User talk:Lear 21

CIA
I was a little bemused by their describing the european commission as the 'cabinet'. Perhaps it makes more sense from an American perspective where there is a clearer division between administrators and law makers. In the UK I would expect the cabinet to be originating new legislation. I did notice they did not mention sport. Sandpiper 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Berlin map
Hi Lear 21. Thanks for your positive feedback. I'm going to leave the map as it is for the moment, to see how people react to it. I admit that the EU part is somewhat small in the present version, but it has the advantage that, in spite of the addition of a second map, the map of Germany remains exactly the same size as before, which may just help to calm down those valiant defenders of it... athinaios (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the content (Germany map) is presented, the critics have no arguments. Even when the Germany map is downsized to make it equally sized with the EU map. The new dual solution is a step forward, but I can´t support it because of design deficits. So please consider a new try, I´m sure this wouldn´t be questioned at all. Lear 21 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Had another shot. That's the best I can do, I think. athinaios (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Lear 21 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope so. Mal sehn... athinaios (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

EU status /EU article/ EU in lists/ Rationale
1. External acknowledgments


 * a) CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry


 * b) IMF statistics


 * c) Image of the German Federal Chancellery with 2 standard flags (Germany / EU flag)


 * d) Image: Inside the German Parliament with 2 standard flags (Germany / EU flag)


 * e) Image: Inside of the Berlin state/Bundesland Parliament with 3 standard flags (Germany /Berlin state/ EU flag)

2. Wikipedia internal acknowledgments


 * The introduction of the EU entry in Wikipedia lists is based on following arguments:


 * a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate, EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer. Common Policy Examples in the city of Berlin: The EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects etc. In official press conferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag.


 * b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.


 * c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican, Hongkong and others. EU is not per se an exception.


 * d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.


 * e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked.


 * f) Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries

3. Conclusions


 * a) The EU acts on a multitude of political and economical fields as single entity. Sometimes not enacted by a classical central power (Brussels) its members developed a significant degree of similar interests and decide accordingly. As a compact entity in its own right it has been identified by statistical institutions like the IMF, CIA and others. It also lead to the inclusion into country listings, for instance all relevant lists in the Wikipedia Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries. Because of this broad acknowledgment internationally and within internal Wikipedia structures the EU-article-layout-&-content has adapted sections well known in country articles (USA, Russia, UK, Germany, France, etc.).


 * b) The EU article draws major layout features from the Country template because of the above stated reasons. Section like Demographics, Sports, Religion are standard sections among comparable articles and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the EU member states.


 * c) EVERY member state is the EU. The EU is EVERY member state. There is NO contradiction. There is NO spaceship Brussels consisting of a single, hermetic bureaucracy. EVERY step of EU evolution has been decided by its member states, NOT the Commission decided, neither the parliament. STOP separate EU institutions from decision making the member states. There is NO gap between these 2 spheres. Therefore it is justified to name and include major cultural or sportive traditions encompassing many member states.


 * d) The EU article is influenced and created by several editors from more than 5 different countries incl. Non-EU-member states. It has, among others, integrated ideas that includes the following assumption: That the process and evolution of the EU is shaped and enacted by its member states, specifically through decisions by the European Council and the Council of the European Union. The article has therefore included developments & information in most sections that are present, influential, relevant and wide spread in many member states and sometimes neighbouring countries. It has lead to the inclusion of: 1. The Iron Curtain image in 'History' 2. A map including Non-EU-European countries and parts of Africa in 'Geography' 3. The Schengen Information System in 'Justice, freedom and security' 4. The biggest trading partner in 'Economy' 5. Russia as energy supplier in 'Energy' 6. Image Öresund bridge / ESA in 'Infrastructure' 7. 'Demographics' section 8. Immigrant languages in 'Languages' 9. 'Religion' 10. European capital of Culture in 'Culture' 11. Bologna process in 'Education and research' 12. Image in 'Sports' section mentioning spectator sports Lear 21 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal Lear, you have more than once referred to this list, arguing it explains your edits. This list of information chosen by yourself does not constitute a balanced argument for anything.

1a) The CIA starts by saying the EU is not a country and not a federation, but may become one in the future and thus they have an entry on it. The CIA may be paid to crystal ball gaze, but we are not. Wiki reports what is, not what may be in the future.

1b) The IMF maintains some information on the EU, I would agree quite correctly, but does not list it as a country . Instead they list statistics for 16 different trade areas, including the EU.

1 cde) Lots of organisations have flags, including the local yacht club. Does that make it a country? My old school has a school song and coat of arms. Does that make it a country?

2) wikipedia debate on inclusion of EU in lists has reached no consensus, except perhaps to include it where relevant but not to rank it as per normal countries. Obviously, in some respects the EU behaves like a country and other editors including me are happy to talk about it in a country like manner, where it performs that role (eg international agreements on trade). But in many other areas it has no country-like powers and it does not make sense to treat it as though it did.

2a) The EU was and still is manily a trade agreement, so obviously it has many institutions and rules about trade. However, its budget is tiny compared to national ones, and it has negligible tax raising powers. The parliament is, frankly, little more than a democratic fig leaf and has even less authority than the EU as a whole. As parliaments go, it admittedly has a large operating budget, but this is not generally considered a plus.

2etc) Already discussed. The CIA say it may one day become a state but isnt: the IMF list it as one of 16 world trade organisations. Your examples. The evidence of the IMF page is clearly that it is not unique. I and other do not disagree that various institutions ought to be mentioned in lists where relevant, but that does not make all those institutions equivalent or mean they should be treated in the same way. I am personally somewhat sceptical of this sui generis claim. In the sense that none of these international institutions is alike, they are all unique and sui generis. However, they are also all the same, international agreements to carry out some function between states.

3a) Surely your conclusion demonstrates that the EU cannot be treated in an article in the same way a country would be. You are agreeing it operates in an utterly different way, and differently depending upon what field is being discussed. An article on the EU has to concentrate on discussing the peculiarities of it as an organisation, not those areas where it might operate like a nation. This is especially true with an example like sport, where its essential similarity to most nations is that they do absolutely nothing towards organising sport, leaving it to independant private organisations. In the EU case it equally problematic to discuss, for example, the national sport. 27 member countries have quite a number of national sports, and compete against each other in world sporting organisations. When there is an EU team, perhaps we should reconsider mentioning it.

3b) the advice on designing country articles specifically states that it is up to the editors of a particular page to decide what elements are important. No article should include pro-forma sections which are irrelevant to that particular subject. The simple fact we are arguing about this demonstrates there is no agreement that it is appropriate to write about the EU as if it was a country.

3c) The greatest objection to discussing sport in the EU article is that it is simply a minor point. The very multiplicity of different sports in different countries means there is little which can usefully be said in a short summary, even if it were considered relevant. It also needs to be born in mind that anyone thinking in term of the culture etc. of Europe, should be looking in the article about Europe, not the article about the Eu, which is a totally different thing without any territory of its own.

3d) I'm not sure what this is arguing? No one is claiming the EU does nothing. Sandpiper (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

European Union talk page
Just to make you aware, if you were not already, of this. SouthernElectric 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

EU article structure
You posted an edit comment,reestablished standard logic order recommended by GA/FA requirements/ Geo has high priority because it is mentioned in the first sentence of the intro/ Environ is Geo and NOT Social policy

Can you please give details explaining what you mean in more detail and provide links to where it is explained on the relevant wiki pages?

I doubt there is any policy regarding whether a section on the environment is geography or social policy, so can you also explain your reasoning about this too? This section is talking about laws made by the EU which affect the environment. Sandpiper (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The EU article draws major orientation from country-article-layouts. In those articles Geography is regarded typically one of the highest priorities. Environment is almost always organized as a subsection of Geography. Please read the respective country articles and compare. My personal point of view acknowledges this order as reasonable as well. Lear 21 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But the EU is NOT a country Lear - I repeat, it is NOT a country - so your rational is null and void! Also Lear, you might care to point out were in the articles introduction Geography is expressly mentioned that leads you to believe that Geo should be within the first 5 headings? SouthernElectric (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Edited for typos @ 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wikiproject on countries has a list of recommendations here. If you take their order literally, then they place geography after history, politics, governmental system, and component states. They place geography before discussion of the economy, but in our case an explanation of economic policy is more to do with how the EU works than actually about trade and balance of payments issues. On this basis, the other country articles are ordered incorrectly. My own main problem is why geography would be considered as centrally important to an article about the EU. Surely, if someone wants to know about the geography of a particular country they would look at the article for that country. If they want to know about the geography of Europe, then look at an article about the continent of Europe. People are not going to type EU into a search engine because they want to learn about mountains in Europe. Ok, mention it somewhere with a link, but it just is not relevant information for this article.
 * A section on environment is relevant, because there is EU policy about it. I looked at a few country articles and they tend to have massive history sections and quite big geography ones. This may be important for a country, but the EU does not have much history, and the geography has nothing to do with what it does. Some countries have environment sections, and some do not give it a mention. Here, I feel that environment policy is more important than the traditional geographical facts. On that basis it would make more sense to have an environment section with a subsection called geography. I would probably prefer to have both as second level sections in a catch-all heading of some sort. Environment is essentially a different area of EU competence, and geography is a collection of some statistics about the region. I might be convinced that environment should stay as a subsection of geography for the sake of uniformity, but I really don't see the two sections sitting easily together. The facts and figures is just screaming to go adjacent to the other figures in demographics, and I still see this as demographic information. Sandpiper (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Read and understand why the EU is country-like. The location and topographical features (Geography) are dominantly prioritized at the top of those articles. As a GA article it also follows Wikipedia recommendations to organize an article according to its introduction. The location (Geography) is mentioned in the 1. sentence of the introduction. That is why Geography is among the top sections in the EU article. Environment as a subsection most dominantly includes issues associated with Geography. There is no convincing reason why Environment is included in social policy. Lear 21 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the introduction first mentions that it is a 'political and ecconomic community' of 'member states' 'located in Europe'. So we have a history lesson to explain what sort of community it is, then a large section detailing which countries are the 'member states', and also listing exactly which bits of 'europe' (and elsewhere) are part of the EU. Then we go back to explaining in greater detail how the community operates. No mention whatsoever in the introduction of any other remotely geographical facts. By that logic, we should not have a 'geograhy' section at all. Environment, as a subsection, most dominantly lists action and policies of the EU which may have a general effect upon the environment. It properly belongs in a section explaining policy areas where the EU does (or does not) have an effect. The important thing with the EU is to show what it does and does not do. Following your reasoning, the environment does not get mentioned in the introduction at all, so probably ought to be right at the very end, or nowhere. Or, as I said, as a minor policy. Sandpiper (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

European Merit

 * If anyone is allowing their personal opinions to show in their edits they most certainly should not have Barnstars awarded, rather a neutrality warning should be issued! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not everyone shares your negative opinion SE, regardless of conflicts between Lear and other users he is committed in his own way to working on these articles. I do not think it is right for you to criticise one's awarding of a barnstar to another user. Congratulations Lear.- J Logan t: 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Barnstar is being given for the reasons suggested then I am totally correct in commenting on potential editorial conflicts, I don't actually care if Lear is committed or not, if POV edits are possibly being made then there is a problem who ever makes them - even if 'Jimbo' was doing so. SouthernElectric (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks SSJ ! Maybe Santa Claus has also something prepared for Norwegian editors.... Lear 21 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

EU stucture
Please Lear be real. Restructuring is not mere maintenance and at the moment highly contested. By calling a restructure maintenance you will increase rather then solve the level of dispute. Be honest in what you do and why. Contentwise - Environmental policy should not be a subsection of geography, it has little to do with each other. Arnoutf (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. This is with reference to this edit summary (carried out at 12:19, 16 December 2007) by the way. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

EU reverts
Please DO NOT revert multiple edits piecemeal. Your edits have destroyed the correct and constructive edits by User:Chochopk. While you may consider that collateral damage, for me that is just not acceptable and dangerously close to vandalism. Please respect useful edits even if this cause you some more work responding to edits by others. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Arnoutf jumped in as I typed this message) I just want to say that I have no business with the layout/structure of European Union. But I had to repeat the same edit 3 times.


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Please be careful when you do structural changes. It's very easy to catch these by previewing the difference. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits have reestablished major parts of consensus layout. If there are parts which have been deleted by mistake, I´m sorry. Lear 21 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Full dates are to be wiki linked. Please see Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG
Did you photograph Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG yourself? If not, the description is misleading. Superm401 - Talk 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I amended the summary. Lear 21 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

much of the EU functioning depends upon agreement between members
If you feel this is a false statement, please produce some references explaining this. The EU ref you produced instead states that most EU activities do depend upon agreement between members in an intergovernmental manner. I explained this in more detail on the EU talk page, but you did not respond. Sandpiper (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The references have been given. TWICE ! Lear 21 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but that reference says that the EU depends upon agreement between states, so it opposes the point you are seeking to make rather than supporting it. Do I take it therefore that you withdraw your objection to describing the EU as intergovernmental? Sandpiper (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

the Superpower article
With regards to the references changes made here, why did you make them? My changes here shortened the list of references by a bit which I thought was a good thing. --Rockfang (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead on trimming some refs, I only reverted to control the size size of the leading image.Lear 21 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

EU single market
The section has become to long. It should be trimmed by at least 2 paragraphs. When I look at the last para, it becomes clear that highly specific information has been introduced. That is too much. User:Lear 21, posted to sandpiper.
 * On the contrary, while I agree the article on the EU is too long, the section on the single market is not. The single market is the core of the EU. This may have been rather overlooked in the article as a whole, but the supreme importance of the single market rather means that cuts should be made in other areas. I would suggest, as has been suggestsed by FA reviewers, that sports, geography, religion, are three sections which could go almost entirely immediately. Sandpiper (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The last para of the section is the best evidence of an in depth detail content. If this is not addressed sometimes soon, there is probably no other choice that I look at the overlenghty content. Lear 21 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat, this section is core material (just have a read of the treaty of Rome, or any other) and see how much there is about the the single market, and how it fails to mention religion or sport. I agree though, that perhaps the time has come to reopen the general debate on which sections of the article have to be cut. Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EU page, table of cities
Lear, you reverted my change increasing the height of rows in the table. My reason for doing this was that with the previous height, the title is overlapped by the border of the table and can not be read properly. I therefore increased the height to make it readable. I have not the skill to just make the title higher above the page, so this is the best I could do. Please either reinsert my fixup so that the title is readable again, or fix it properly. It is not acceptable to simply remove my alteration and leave the title in a mess, which you have now done twice. I also posted this explanation on the chat page, but you have not responded. Sandpiper (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for change to EU introduction?
Lear, while I have seen several version of the introduction you have suggested, I have yet to see an explanation of why you want to change it. Can you please explain what you believe to be wrong with the version in place when you returned to editing? Every one else was happy with it. Sandpiper (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How often do you need repeated answers? Citations? References? To be honest, I don´t want to know! I can only identify this behaviour and the following edits. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE STOP INSERTING WEAK, UNRECOMMENDED LAYOUT, FALSE INTER/SUPRA BALANCE ! UNDERSTAND? Probably not. Lear 21 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not how we interact on Wikipedia, as you should know by now. Unless you promptly redact the above and apologize to Sandpiper, you'll earn yourself a timeout once again. henrik  • talk  15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

@henrik: I´m not sure, what policy Wikpedia has prepared in this case. You might want to cite this. I rather consider this my personal page. I wouldn´t choose these determined words in official article discussions. If there are policies, prohibiting to answer constant provocations, I will delete my statement again. Lear 21 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL is the relevant policy, and yes, it quite clearly prohibits answering provocations in kind ("Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict", "respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect"). I don't see how Sandpiper's request can be interpreted as rude or provocative either. Being able to explain yourself is also something that is expected of editors.  henrik  • talk  15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I amended the statement. Lear 21 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lear, no one except you suggested the item was not sourced. You have not produced any ref which demonstrates the content is incorrect, the one you quoted twice shows the reverse. The previous wording specifically avoided claiming the EU was either supranational, or intergovernmental, but a mixture of both. I believe this to be correct. You have not produced any refs to the contrary. Someone else several pages ago on talk produced some quotes from a recognised textbook saying the same thing. In effect, your edits appear to be promoting the idea that the EU is a supranational state. It isn't. As to layout, the style reference you quoted in fact was talking about body text of an article, not the introduction. I have quoted back to you large chunks of style guide specifically about how to write an introduction, which support the introduction layout before you changed it, but you feel they should be ignored. In the process of amending the introductions meaning you have also considerably muddled it and made the remaining information harder to read. So I put the question back to you, do you have reasons to support changing the introduction? Sandpiper (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have now posted in a different debate on the EU page, that the EU enacts legislation by intergovernmental procedures. Does this not contradict your position in other sections? How can you argue it is supranational in support of your point in one section, yet argue it is intergovernmental in support of a different point in another? Sandpiper (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your are the most unfocused editor, I have ever come across. I hate every sentence to answer your endless dumb observations and questions. I realized that right from the beginning of your very first edits.


 * I have NEVER promoted supranational domination. I ALWAYS stressed both spheres of procedures are existing. I have NEVER even started a discussion what kind of sphere is superior. YOU instead inserts a biased version without even thinking to provide any references for that. THAT is the TRUTH. Lear 21 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it is unfortunate that this is not the impression of your views gained by me and other editors from your postings. The version of the introduction which you essentially reverted towards its previous form was agreed upon by discussion between the editors while you were banned. My very first edits to the EU page concerned errors in the agricultural policy section. I corrected these, then got into an argument with editors here who disputed my changes. The matter was finally resolved by agreement that I was correct, as confirmed by the references which were already in the article before I arrived. This first experience did go some way to form my view that the article likely contains a number of entrenched errors.Sandpiper (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism
I notice you have put accusations of vandalism in your recent edit of the EU article page. I am uncertain that this is justified or necessary, when looking at the Wikipedia:Vandalism article. I think perhaps talking these things over on the discussion page would be better than engaging in edit wars that achieve little. Simply reverting between versions with these sort of inflamatory remarks won't get the article anywhere. Lwxrm (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lear, no matter what your frustrations with Sandpiper are, you're not doing yourself any favors right now. Accusing other users of vandalism or calling them dumb when you have a content dispute is simply not acceptable. You just came off a long block and frankly you should have gotten the message that you need to be able to interact civilly with editors you disagree with. This is your final notice that you need to change your behavior before a lengthy, possibly indefinite block.


 * I hope you can take this message in the way it is intended, as I hope you can improve your interactions with others so it won't come to that; as your contributions are appreciated. henrik  • talk  18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit of the respective user removed an image in the EU Geography section. The respective user has done this repeatedly before. This change of content has been rejected by several editors before and was discussed in the past. So Yes! in the light of this history, it is justified to name this a vandalism act. Lear 21 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." The changes Sandpiper has made have certainly not been in bad faith and I think those sorts of comments really does nothing to help getting a consensus view on the introduction or any other matter Lwxrm (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really not bothered about accusations of vandalism for deleting the extra photo from the geography section. I have done this before, and will most probably do it again. Neither photo in that short section helps the article. They are both simply window dressing in an article which has become somewhat crowded with pictures. This matter has been discussed before, with discusion dividing between those editors who agree with me that the article is excessively image laden, and those who don't. I note that in a different recent debate over the insertion of another image by Lear (not with me), he observed that he could easily write some extra text to make room for the new image he wished to insert. Wiki text is not just filling to make room for pictures. Sandpiper (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Bundesland template from IP address
It is clear that these two changes -  - were made by you. As I said, I have no preference either way with the flags, but if you are going to make changes, then do so when logged in. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still doing it. This is only a short step away from sock puppetry. Stop it. You've been warned. 52 Pickup   (deal)  13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LiverpoolEuropeancityofculture.JPG
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:LiverpoolEuropeancityofculture.JPG has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

EU intro
Hi Lear, I reverted your recent introduction change to EU because I think the sentence you put up makes no sense.
 * In economic areas, comparable to sovereign countries, it has established supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of the member states.

Just doing interpretation of what you say can only mean the following:
 * In economic areas (ok that is clear), the EU has done something for its internal operation that is comparable to what sovereign countries do for their internal operation (ok, that is still clear), it has established supranational bodies (Wait ho, that is utter nonsense, no country has ever established supranational bodies to deal with its own internal economy)

I guess you do not mean the above interpretation, but that is what you sentence means. Please be carefull when adding these kind of arguments. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As long the term "sovereign countries" is mentioned, there should be no problem to amend the sentence. Note, that this term is only supported because of the existing term "international organization" in order to counterbalance it. Lear 21 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Data for 2008!
Here is the 2008 data!!!Dont be confused

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2008&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=39&pr1.y=4&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicineman84 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I´m afraid you are wrong. Your link/reference is outdated (Oct 2007). This is the new one (April 2008) for 2007. The new figures are very different now, probably because of a new data methodology. Lear 21 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation branding
Hi Lear, You've once introduced the table to the mentioned article. I have put a question regarding this table on its talk page. Perhaps, you can answer it. Tomeasy (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits in article on Germany
Hi Lear21, I saw you reverted my edit in the caption of the munich stadium picture. Even though one could disagree with your opinion of 1860 München having no relevance in Germany´s sport history, I state that the picture shows the Allianz Arena in blue. As you probably know, the stadium is lit blue when hosting a 1860 München game, red for Bayern München and white for the national team. So, the caption host for Bayern under the picture of the blue stadium is not a matter of opinion or relevance. It´s simply wrong. What´s your opinion? Greetings, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The priority of the image and the caption is the stadium and the architecture itself. It is the site of the most famous German football club and had a significant role as opening venue for the World Cup 2006. The specific color and its meaning can be considered marginal here. The different colors are probably most known only to locals. Nationally and internationally it has a minor significance. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lear21, thanks for your answer. Picking up your argument, I would then prefer this photograph. If you agree, I´ll replace it, but you´re also welcome to do so. Best wishes, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential great powers
Hi, could you please clarify your vote at the Talk:Potential great powers page on Mexico? If you are voting, please put your vote in the Support Removal or Oppose format that the other votes are in. This will help us tally the votes at the end. Thanks! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29 has come to a conclusion with the following result:
 * The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
 * The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
 * No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
 * Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
 * Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
 * The List retains the current name.
 * A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page.
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I've done one pie chart for the 2006 revenue and another for the 2006 expenditure, and now we know where the detailed tables are, I can do them stretching back to 2000 when time permits. 2007 onwards will be more difficult, since the basis for the 2007-2013 budget period has changed, but shouldn't be insurmountable.

At the risk of sounding silly, did you mean to award me a barnstar? I can't think of any other reason for the format of the message that you left.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The best chart would be a chart for the 2007-2013, though. If there are any data sets available give it try. Lear 21 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link Revision?
Hi Lear21,

I'm completely new to editing wikipedia, so forgive me any violation of rules. My first entry ever (not registered user) to wikipedia was an external link to 360cities.net, where I contribute to the berlin subdomain berlin.360cities.net. This has been removed by you on 2 July 2008 14:11 as far as I understand and I would like to learn why? I must admit that I'm very proud of my images and I have made an effort to enter an english description to most of the places. So I thought it would be a good idea to link to this website and I cannot see any principle difference to the existing link pointing to another website with 360° panorama content.

Yours, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by MStoss (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reichsgründung1871-AW.jpg
Why did you revert my edit relating the above image on Germany. If it was just a byproduct of other intended reverts, then please reinstall it. T om ea s y T C 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You did it again! Is it on purpose? What do you prefer with the blurry picture? I still think it's collateral damage caused by the revert you actually intended to executed. So, please enlighten me. T om ea s y T C 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what can you say? T om ea s y T C 07:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

post WW II map on Germany
Hi Lear, You know I enjoy editing with you. We share interest in many articles and I really appreciate your edits. With respect to the subject, I wanted to request you to lay back a little bit. I understand your point, you certainly have a point, but I do not see the new map as going the way you are afraid of. OK, we disagree on that, but after all is it so important that you need to revert this change again and again. In the talk section you are the only one opposing the change. I know numeracy is not an argument by which we can decide who's wrong and who's right. But you should at least see that your many opponents produced a whole bunch of genuine arguments to support their position. I can understand, if your own arguments weigh heavier for you than ours, but consider that for us it is the other way around. Even though, the change-side was stronger in numbers from the beginning, we had been discussing with you while the old version prevailed. Now that two more established users take the changing-position, wouldn't you agree that, if you really need to prolong this issue, it should happen while the most wanted version is live. As you have just seen, others are ready to re-revert you. Where will this go to in the end? We will just clutter the history functionality of the article by some more useless versions. Last comment: Even if a clear right position existed in this can, and you were right, would it legitimate to impose yourself on 4-5 editors, who are genuinely producing evidence for their position in order to convince you to join them? T om ea s y T C 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I answered with a new talk topic on the Germany page. Lear 21 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On 23/May/08 you posted on Talk:United States "inspite of US financial crises world economy and eurozone is not affected", here is some bad news for you: August 2008: US GDP rebounds with 3.3% growth August 2008: Europe's major economies contract August 2008: Dollar increases against the euro U.S. combat deaths in Iraq plunge in July to new low Only 4 US combat deaths in the whole of July 2008

There will be further bad news in Novemeber when Barack Hussain Obama would be defeated similar to the defeat of his terrorist allies in Germany and Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.93.87 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Berlin
There are obviously two schools of thoughts, the inclusionists and those wanting to move as much as possible into the linked articles. In this case I feel that a little too much data got into the main article. A summary of the most relevant population groups is probably better than the exact number of the non German population in Berlin. The same can be applied to details about the Charite. What is your opinion ? Inwind (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of immigrant nationalities is a standard part of every quality city article. The complete content in the health system section is needed because the ultimate size of the section ensures a certain layout style. The written content gets to small, while the Charite image appears to big. Lear 21 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Message for you
Can you please reply to Template_talk:Capital_cities_of_the_European_Union ?Gnevin (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer has been already given. I see no reason to elaborate the issue in a more detailed way. It is a minor issue. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if it such as minor issue to you won't mind if i remove the flag ? Gnevin (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG
Hi Lear 21. Please be mindful of WP:MOSFLAG. Adding icons and photographs for decorative purposes is discouraged and generally frowned upon. --Jza84 | Talk  19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jza84, please be mindful and stop promote or support the removal of important visual content of any article or templates. Thanks Lear 21 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your repsonse doesn't make much sense to me sorry. But again, read the policy that is WP:MOSFLAG; my opinion is irrelevant when I am merely bringing your attention to the fact that adding flags (particularly supranational flags) is contentious and unwanted on Wikipedia. Your edit history shows it is pretty clear you have an affintiy for the EU and other places, but don't force that upon the world please with decorative items. Consider our readers and respect our policies. --Jza84 | Talk  19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, you read the policy WP:MOSFLAG carefully. It reads:

1. Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. (That is the case, regarding the template, as it indicates the topic of the template)

2. Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand. (That is clearly the case as well)

Your quote: "adding flags (particularly supranational flags) is contentious and unwanted on Wikipedia" is POV and not supported by WP:MOSFLAG 1. & 2. I suggest you read and understand the policy before advocating its rules. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your additions break rule one; they were merely decorative. Furthermore:


 * 1) "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride.
 * 2) "Some flags are politically contentious – take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts".
 * 3) Keep the EU flag within EU topics:


 * We do not need a flag of the EU adding to every member state. Your approach is not disimillar to adding the Union Flag to Ab Kettleby with the caption "Ab Kettleby is part of the United Kingdom and so uses Pound Stirling for transactions".


 * Anyway, your additions breach rule one regardless of any kind of interpretation of the rules, and so I will continue to maintain the status quo. If you want to add flags you like, use the talk page first. I am an administrator and can and will manage the situation if needbe, so be calm, be good, and work in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS by talking first, editting second. --Jza84 | Talk  21:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 *  Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand. Navbox are not tables ,infoboxes or lists . The usage the MOS is referencing is very long lists of country data Gnevin (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Their is no crusade, the guideline doesn't not support the decoration of navboxes. You are one of a very small number of editors whom seem intended of prettifying navboxes with flags Gnevin (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I´m one of those editors, who established an long edit history of introducing and maintaining high quality visual content in every dimension. Lear 21 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC) moved to correct place,I think
 * Fine so be it but adding useful visual content is key not just decorating. On navboxes the words are clearer than the flags. If you disagree with my views i suggest you take it up at WP:MOSICON or WP:EU here where their has been no disagreement of my removals Gnevin (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

flag is needed for orientation and is related to the content - no violation of any guideline means nothing. The mos does not support your usage. Please stop reverting. Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talking Chinese, PLUS: You seem to be unable to read or interpret the English language. WP:MOSFLAG does not forbid measured usage of flags when related to content. That is the case. AND furthermore it is a guideline: . I consider this discussion as solved. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MOS forbids decoration, which is what you are doing pure and simple. So what common sense argument am i missing apart from you like the pretty flags? . I don't know how you can consider a discussion solved when you are in disagreement with a guideline and a user. Where at MOSFLAG does it say  related to content  ? Gnevin (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese euro coin.
Lear 21, the Portuguese euro coin IS NOT a commemorative coin. All Portuguese 1 and 2 euro coins have that seal, and will have. Lusci (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EinsteinPlanck.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:EinsteinPlanck.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) 05:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

EU on population list
Hi, you added a note about the EU population size on the population list a little while ago, just to let you know theres a note right at the bottom of the table which mentions the EU as well with a different figure. Not sure which is the most accurate or where it belongs (at top / bottom or at both ends) but thought id let you know just incase you didnt see it. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for information. I removed one. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding edit warring on Template:Infobox German Bundesland
Per this ANI report, please stop edit-warring on the above article. You have been reverted many times by multiple users - a clear indication that you have no support for the change you wish to make. You are strongly encouraged to take notice of the consensus reached on the article talk-page. Continued reversions or edit-warring will lead to your account being blocked to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. EyeSerene talk 20:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. There is no policy that suggests or recommends the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin. The two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

File:1pBvVgs3PAAEDrGKb3MJqiXgB.medium.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1pBvVgs3PAAEDrGKb3MJqiXgB.medium.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Cheers Lear, Happy New Year to you too. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the same to you! — Nightstallion 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lear. Sure, we will keep improving the EU related articles. United in diversity! T om ea s y T C 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lear, happy new year to you, Buon anno!! Gdmercury (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of countries and outlying territories by total area
The EU was completely removed from List of countries and outlying territories by total area, claiming new consensus, can you please start a RfC, i don't know how.--217.112.186.238 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to support this more seriously, get a decent member of Wikipedia. It would ensure higher credibility during argumentations. You are much needed in this discussion. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Lear, you surely know better than to canvass editors in violation of WP:CANVASS. This biased notice, sent to editors you know will express a certain viewpoint, is a blatant attempt to votestack, and is prohibited. Please do not resume canvassing editors; if you do, you will likely be blocked for violating WP guidelines. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Likely be blocked for violating" WP:CANVASS? Are you serious? It's a guideline—which I personally agree with very much—but it is not more than that. In addition, the guideline explicitly allows for friendly notices, which Lear might claim upon. Would you really want to make a case trying to proof wrong such claim? I mean, if you are upset with Lear's notices, that is fine and you should tell him. However, I think, you carry things to excess by threatening him with a block. T om ea s y T C 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. Lear's notices are biased, and sent only to those editors who he believed would support his position in the discussion, an obvious attempt to vote stack. Arbcom has sanctioned several editors for repeated disruptive canvassing, enough for the community to accept that it's a disruptive practice. CANVASS quite clearly states that "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices." I have made the request to stop canvassing; I don't think Lear will continue to do it, but if he does, he will likely get a short block (not from me, of course). Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian History
What's your problem with Hungarian History? Medieval Hungary was one of the strongest state in the continent, wich could dare successfully with Byzantine Empire or Holy Roman Empire or Ottoman Empire in their strong periods. Medieval Hungarian kings and their palaces and inland revenues were often bigger than other other main European states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.8.211 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The section covers almost half the articles content. Comparing the section with other country articles it seems appropriate to cut it down or to transfer it to a main article of Hungarian History. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states
"Since no-one has chosen to explain how on earth these three constitute part of the inclusion criteria of this list, I can only conclude that my arguments are accepted and that they do not. Thus I am moving them back to the bottom of the list--Pfainuk"--217.112.186.47 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states&diff=prev&oldid=264524995

--217.112.186.73 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * lol BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: Please stop your paranoia about "souvereignity" and the following fuzz you are stirring in several articles at Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Lear, your behavior with regards to the EU's inclusion at the various lists has become very disturbing to me; you have all but stated outright that you intend to disregard any consensus that disagrees with you and edit-war to ensure your version is upheld. This is totally incompatible with how Wikipedia works. I have posted a thread concerning this issue here. Please take a step back from this dispute and evaluate the situation rationally. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you remember pretty well that a longterm compromise of the respective article were you have been part of was broken recently. I guess you also acknowledge that you as an admin has already proofed to uphold a biased position here. Neither were I´m alone in this discussion nor have I missed the chance of citing thoroughly external expert sources multiple times. Please help me here, can you provide the right board to put you and your biased actions on trial ? I think it is time for it. Lear 21 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not required as an admin to be completely neutral in all discussions; I am allowed to hold opinions on content matters. Also, you may note that I have not commented specifically on the discussions as to where the EU should be positioned. I am merely commenting on your apparent refusal to accept what three other users have said (not including myself), and your intention to edit-war to "get your way". Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag

 * Please, do not place that flag back in the article. It is redundant, does not tell any additional info and besides, it is not a really great photo. --Tone 12:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I second this request. You are waging a disruptive mass revert war against multiple users, about a piece of code that has no content value whatsoever. Stop it, or you will end up blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest every interested editor rather starts talking before removing established content without discussion. This basic rule is also valid for administrator editors. Lear 21 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't anything more to discuss. Multiple people have told you they do not want that photograph. Since its value is purely symbolic and it contributes no encyclopedic information whatsoever, this judgment of taste is all the argument there needs to be. You are alone against a solid consensus of multiple users on multiple articles in parallel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Every image is symbolic. I´m afraid everybody (also Future Perfect) needs to argue very long why an EU membership, which is best visualized by the most wellknown symbol has no encyclopedic information. In fact the EU flag has a very high degree of information assets. If anybody is unsure about the degree of involvement of the EU in terms of national economy, read this: European Union. Another thing, there is only one editor for one country article who argues for a removal. That is nothing new because EU related content is always under constant attack for the last 3 years in several articles. Nevertheless, presenting visual content which indicates an EU membership certainly adds to a comprehensive understanding of all country articles involved. The central discussion for this issue is here: all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You are repeating the same arguments over and over again and they are not convincing. Instead, please discuss why the flag should be in the article since the consensus is apparently against it. Regards. --Tone 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I utterly agree with Tone and Fut. Perf. As a major editor of the Belgium article I consider the Flag picture has nothing to do in this article.  The infobox with the EU map is clear enough in order to illustrate the Belgian EU membership. I reverted you once or twice but I have no intention to start an edit war with respect to this detail. Vb (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@Vb: Interesting point of view to state that Belgium including Brussels has nothing to do with the European Union. Can you cite your opinion ? Belgium is the location of several major EU institutions. It is more than natural to give credit to this fact in a country article including images. The very second sentence in the article writes: "It is a founding member of the European Union and hosts its headquarters". I repeat the 2. sentence in the introduction ! A good article has to present the issues mentioned in the article including images ! If there is one country article where the flag plus a descriptive caption is most useful, than it is the Belgium article. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wallonia and Flanders are also important to Belgium. I am however the opinion it is useless to show their flags in this article.  By the way: Belgium is also a founding member of the NATO and of the UN.  All the best by pushing your POV through.  I am a convinced European but currently the EU is far from being a federal state. Vb 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.247.108 (talk)

Obviously Flanders and Wallonia have their visual representation, in the section "Communities and regions". Again, the very second sentence emphasizes the EU involvements of Belgium. It is clear that these involvements are of higher degrees than to NATO for instance. Lear 21 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop your senseless reverts?
You are also reverting incorrect information in ethnic group box. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported
You've been reported for edit-warring at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 7 days
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.12.126 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reincident unexplained edits on Germany
1) About the percentage of Protestants/Catholics in Germany:

What was in the article: “Each denomination comprises about 31% of the population”. My contribution instead: “According to recent (end of 2007) estimates by the German Religious Media and News Service ("Religionswissenschaftlicher Medien- und Informationsdienst eingetragener Verein", or REMID http://www.remid.de/remid_info_zahlen.htm) and other sources, cf. «Religion in Germany»), there are 26.5 million Protestants (or 32.31 % of the total population) and 25.5 million Catholics (or 31.87 %) in Germany.”

And you reverted without any comment.

2) About the Jewish population in Germany:

What was in the article: “Germany has Western Europe's third-largest Jewish population (Ref: Blake, Mariah: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1110/p25s02-woeu.html «In Nazi cradle, Germany marks Jewish renaissance»).” My contribution instead: “Germany has Europe's third-largest Jewish population (after Russia and the United Kingdom)”, based on the fact that the source was obviously misquoted as it doesn's say “Western Europe” but just “Europe”, in order to include Russia.

And you reverted without any comment again.

This kind of edits of yours might be considered vandalism. If you don't agree with the article layout or content, please discuss it on the related talk page instead. It will be my pleasure to participate and to get to a consensus. Meanwhile, I have restored my contibutions as they are sourced and your editions aren't.

--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany
Hallo! Mein Name ist Sylvia und ich arbeite fuer die Deutsche Zentrale fuer Tourismus in London. Ich habe einen kurzen Artikel verfasst ueber Tourism in Germany, da auf der Germany page bisher noch nichts darueber stand. Leider kann ich den Artikel nicht persoenlich auf die Seite bringen. Deshalb wollte ich dich fragen ob du das fuer mich erledigen koenntest. Ich denke wirklich, dass der Artikel eine Bereicherung fuer die gesamte Germany page waere. Der Artikel wuerde gut als Punkt 8.2 (Tourism) passen.

Und hier der Text:

With more than 133 million foreign visitors in 2008, Germany is ranked as 7th most famous travel destination worldwide with its capital Berlin on position 8 among the top 100 list for best city break destinations A total of 369.6 million overnight visits were registered in accommodation establishments with nine or more beds and on camping sites in Germany in 2008. This was a 2.1% increase on the corresponding period of the previous year. The number of overnight visits from abroad rose by 3.2% compared to the previous year, totalling 56.5 million visits. The number of overnights of domestic visitors increased by 1.9% to 313.0 million which shows that Germans love to travel within their own country. More than 30% spend their holidays in German destinations. The most visited federal state is Bavaria (76.91 million overnights in 2008) followed by Baden-Württemberg (43.62 million in 2008) and Lower-Saxony (41.52 million in 2008). The majority of foreign tourists come from the Netherlands (9.69 million overnights in 2008), the United States (4.45 million overnights in 2008) and from the UK (4.22 million overnights in 2008).

Germany has a lot to offer, from vibrant cities to sandy beaches, high mountain ranges, picturesque river valleys and cosy villages. Along leisure tourism, cultural tourism with religious and historical travel has been increasing in Germany from year to year. Best examples are the huge offers for tours commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 2009 or visits to the Passion Plays in Oberammergau (Bavaria) in 2010. Green tourism is a big topic in Germany as well, best shown through the variety of biking and hiking trails around the whole country.

The German National Tourist Board markets Germany to the rest of the world and is represented in 29 countries.

The official UK website for tourism to Germany is www.germany-tourism.co.uk and the US-version is www.cometogermany.com Both websites offer a free online image database and a free brochure order service.

Es waer wirklich toll, wenn das klappt! Danke!

SylviaBaier (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sylvia, die Basis für jegliche Erweiterung in den Artikeln ist eine seriöse Quellenangabe. Insbesondere Fakten, wie Berlin als 8.meistbesuchte Stadt der Welt, brauchen direkte Links um Behauptungen zu untermauern. Gibt es solche Quellen ? Ich wäre sehr interressiert sie zu sehen. Kannst sie gerne hier auf die Seite stellen ohne Dir Gedanken um die technische Umsetzung zu machen. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unspecified source for File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Martin H. (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The copyright info has been amended. If there are still unsolved questions, please raise issues here first. Note that this image has become a major standard image in several high profile articles. It is of historical importance and has become indispensable. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hallo Lear. Ja, das Problem ist ungelöst. Nichts ist gemeinfrei ohne Grund. In Deutschland ist das bekanntlich noch etwas strikter: Urhheberrecht ist nicht übertragbar ausser durch Erbe. Nur der Autor, und niemand sonst, kann uneingeschränkte Nutzungsrechte einräumen. Sein Urheberrecht währt seine Lebenszeit und 70 Jahre dannach, nach dem Tod kann der Erbe oder wenn niemand bestimmt ist, die gesammte Erbengemeinschaft in Einmütigkeit das Bild frei geben. Ist der Autor unbekannt beträgt die Regelschutzdauer 70 Jahre. Es sollte also schon angegeben werde, woher die Information kommt das Bild sei gemeinfrei. Angenommen werden kann es zumindest nicht und mit der Änderung, die das "believed" entfernt kann ich nicht leben. --Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Das Bild wurde im öffentlichen Raum ausgestellt und auf der Straße abfotografiert. Copyright Verweise gab es keine. Ich schlage vor, Du schlägst vor, mit welcher Bezeichnung Du leben kannst und änderst es gegebenfalls, ohne eine Löschung anzustreben. Dass das Bild einen äußerst großen Wert für Wikipedia darstellt versteht sich von selbst. Es ist seit Jahren zentraler Bestandteil einiger der meistgelesenen Artikel. Im Zweifelsfall könnte ein non-free use license angebracht werden, wie in diesem Beispiel all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Das ist schonmal eine gute Information. War oder ist die Ausstellung permanent dort installiert? Dann könnte das Bild möglicherweise durch Panoramafreiheit abgedeckt sein. Fair use gibt es nur auf der englischen Wikipedia, nicht auf Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Es handelt sich um eine Daueraustellung mit Infotafeln zur Geschichte am ehemaligen Checkpoint Charlie, Friedrichstraße, Berlin. Meines Wissens existieren die Bildertafeln noch heute. Insgesamt also seit mehr als 5 Jahren. Sie stehen frei zugänglich auf dem Gehweg, gesponsert vom Land Berlin. Es sollte kein Problem sein die Beschreibung der Lizenz zu präzisieren. Jedoch sollte alles unternommen werden um dieses wichtige Dokument zu erhalten. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nur keine Hektik, die 48 Stunden stehen da, weil ich dich mit der Standardvorlage informiert habe. Commons hat minimum 1 Woche, meißtens 3-4 Wochen durch Überlastung. Ich habe das jetzt so geschrieben wie du gesagt hast: Du hast ein Foto einer permanent im öffentlichen Raum angebrachten Ausstellung gemacht, natürlich ist ein Foto eines Fotos kein Werk, dass von Rechten Fremder völlig frei ist, durch die Panoramafreiheit (permanent, öffentlich) ist das hier aber gedeckt. --Martin H. (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nix für Ungut;) Ich hab schon Speedy Deletions innerhalb weniger Stunden erlebt. Schön, dass es mit der verbesserten Lizenzbeschreibung geklappt hat. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG
Yes, this file again! Hi Lear 21--I just came across this picture on Commons, and something doesn't seem right about the copyright information. As far as I can tell you took a photo of a picture that was included in part of a public display. By doing this you are claiming that you can take a picture of that display and it falls under COM:FOP#Germany. However, I'm not sure that applies, because you made a direct copy of a creative work (the photo taken at the Berlin Wall). Since your picture is a direct copy of a creative work (and not a creative work itself), I don't see how you can claim copyright on it. What's your opinion? - Gump Stump (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Berlin vandalism
Lear, in spite of the talk page, I see the Fritz picture inserted again and again, now also by an IP editor. I will now delete it again, and a reinsertion I will report as vandalism. Just that you know. Kind regards --Ziko (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany-2
Hi Lear21, I'm the user who added the "update" template to the "economy" section of Germany. You removed it with this edit, but the section is not any better than when I first added it. It still makes no mention of the financial crisis, its effects on the German economy and on the latest election or the possible outcomes, actually it doesn't even deal with anything that happened in 2009.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

European Union lead
I can understand this reinstatement of an agreed version to the European Union article. However, in the lead, this reintroduced the redirect from economic union to Single market which I corrected earlier, before a number of other people came along and made edits. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great power


Hi, Lear21. I support the G8 picture and I´m glad you stick to it too. By now the other side has exposed iself to be arbitrary and hypocritical. This is poison to a project like Wikipedia in my eyes. Have a nice weekend. KJohansson (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making unilateral edits to Great Power until they have been agreed with other editors. If you really feel strongly than I suggest you start edit dispute procedures. In any case, your version of 20:58 contradicted itself because you listed the EU as a great power in addition to several EU member states. You cannot have great powers within a great power. Viewfinder (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Please pass your complain to the IMF, this international organization sees no contradiction to include both the EU and the single countries at their statistics as well (List of countries by GDP (nominal)). I´m looking forward to edit dispute procedures. Lear 21 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@KJohansson: From now on, I will be cold like ice at all these issues. I recommend that not provoking any circumstance the opposite can claim as uncivil. Right now it´s the only claim they have left. The opposite side has just no arguments to offer to prevent this article from getting updated. This is an encyclopedia. The facts and the reality will prevail, you will see. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to note your opposition to the incivility. But if you are so sure that you are right, why don't you stop your unilateral edits of Great Power, and read and apply WP:DR instead? Viewfinder (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Lear, you probably know very well that the fundamentalists like Nirvana and Phoenix are stuck in the 1980ies with their view. I took the freedom to spell out the naked truth about their behaviour and you know that. Take the Congress of Vienna pic, there is no way to keep this pic while at the same time arguing against the G8 pic. I was first only interested in this picture because an average TV consumer could judge the G8 as modern great power forum like the Congress of Vienna in the past. I´m still so pissed by the backward oriented ignorance and the rejection of the reality that I will keep argueing for it in the coming weeks. KJohansson (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnansson, accusing your adversaries of "backward oriented ignorance" will not help you get your case across to them. Continuing to unilaterally push your version into the article will not advance your case either. Viewfinder (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that I have proposed, and Nirvana has more or less seconded, a compromise in the Consensus section of the talk page, but there has not been any response to this. Viewfinder (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Lear, are you still advocating the G8 ? I´m just wondering. KJohansson (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would be great to see you on bord for this issue longer, you already provided many sources so lets get this done. KJohansson (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I´m glad you showed uo again. What do you think about the future, all possible aspects are met. All arguments are on our side. What can we do about the ultra fundamentalists. What can we do about the article which is constantly vandalized ? KJohansson (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the case you havn´t realized it. The 2 accounts Viewfinder and Phoenix are unlikely to position themselves with a clear statement. Without the commanding Nirvana888 account the other 2 will only asking for more time and further discussions to avoid an individual stance. In the case Nirvana re-appears it is unlikely that this account approves any of the credible references as this account has already irreversible involved itself in a hateful personal manner (you know what I mean). This account would massively loose its face in front of the other 2 when accepting the G8. As I am strictly content focused, I will further insisting on a comprehensive, nonbiased and updated version. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EU & Benelux
Dear Lear 21, I'm sorry but the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union pegged two European currencies together with the BLEU in 1921 and the Benelux Economic Union started in 1960, compared to the EU's Euro starting in 1999. The Benelux Customs Union started in 1948, compared to the ECSC in 1960, which was far more limited in scope and of course half of it was Benelux. The Benelux Parliament started in 1955, compared to the European Parliament in 1979. Robert Schuman was a great politician that famously got not only his French people but the Germans and the Italians to catch up with what Benelux had several times started decades earlier. This makes him a legendary diplomat but just as Newton[ stood on the shoulders of giants like Galileo, he stood firmly on the shoulders of the inspired politicians of Benelux. Merely read the five references on London Customs Convention to appreciate just how crucial Benelux was to starting almost every aspect of the European Union. Please do not be offended when I revert you slightly.:)-Thecurran (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I understand you right ? You want this content being placed in the intro ? The information you cite I´m at this point totally unaware of. Even in the German version nothing of it is mentioned. It seems at least not relevant enough for the introduction to be amended. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The information I'm citing here are easily verifiable dates and I listed five references you may read. My point is that the EU's origins precede the ECSC. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A Sincere Request
I am asking for the moment that you hold off on editing the Great power article, but it is not for the reason that you might think. Right now another editor User:KJohansson is currently editing and agreeing with you. Usually that is a fantastic thing. But in this case he is hurting your case. So far you have actually tried to discuss this issue and tried to bring proof. But that has been overshadowed by Johansson's edits and comments about other editors including myself. Because I believe that you are trying to do the right thing, I am asking that you refrain from taking actions like Johansson has. If you want to discuss this case outside of the Great power talk page I will be happy to discuss this with you. But as it stands right now that is not going to happen. I hope that you understand why I am making such a request and I hope that you are the honest editor that I think you are. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea I fell rather silly about this one now. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

User:Nirvana888 suspected sock puppet found
User:Zhonghuo is almost certainly another sock puppet of User:Nirvana888 if you check the edit histories. I thought I would let you know to help you keep track of this troublesome user. Wegos (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I wonder who this Wegos is. Could it be your sockpuppet account? I welcome, nay, encourage you to pursue investigation to see if we are related and look forward to the most tantalizing and surprising results. ;) That is even though you are on the verge of a long term block due to your disruption. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As Nirvana888 has been blocked before, because of socketpuppetry I´m sure this account is able to do it again, to maintain an arbitrary disruptive behaviour. The edits coming from the Nirvana888 account, I have zero respect for. Those edits are responsible for the suspicous reputation of Wikipedia. I can´t even imagine how editors like Nirvana888 can look straight in the mirror. Lear 21 (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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 Thanks. - SSJ ☎ 14:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry
You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As confirmed by CheckUser. MuZemike 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per your block evasion by using User:Friedrichshainer, your block is now indefinite. Regards, MuZemike 00:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Reichstag2006.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Reichstag2006.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Grundgesetz cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Grundgesetz cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Colognecathedral.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Colognecathedral.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Humboldtuniversity2006.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Humboldtuniversity2006.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Iccberlin22.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Iccberlin22.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Berlin reichstag 2005 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Berlin reichstag 2005 2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Germany/Comments
Talk:Germany/Comments, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Germany/Comments and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Germany/Comments during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of quotes featuring Berlin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of quotes featuring Berlin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of quotes featuring Berlin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Montblanceu.JPG


The file File:Montblanceu.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)