User talk:Lear 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
04/2006 - 01/2007 01/2007 - 04/2007 04/2007 - 10/2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. Instead they list statistics for 16 different trade areas, including the EU [2].

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)

[edit] European Union talk page

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

[edit] 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 [3] 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)

[edit] European Merit

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I hereby give you this for your contributions to the European Union on Wikipedia. And I definitely share your pro-federalism! - S. Solberg J. 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

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)

[edit] 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 to the article European Union‎ 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. Please do not attempt to disguise article restructuring as mere page maintenance. Thank you. 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)

[edit] 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.

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] Edit to Bundesland template from IP address

It is clear that these two changes - [7] [8] - 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)

[edit] LiverpoolEuropeancityofculture.JPG

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [11]. The new figures are very different now, probably because of a new data methodology. Lear 21 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)