareness. - SSJ ☎ 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, the mosaic by Aligi Sassu inside the dome obviously sounds like a tasty photograph, I assume you're also thinking. Wasn't the European Parliament a building that's relatively open to the public? I'd presume especially so now when the MEPs haven't assembled yet. We've already got some excellent photos of the hemicycle, but if you decide to go there again, a wider version of File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 42.JPG could perhaps also be good. - SSJ ☎ 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've found the mosaic on the web, it's called Miti del Mediterraneo. Doesn't look that good (à la mediocre church painting anno 1990s).. But (the dome interior is) still interesting.. - SSJ ☎ 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re language, regardless of whether you like it or not much of the world already converses in English, it would be a waste of time to switch to yet another language. Think of all these Wikipedia articles that would have to be translated from scratch - all by people using it as a second language. Jobs already half done, would be silly to start it again and I'm not just speaking as an English speaker here, I did start learning esperanto once myself. Have to put up with Barroso's English, though I hate American's English more I have to say!

National building is along the almighty ruler lines, any country that has not had its national identity imposed strongly from above is a shambles. The EU will always be a soft-state rather than a nation-state.

On the capital lines though, even though there is no national identity, there is something and I think Brussels does it no justice. There is so much of Belgium and Belgian history here, how can the whole of Europe really express itself? Demolish Belgium as it has done or tiptoe around the old buildings with its skyscrapers as it is planning to. The parks and monuments are no reflection of Europe, do we hijack these or pretend they don't exist. The recession and public rejections means it is no time to debate it, but eventually I think we need a purpose built city. IT could never be a grand metropolis leading a nation, but could still reflect Europe and its ambitions. A green self sustaining city that is built to symbolise Europe, a melting pot of ideas and nations. That, I think, or we split all the institutions across the whole of the continent, Parliament in Barcelona, Commission in Malmo, Council in Prage, Court in Athens... that I think is the "poly-centric" Europe the Strasbourg hotels claim is their goal.

I don't think the public can get to the dome, but if I ever get a job there, I'm going for a look!- _J.Logan`^t: 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If people believe that a united Europe should speak Esperanto, Latin, Interlingua or whatever, then introducing a new language is not a 'waste of time' to them. And then again if somebody thinks that every non-British European politician should try to speak English to the best of his/her ability, then of course introducing something else is a waste of time to them. The fact that English is very dominant in today's world is just one argument. For many people, this one argument doesn't erase all other arguments. Don't you understand why some romanticists would want all of Europe to speak Latin? For them, the convenience and efficiency of a world where everyone speaks English is irrelevant. Besides, Finnish and Israel's Hebrew are living examples of dead and constructed languages being successfully (re)introduced just a few decades ago. On nation building; Norway's 'national identity' was built in the 19th century on national romanticism and wasn't supported by any powerful authority. - SSJ ☎ 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a "poly-centric" Europe is just a recipe for a confusing, increadibly wasteful and increadibly inefficient EU.

The current situation with the EU in Brussels obviously creates dilemmas that leads one to think that a brand new city dedicated and designed as an EU melting pot and capital would be the ideal solution, but with the ever weaker Belgian identity and the possibility of a complete political disintegration, 'hijacking' will probably get easier. The Cinquantenaire does of course look good when EU flags are waving there, but uless Brussels becomes an EU protectorate and one imagines that 100 years have passed, it would never feel completely natural. I'd say: by all means, the EU should hijack all of Brussels if Belgium dies. But if Belgium survives, this awkward symbiosis between Belgium and the EU will continue, and a purpose built EU capital would be more desirable. A spanking new city would of course only be seen as gravy train on speed, with a touch of Welthauptstadt Germania madness. But I personally would of course love Hauptstadt Europa!

But I think it'll also work out for the EU in Brussels, even if Belgium remains. What's needed most badly now is competent and determined people in charge of city planning. A working parliamentary system and a double-hatted president with the force and credibility of Sarkozy's presidency will be enough to create the impression that Brussels is the capital leading Europe. The competent city planners could easily remove John Cockeril, Justus Lipsius, Paul-Henri Spaak's hair-raising wooden interior as well as well as the residents blocking the extension of the esplanade. And voilà, Brussels looks like Europe's capital also. - SSJ ☎ 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think it would work. You'd have to destroy all the history there and they've only just learnt not to do that, historical buildings of one small square of Europe can not represent the whole, and you can't explode Cinquantenaire (even if it is ugly in my opinion). You know the Wirtz museum next to the EP? The Belgian state is obliged by contract with Weirtz (yes, that old) to keep the building there, open and full of his paintings even though they only get about 10 visitors and they are school kids forced to go there.

And yes, a purpose built capital would be gravy train, which is why we need pubic backing for the EU first. However, the costs can be kept down by getting funds from a) neighbouring states who benefit through the commuter belt b) developers who will own non-state buildings and make money from the influx of people needing houses and shops c) renting direct to shops who then milk the highly paid eurocrats d) hotels, ditto and similar. e) selling the naming rights of roads (within limits) f) having monuments paid for by public donation. g) enticing other orgs like the CoE, ICC, UN, NATO to base themselves or branches in the city and so on.

Though right now, I'd just like them to make Brussels liveable.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you. A purpose built city would be the ideal solution. As far as one can say that architecture and city planning are linked with the EU's success, the EU dimension will never fully thrive in Brussels. But where would this new city be built? - SSJ ☎ 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My vote is the small peninsular on the border between Italy and Slovenia. Its between east and west, largly underdeveloped (yet not virgin nature so not too bad to build there), very beautiful (Adriatic coast means good skylines), not far from some medium sized cities (including Venice and, importantly, its airport meaning good transport and already tourists in the area), its central east-west although not north-south (though I think the fact is it nice and sunny there counterbalances that fact!) and is symbolically near Yugoslavia - a big failure/potential success. Downsides though is it would cost a lot to link up decent highspeed connections through the Alps and is remote from the large metropolitan area in the north west.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That does look like the ideal place for Europe's capital on the overview map, but isn't it terribly close to Trieste? If there's an historic city that close by, why wouldn't a remote area in the Brussels region be just as good? I personally have problems with associating the EU with beaches, but clearly a nice climate there though! I though about 53°52′40″N 40°17′51″E / 53.87778°N 40.2975°E / 53.87778; 40.2975, but essentially these could be my criterias for Europe's ideal purpose-built capital:

• Stunning scenery (canals, big rivers, mountains etc.) for good images.
• Not ridiculously much rain or wind, some sunny days in the year.
• I personally associate cool central/norther-European weather with international busines and politics, and (rather unsurpisingly considering I'm a Northern European) I'd prefer such weather for Europe's capital.
• Like you said, the populous centras of Europe are in the North-West. The capital shouldn't be too far away from those masses.
• The capital should at the same time not be to far from the geographical centre of Europe.
• For the sake of safety, a location within the Inner Six might be preferred. The capital should at least not be placed in Turkey or a Eurosceptic country. The EU must be able to trust a loyal national government if the capital is within a traditional nation state.
• A city state should be seriously considered.
• No preexisting buildings that are worth keeping.
• Infrastructure such as an airport can be built. I'm more worried about where the inhabitants are going to come from.

- SSJ ☎ 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break

Erm, that link points to a small forest outside Moscow....

It is close to Trieste, but I figure we could do with a normal established city near by, just a tiny bit outside the city, so we have somewhere to start with with the satellite towns. As for weather, I think people will like it more if it is sunny and hence it would more easily agreed upon and gain more tourists (source of income). Whereever though, it will need coast, large rivers or hills. Brussels is so flat it doesn't provide much of a background or many viewing points across the city. Think; Paris has hills around it to see the Effiel Tower, London has the Thames providing a distanced view of Parliament, Venice is an island where you can see the tower etc towering above it. Rio, coast line and hills in the background. A lot of places round the Benelux, hence in the middle of the metropolitan area, are very very flat and boring.

As for the state, don't think of it so much as a reward, but as a tool. Thethree EUropean capitals right now are very pro-European partly because it is on their doorstep and they gain financially from it. Locate it in a sceptical memberstate, maybe you can do the same thing. Don't think there is much to be feared in terms of saftey though, no one is going to invade.

Finally, yes no pre-existing buildings. However, I'd like to see highspeed rail to existing airports. It wouldn't fit very wekk with green initatives to buuild a new major airport which is what will be needed from scratch.

As a less adventuous though, To the east of STrasbourg right on the river there are a few islands that are just docks or disused facilities. You could take that area and rebuilt it - bit small though and constrained by Strasbourg-Kehl each side, would keep the French happy though.- _J.Logan`^t: 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I meant 53°50′45″N 14°24′18″E / 53.84583°N 14.405°E / 53.84583; 14.405 - 16,8 kilometres from Heringsdorf Airport; central Europe; close proximity to elegant river (canal) system, lake and forest. Mostly ugly eastern bloc style buildings. But you are right about tourists being attracted to sunny destinations. I think the most important thing is though to to establish some pan-European community of people who are not beaurocrats. Establishing a centralised University of Europe, or something really prestigeous related to education could help. One could build high speed rail tunnels beneath Naturpark Insel Usedom, a partly protected area (i think) nearby. Boat traffic would of course also be available. - SSJ ☎ 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, oh no that's Wielki Krzek, which is "under natural protection on account of its many species of animals". - SSJ ☎ 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the southern bank where the border passes through? Is that protected? You've got a harbour there so should be nice and calm...Perhaps though where the German, Polish and Czech borders meet? The actual border is undeveloped, though with town sin a short distance. Those towns can provide a base, hopefully with nothing historic if we need more room but even so there is a large open mine nearby and they're always nice if you grass them over, you get a valley of sorts then i.e. buildings surrounded by mountains providing vistas and backdrops for the buildings. Still thing somewhere south though.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo, how about Franco-Italian border? Looks like new buildings (and redundant security check points), rail and large road links running straight though. Major cities nearby and the TGV runs to Nice I think. Right on the mountains and the Costa del Sol.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Or Franco-Spanish, similar situation adn the TGV-AVE is being connected across the border here.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The southern bank with the harbour seems perfect. The houses there don't look too old (this is about the oldest-looking building one can see on Google earth), and those fields are at least not protected.

The place at the shore where france borders italy does (like Monaco) look like a nice and sunny holiday destination. Mountains are nice, but I'm not sure whether the foot of steep shoreline mountains is the ideal place for grand architectural construction. Perhaps too little space? The top of some sort of dramatic hill could have been a spectacular location [32], if it hadn't hinted to 'stronghold of fascist romanticism'. - SSJ ☎ 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think alps into med slope isn't os much a problem, as an opportunity. You can be really creative with hill sides, this being one example just down the coast. More interesting the landscape, the more spectacular it can look, if done properly of course.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it might be possible to build something on those slopes, but thats a no-go for boulevards. If the capital is to be build on something steep, then something like an enlarged and modern Mont Saint-Michel could be a cool idea. I'd say that a consortium of national city planners from all member states find the perfect, spectacular hill, and name a really visionary lead architect with a good sense of modern yet striking architecture. The EU capital should have a consistent, high quality visual expression. The concept of timeless design has to be followed. Berlaymont's X-shape might have been a cutting edge gimmick in the 1960s and the wooden details in Paul-Henri Spaak's hemicycle were perhaps totally awsome in the 1980s, but today both buildings look awful. The style of a new capital needs to be more thought through, consistent and timeless. - SSJ ☎ 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but SSJ some of your comments worry me about what planet you are on - Esperanto as a 2nd language in Europe, the idea that the European institutions will ever move from Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg... you really think any of that will ever happen? Bloody hell you never even hear hardened federalists come up with such ridiculous ideas. --Simonski (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it may move in like, 50 years or something if the EU moves forward and becomes accepted. But right now it is young and immature, but it is still fun to speculate :). THese ideas probably stand more chance the Rem Koolhaas' though! Totally agree esperanto is one blue sky too far, but it has happened before. Don't see it becoming politically possible here though.

SSJ, yeah I agree there needs to be better planning of the style, it needs to be planned, controlled and unique. Like how Portmeirion was built only on a state-scale.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not question anybody's right to speculate on the future of course - just I would point out that your average federalist type person would be more likely to want to build on the fact that English is clearly becoming (if it has not already) a common second language across Europe, and would not be foolish enough to try and create a frankly third-reich type sounding Euro-centre/zone. Such a move would clearly not in this century be politically palletable to the citizens of Europe. I think a lot of people are too ignorant of the views of the Eastern Europeans in particular - their independence opressed in the past under a large federation in the form of the USSR... I doubt there is an appetite in these countries for another "Palace of Culture" etc which some of these ideas sound eerily close to!

Anyway, for what its worth, I predict a two-speed Europe to finally be forced to develop in our lifetime. --Simonski (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree totally. We're talking about a new city and you go for Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, both of which used existing major cities. This is just giving to Europe a model used by the United States, Australia, Switzerland, Brazil, Canada, in fact, most states in the Americas and many African countries. Even with India, the British Empire constructed New Dehli beside old Dehli. It was even discussed for Italy during their early unification. As Europe has no historical central city, or any obvious choice at all, it would be the logical option if it wasn't for a) anti-state feeling and b) cost. If the EU became accepted enough for the cost to be justified, and the state like connection to be accepted, then what would be the problem? I think there are more obvious USSR things that Eastern Europe is worried about (hell, even eurovision) than something that the USSR never had.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I heavily doubt the majority of people in Europe would disagree with my point though. You speak of these things that have been done in the past but I seriously doubt that what is effectively a form of social engineering would go down well in modern society. Society as we know it would have to change for the EU to ever be accepted to the extent that you've both been discussing. I understand we disagree on this point but I just had to interject in this discussion to see if I could point you both back in the direction of reality! No offence should be taken to my simple point that I think that its more likely that the human race will colonise Mars before the EU ever develops as far as you both are suggesting. If it is ever to do so, certain countries are going to have to take a decision together that this is the way they want to go forward, leaving the less enthusiastic such as the UK, Denmark, Poland etc out of the eventual plans. It is interesting to speculate as you say. --Simonski (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree I'm afraid, society need not change. We've had entire nations, not just capitals, established with less acceptance than the EU has today. The main thing hindering the EU right now is the lack of democratic feedback, and that is due to an immature party system. Once the parties operate effectively, elections will matter and the Commission will become accountable. The EU will enjoy enough legitimacy to entrench itself and the continent is a lot more accepting than the UK of the EU to begin with. If I were just thinking about the UK, then the EU would be lucky to survive but with the necessary changes on the back of existing continental support (and UK support would increase as main eurosceptic arguments are undermined by the increase in accountability and relations) we could reach this level. It would take time but it is a real possibility. If the parties would take the right choices of course.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. But I know I would not be alone in raising the points I have made. We'll have to wait a long time to see who is right either way. --Simonski (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, and events usually overtake such speculation either way...so why not join in, where would be a good place to stick the capital? Its a tough choice even if it will never actually be made.- _J.Logan`^t: 05:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think I'll have to pass - since I'm vehemently against such developments and hope to never see them in my lifetime. I do heavily doubt though that the federalists would ever try to move it from Belgium for as long as Belgium remained a member. Having lived outside Brussels for a year you do definitely feel that it is the boiling pot of Europe and that you do feel the presence of a large number of other countries there (something which obviously annoys a lot of Belgians who already struggle to find a national identity!). Nah, if the UN has never moved from New York after all these years (despite there being good reason to move it arguably), I heavily doubt that it will ever move from Brussels no matter what direction the EU develops (backwards or forwards) given that there is technically no decent reason to do so. The Belgians, who have little to offer otherwise, would be absolutely screwed. --Simonski (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the UN grew from the League which was based in Geneva. So in a sense that moved, and the UN does now have the massive EU institutions and bureaucracy, while having its own territory. There are potential triggers, such as a shift in the EU's as with the UN or a resolution to the seat issue as a compromise. Though yes the Belgians would be buggered. I'd be glad though, beer and chocolates is hardly something that should draw the EU in. THough considering the new capital isn't foreseeable, I'd just like them to spread them around a bit more so the poly centric Europe idea isn't so laughable.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (break 2)

Anti-NWO activists would certainly freak out at the idea of centralising the UN and the EU in one city. :) The idea of a poly centric Europe has never been laughable, but confusion among citizens as well as the impression of a traveling circus are obvious cons. On the possibility of a common, non-English 2nd language being introduced in EU schools, I'd say that the UK's likely irreparable conflict in relation to European integration if the Conservatives win the 2010 election after the potential rejection of Lisbon in Ireland would clearly fuel anglophobia. By that I don't just mean "diplomatic anger" in the European Council over one treaty, but also the fact that a Tory UK (fundamental euroscepticism in the electorate finally reflected in the UK government) would literally stop EU integration. UK parliamentary ratification of any EU treaty would be close to impossible after an electoral rejection of Lisbon in the UK. Pro-European leaders on the continent would see this as a permanent obstacle and hence hate the UK and argue its withdrawal from the EU. It's not fantasy, it's a series of logical consequences if a majority of Irish people vote No this October. The absence of Brits and good-will towards the UK in the political Europe would certainly weaken the standing of the English language to some extent. - SSJ ☎ 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got two questions I've been wondering about for a while: is a simple majority required for a referendum bill to be passed in the House of Commons, or is it enough to be in government? Would it be technically possible for Labour and the LibDems to form a coalition? - SSJ ☎ 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In all but the rarest events, the government will have a majority, that's why they're the government (first past the post system). Though you overlook one element, the Tories are just as big liars as Labour and the Conservatives have always been split between its pro and anti European elements. Faced with the situation of rejecting the treaty or not, Cammeron will wriggle his way out of the situation, they've already down graded their threat "if it isn't in force" to "if the Irish haven't voted yes" and if the Tories do take it back, they'll get shed loads of opt-outs and go back (having got the kudos of being against it) and campaign for it. And although the rest of the EU would hate the UK, it is too important to throw out and it now has allies in Eastern Europe and sympathy in the north. Worst case scenario would be a formal two-speed Europe.- _J.Logan`^t: 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I don't see how the tories could wriggle themselves from the watertight promise of holding a referendum if the treaty isn't ratified. The pure act of kicking the would-be-already-dead treaty (and what it implies for continued integration or indefinite lack thereof) would probably spark an extraordinary reaction in the franco-german motor, regardless of Austrian and Czech sympathy. The EEA deal (Norway's way of access to the common market) was designed as a waiting room for EU entry, so Cameron and the UK might have to experience that you don't get a free dictionary (i.e. the benefits of market access) after you've been kicked out the book club for having said a big fuck you to the rest. UKIP really has something realistic to wish for this time. Norway is a small country that has landed on the strange compromise of implementing EU directives without any influence, representation or voting rights in EU institutions. A traditionally proud and unabashedly power-hungry player like the UK will never feel comfortable under an EEA regime or with a Swiss-like deal. And considering the EU is virtually all about the common market, the only possible 'second lane' in EU integration would probably be something like an EEA deal (free dictionary). Therefore it's either full membership or no membership for the UK I think. You can't opt out from a new voting system or from the existence of a post, and Cameron will certainly not be given enough leverage to negotiate these out of a new deal after having lead a No campaign in government (which is unheard of in the history of EU treaties). - SSJ ☎ 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you assuming UK arguments have a basis in logic. In most other countries there is logic and reason behind euroscepticism, here people don't think about the massive disadvantages of EEA membership because they are so passionate about being utter wankers. And regardless about how the EEA is set up, its not how it will be used. Its a real alternative for some people though I don't think that is what it will come to. It will just be a stack of opt-outs but formally still an EU member. Cameron is already pissing off the French and the Germans which is why I think he will wriggle out of it. Blair got out of holding a referendum on the constitution and I'm sure the Tories could pick up some kind of guarantee or something so they can say it is all okay now. Its never about logical substance, its about how you can spin it and they're very good at spin these days. Also, remember that the civil service has an immense about of power and influence, when Cammeron gets into number 10 they're going to be telling him what to do.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marta Andreasen

On 10 July 2007 you 'corrected somebody's correction', on a page of Marta Andreasen, relating to Jules Muis.

I wonder why you did that, because now I have to correct your re-introduction of "Wiki-vr"'s erroneous statement.

Mr Muis did not go on sick-leave, unvoluntary or otherwise. He pre-announced his departure, in 2004, already in 2003, at the time of the Eurostat affair(s). You must have confused the facts. Keep wiki clean from mere rumours, please.

Regards (polite, kind),

Ries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.236.239 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside you're talking about an edit years ago, I think you have some facts mixed up. Namely that I never made such a change and there was no edit on that page on that date. The only edit I've made was on 3 July 2007 and that was changing a link redirect - no content change. I suggest you double check what you're talking about.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am not a wikiliterate, someone who knows how to log in, create an account, and all that funky 21-century stuff nowadays' dreams are made of. I did indeed mix you up with Wiki-vr, who made the change - sorry about that.

Ries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.236.239 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You should be able to register by clicking on the link to the top right, and following the instructions. Sign by typing - J.Logan`t: 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) and if you challenge a fact by someone and they revert you, ask them to provide a reference for it. If someone challenges you, likewise give a website that says it (a reliable one). If you need anything else, just ask me. Welcome to Wikipedia.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brussels naming conventions

It seems we've almost reached a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Brussels_naming_conventions. Please comment on the proposal for double names and in the poll on which name should be first in the lead and infobox when there is no English name. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[33] Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Lisbon Treaty signing

I started the article called Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon. It's now a candidate for deletion. Do you think you could say your opinion in the deletion discussion or add something to the article? Thanks very much in advance - SSJ ☎ 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Hume

A minor matter, but upon which you may be of assistance. I note that in September 2009, you posted a table to the article Member of the European Parliament in which you provided a list of MEP's who were non-nationals of the country for which they were elected. The list includes two Irish nationals (Crawley and de Brún) elected for the UK. Discussion is currently taking place on Talk:John Hume, regarding whether John Hume could be considered "British" (I had added the category "British Nobel laureates" to his article, which had been deleted by the user initiating the discussion). It occurs to me that if, in the unlikely event, that Hume did not have British citizenship, he should have appeared in the list posted by you. Although the actual citizenship of Hume is a bit of a red herring (since, the general criteria regarding categories for Nobel laureates is much wider than citizenship and included a close association with the country in question), if you have any information to add to the discussion that helps throws light on Hume's citizenship, I would be grateful for your participation. Davshul (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody's office has been very busy lately.

If you see what i mean. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "President of the European Union" (sic)

As a regular and reliable editor on EU topics, I was very surprised to see that you had written a long article on an entirely theoretical post, perhaps it seemed a good idea at the time. I'm sure you already know what WP:Wikipedia is not. As it is so extreme a violation and is so topical, I've just gone ahead and reduced it to the disambig it ought to have been in the first place. For more info, see Talk:President of the European Union. --Red King (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A little notice

Should High Representive Catherine Ashton's "Baroness Ashton of Upholland" title be included in the article title? I thought it might interest you. -> Talk:Catherine Ashton#Requested move Thanks. - SSJ ☎ 14:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Objective: Strengthening the symbolic value of the Roundabout"

http://www.oneschuman.eu/fr/plan-densemble - SSJ ☎ 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)