User talk:Ssolbergj/Archive 01

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, nice work on Image:AlJazeera_logo.png! :) 86.56.48.12 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again; I've noticed that the Arabic logo partt of the image isn't perfectly upright, it's actually slanted to the right (when compared to the logo on the Al Jazeera website, etc). Is there any chance you could remedy this? Many thanks in advance, 86.56.48.12 06:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ssolbergj! The cities - section is a useful contribution to the content. May I suggest some points to consider. Through an intensive research using city articles and rankings it got obvious that these lists are a constant source of dispute and edit wars. Especially Paris has to be considered 2nd or 1st when it comes to metro area size. I suggest : leave out the rank numbers (1,2,3 ...), add metro area population, leave out regions to save the space. To present the 5 largest in the list you may introduce a gallery encompassing smaller pictures ( you know the guys, who complain about to many pictures ....) all the best Lear 21 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the mentioned problems about city size, I suggest having a template like currencies and member states in the infobox. Numbering the 16 cities in a list (without population) over a million inhabitants. I also think 'Government' has to be changed in 'Presidencies' which is more accurate - see talk. all the best Lear 21 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The statistical table with population & density is not questioned. It is accurate and I´m fine with it.The discussions I am anticipating (edit wars) derive from my experience of city size/ urban area/ metro area - lists. For instance : Paris has in its city proper (~100 km2) 2mil. people. That is only the historic core. Compared as an urban area (intensively built up city structure) Paris has about the same size as London. Anyway, its up to you. What should be changed is 'Government' in 'Presidencies'. And if you are interested in keeping the current layout including pictures - have an eye on it in the future. The comments and complaints about the displayed images won´t have an end - so maintenance and support in discussions - even a sentence can help defending it. Jagshemash Lear 21 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Time is up! Need support in EU vote! Soon as possible ! Dzienkuje Lear 21 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please comment again on talk page. I told you this will be a merry go around... all the bestLear 21 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ssolbergj! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 15:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ode to Joy violin.ogg. 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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 images 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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mak (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This file needs to include performance information (where it was recorded, by whom it was performed, etc.) I'm also not sure it falls under Fair Use because I think it's too long and of too high fidelity (I can't double check right now) Mak (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me where it says SVG is preferred. Even if it does say this somewhere, there's no reason to replace a good image with a bad one just because it is SVG. John Reaves (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User fanofhp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jagshemash! Is there a solution to present the map legend in EU economy section in a compact way? I tried it, without results. And what do you think about presenting 'External links' like 'See also' I would support that. plus: vote for the largest city section, again ! all the best Lear 21 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Tuning! Looks very good now. By the the way: the color of the EU map is also a nice choice, it now matches even the color with the image above ( beach with light blue sky ). Lear 21 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous panorama on your user page. Countersubject 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:37 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Solana.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:José Manuel Durão Barroso.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a free alternative so quickly. --Bob 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your interest in Eurovision. I have two points here:

1) If there is a clear disagreement about such thing as in infobox, you should take it to the talk page and discuss it. Don't just enter into an edit war.

2) What purpose does this infobox serve? As far as I can see, it is a "Eurovision Song Contest" infobox, not a "generic song competition" infobox. The latter would be understandable, because it would mark the ESC as part of a number of song competitions. But it's not such a box. The information you include here in the box adds nothing to the article at all. You may as well have infoboxes for every single article.

Infoboxes should be present as a template, to be included in a series of similar articles: for example the episodes of The Simpsons. But for a stand-alone article such as the Eurovision one, it adds nothing.

If you disagree with me, and you can think of reasons why the box would add value to the article, then please discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. EuroSong ^talk 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, may I remind you of WP:3RR. EuroSong ^talk 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

... was a *great* idea. Just wanted to let you know. &;mdash;Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Signsol.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ssolbergj, there are some requests concerning the EU template. Results from discussions suggest a) 'Capital' should be changed in Seat of the EU Commission _ / Council of the EU. And b) Removal of largest city because it fails to be official like the other template entries. Would be great to see that changed, the template design is truely esoteric.... all the best Lear 21 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:France 24.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (I just saw the image was now orphaned since a svg version was created)

First of all thank you for attemping to create an image of the royal coat of arms of Norway. But the image depicted here to the right is an accurate depiction of the coa. Your image differs from it on some important points. As you can see the royal crown is of the kind used by Haakon VII in his early period and is only to be on the top of the ermine robe, not on the shield as well. The lion is of the design as stipulated in 1905, the one you have used is the 1992 version. Also the order sourrounding the shield is supposed to be the Grand Cross Collar of the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav. The problem with this image is of course the poor image quality. It seems however that the royal house has updated the design at least for use on their web page kongehuset.no. There they have depicted a more stylised two colour version with a more close-to-life depiction of the actual Norwegian King's crown. I don't know if that signifies that the design of the official royal coa has changed similarily though. Thank you.Inge 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

God morgen!

Jeg tror du bør gå til kildene med hensyn til Norges kongevåpen. Med respekt å melde er dine forsøk på å konstruere det ved å lime inn brokker og biter fra forskjellige nettsider nokså ubehjelpelige. Jeg skulle gjerne ha hjulpet deg med dette, men jeg har ikke satt meg inn i teknikken med å legge inn bilder i Wikipedias artikler.

Min hovedinnvending mot dine forsøk er at kongen siden 1937 har fortsatt å bruke det kongevåpenet som ble tegnet av Eilif Peterssen i 1905, mens staten tok i bruk den nye og mer stiliserte tegningen av Hallvard Trætteberg fra 1937. Kongens versjon har derfor karakter av å være et "varemerke" med en helt bestemt design, og alle forandringer blir derfor et brudd på god takt og tone, om ikke også et brudd på copyright og norsk lov.

En mulig løsning er å ta kontakt med Slottet for å få hoff-forvaltningens offisielle versjon. Som du er inne på, har de tydeligvis nokså nylig laget en ny versjon av kronen på våpenkåpen, uten å forandre noe annet ved innholdet. I alle fall er det viktig at kronen stiliseres og vises i projeksjon, ikke perspektivisk som på din siste versjeon. Og St. Olavsordenens kjede må vises som den faktisk er, ikke som et slags bånd med røde trekanter.

Hvis du sender meg en e-postadresse, kan jeg til gjengjeld sende deg en avbildning av Eilif Peterssens originale utforming, vist på et maleri som befinner seg i Utenriksdepartementet. Jeg har kopiert det fra UDs hundreårsberetning. Du kunne vel også være interessert i kongevåpenet slik det vises på minnetokronen fra 1907?

Send gjerne en e-post til lars@roede.no, så får du disse illustrasjonene og kanskje noen andre i retur.

Beste hilsen Lars Roede

Hi Ssolbergj

Nice work on your image of the arms of the Norwegian royal family. I understand why you've uploaded the image under a fair use template, but since the Americans seem to view such matters somewhat differently than Scandinavians, I'd recommend that you replace this license with a free license and add a description something like the following on the image description page: This image shows an official Norwegian insignia. The use of such symbols is governed by legal restrictions in Norway and many other countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Many other images use similar descriptions so we can avoid the Americans deleting the actual image, while staying clear of other legal complications. E.g. the German material uses this solution to distinguish the copyright status from other concerns, see {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol I just seeing your page and try keep out that bug out of my monitor! --Ciao 90 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ssolbergj.

I nominated Image:Coat of Arms of the European Union.svg for deletion. The reason for this is that it is not the official Coat of Arms of the EU (there is none). Therefore, Wikipedia should not have an image named CoA of the EU, as this may lead to confusion. Arnoutf 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, your userboxes don't scroll vertically in the latest Firefox, and the layout is screwed up in IE. That's more than 95% of the internet! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that article was that it read like an advertisement. There is a line in regards to whether something is a candidate for speedy deletion under G11 or if it can be tagged with {{advert}}. This article appeared to cross that line; articles deleted by G11 are advertisements that can only be fixed if fundamentally rewritten. If you still disagree, feel free to bring up a deletion review. --Coredesat 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:EPSO_logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ssolbergj. For the time being, I've reverted your edit to this template. If you wish to change it, might I suggest that you ask around first if people agree? Alternatively, the white template can be subst:'d to the affected userpages. However, I can't help but notice that Dannebrog red and grey make a very bad combination. The red is "dusty" on its own, but it gets amplified by also adding grey. Why not ask on the Danish Wikipedians' noticeboard how people feel? Cheers. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. No standard applies and no policy covers these boxes. Hungary, France, Denmark, Belgium (until you changed it) and Spain all had their own national variations. That is not a problem. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Just to point out, that userbox actually was being used, as part of the us education userbox set. I went and moved it (the other one that was there) so this one's free for your use now. Just make sure that nothing's actually linking there next time before you make changes :)--Wizardman 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

File:European flag in the wind.jpg

File:EUFLAG3322.jpg

You have made a nice picture of the European flag (Image:European flag in the wind.jpg see left and Image:EUFLAG3322.jpg, see right), however the stars on it make it seem to show that the flag is upside-down. As you may, or may not know, a flag upside-down means that one or the country is in distress. 159753 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

I would be really curious to find out what are your criteria to define a search engine as commercial or not.

Eugle.eu seems to be a really important tool. I use it for months, and very happy with the results. Is the best way to search for information in all the EU-chaos. But, fortunatelly I have never ever seen any adds, so I do not know it is commercial. Well in a certain extent it is commercial... europa.eu is commercial, wikipedia is also commercial if you want to see it well. But the same way, nobody makes intentional adds on nor of these sites.

On the other side, I spent quite a few minutes to integrate the link into the page. I do not know who are you, to make such police. I think I did a nice job, and the link is usefull!

A. Belechean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.71.10.143 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I really think it is ugly to omit the coastlines of Norway and Serbia. It looks like they've been flooded. Note also revised design for euro coin. How about putting them (and Switzerland) in grey? --Red King 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi S ! The new EU map is hard to read. White borders were better I think. The full country names should be also established without abreviations. all the best Lear 21 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it "member state" or "member-state"?

It's "member state". See europa.eu and eu2007.de but I don't think it is very important beyond getting the page names right. -JLogan 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jagshemash S.! A problem evolved at the Berlin article. Because of a new infobox design a new Germany map Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg has been integrated. I doesnt match with the old Europe map. It would be great to see you providing a new map. The specifics would include : An EU27 - Europe map colored like this one Image:European Union vector map.svg (lightblue), no overseas territories or candidate countries integrated, and a highlighted Germany in green (comparable to this one Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg. Many thanks in advance for your answer. Lear 21 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome Work! Tromsø rulez Lear 21 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I see your interest in the EU Portal. I would like to know what do you think about my attempt at modernizing it. You can see it here. Thanks. --giandrea 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I add that you are invited to talk about the renewal of the [[Portal:EU|EU portal on the talk page of the above link. --giandrea 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed text with the edit summary "revert vandalism"...yet nothing about the text you removed could be construed as "vandalism". What is your rationale? Tomer^talk 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the text was alarmist and heavily POV, but the POV could have pretty easily been removed w/ a simple edit. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I’d just like to alert you to a post I recently made on the PlayStation 3 article’s talk page. It regards the connectivity infobox that you created — the one that was recently taken out of the article by another user per Wikipedia policy. I’m trying to garner support for reinstating the use of the template in the article’s infobox, because I think the template works very well in the article. Please see the post/discussion here, and respond on the talk page, not on my user talk page. Thank you. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as you're used to all this image tagging, do you know which should be used for ones from the EU Audiovisual Service? As I have put on the first to images (below) I have word from the AVS stating that they can be used, and I double checked with them they said the information was all fine but there was still the tag problem. I had it as educational but as it was for speedy deletion I've changed it to promotional. So just asking if I am on the right track with that before I put more up, and also making sure people know the AVS images can be used (as they seem to have been avoided before). Image:President Barroso 06.jpg Image:Barroso Commission Group 07.jpg. -JLogan 09:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:JLogan#AVS_Tag

I was concerned about the "published" line too, but I got the thumbs up just from the upload so I'd say we're not going to get any problems from them. Just other editors. Considering how many images we could use off there it's not like someone isn't going to see them and try deleting them. And as far as I know it is just AVS not the EU as a whole, would probably be applicable to the whole but that contact was from AVS so I wouldn't say there is explicit permission in the same way. In terms of credit, the line is "European Community 2007" so I'd say unless the image page says something different (2008 in 2008). I'd say the email is the strongest back up we have so how about using the new tag, perhaps with a mention that if another editor wants clarification they can email x address and find out themselves, as anyone can fake an email. -JLogan 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's go with it. Just deal with the sceptics when they come but they didn't seem that bothered, in fact the email ended with this note "Kindly also have a look through the video section of our site which also contains educational presentations about European policies: http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_prod_en.cfm?type=docu_vnr " - They want us to use their videos too! Though considering their desire for publicity, I don't blame them. I'm attaching the template to the images now. -JLogan 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you have created this template. Due to the fact that permission is required for use outside of Wikipedia, I have reformatted the template to conform to the general guidelines of all non-free media. This also means that these images must be accompanied by appropriate fair use rationale. Therefore, please avoid uploading these images in place of existing free-use images. Also, please go back through all of the images you have uploaded and be sure they conform to Wikipedia's rather strict fair use policy. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get why fair use is required if there is explicit permission saying we can use whatever we want, they even invited the use of their videos. They haven't been put on Commons or anything. I'll see if I can ask for something clearer from them, in the mean time can no one wipe any images in case I can get something broad from them? - J Logan ^t/_c: 10:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. "...It is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it." If permission only extends to use on Wikipedia and not by third parties, it is a non-free license and requires fair use rationale. --Tom (talk - email) 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest email, improvement but I'm not sure if the wording is enough; "thank you for your patience in this matter. This is to let you know that the Audiovisual Library of the European Commission is willing to allow you to use our images free of charge without restrictions and also on the wikicommons server www.commons.wikimedia.org. We do, of course, insist on having our copyright "© European Community, 2007" indicated."

The permission on the website has not been changed, but this only came in at 13:00 WEST. Should clarification be sought do you think? - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just seeing your work. Was going to do some work in cutting down the overused pictures but trying to to tread on your toes at the moment. Cool chart, very much needed. With making it fit though, how about having a full page width version and just moving other sections into the politics box area so it has more space. History is at the top of some parliament pages, perhaps also powers? That's what I was thinking of doing before at least. - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi S.! Have a look on the Template:Infobox Country talk page. The issue is to integrate an EU flag to the EU member states infobox. If you are interested in programming a solution to the infobox then join. A possible solution could include the flag right after the entry 'Accession to the European Union' in the same column. Dzienkuje Lear 21 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AlJazeera logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Commission President Barroso.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tom (talk - email) 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An image being used is not a valid reason for violating the terms on Commons. Commons does not allow logos. The image had a logo in it. If you want to reupload without the logo that would be fine. But not removing items that are used that violate the Commons policy because they are used is ridiculous. I think the userboxes will be fine for a short while without a pretty image in it especially. MECU≈talk 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ssolbergj, could you provide a more precise source for Image:Giovea.jpg? Thanks, Iamunknown 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't find the article I took it from, but anyway, I changed the image to a new one with certain source and copyright.

Okay. Thanks, Iamunknown 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I crossed that picture you uploaded some time ago. Do you know the source of it? It seems we also need it with that license. And that could help us for an ongoing discussion on the talk page: it seems that by law, we should add SPECIMEN to all notes, but we are not 100% sure... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added details in the summary_└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it, I created an other file with the Specimen text (I had put it on all bank notes, with a part of the text hidden by the notes that was on top of it), because for example, the €10 note is visible on 50% of its surface. I uploaded it under an other name, Image:Euro banknotes2.png and will ask on the talk page which one gains consensus. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi S

I have noticed on your contributions and your edit count that you do not give edit summaries. Please note that it is most beneficial for other users, who have a page you edit on their watchlist. So far the on sumarries you hae provided is automatic ones, editi summaries whre you edit a section, the edit summary is given as the section title.

You can find more information at Help:Edit summary

Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how's it going?

I've been looking through the History of the European Union page for some time now and I don't know if you agree but it seems to be it is very weak, the main focus of actually history is enlargements. No one has consistently edited it or added major content in a while by the looks.

You may have notices me trying to improve history sections on the Parliament, Commission etc. - that was partly an exercise to see what information I can get in. I've am now planning on dealing with history, including the main article, head on but although there is quite a bit of media there a bit too much in some areas and I am lacking any sources in others.

So I was considering trying to organise a taskforce (or just a decent sized collaboration) of EU history; aiming to have a comprehensive overview of all aspects of not just the development of the EU, but major events surrounding it and events in Europe outside the EU (an article on the history of modern -post WW2- Europe appears lacking) (I also hope it will reinvigorate the largely dormant EU Wikiproject). You seem to be the editor I've run into most, and a dam good one if I may say so, would you like to work with me on this? Get this thing together, get others and start revamping the pages? I could do with your skill on things like graphics and nav boxes, considering how amazingly complex organising all that history would be.

Thanks. - J Logan ^t/_c: 10:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I've looked at the US history article for example. It has {{United States history (sidebar)}} and {{US history}} as templates, in addition to {{North America topic|History of}}. We could make something similar for the EU, but it's clear that timeperiods have to be split up into seperate articles, and to have the overarching History of the European Union article with bits of all. And when I say timeperiods, I mean real numbers. Thats what is needed for lucid templates. But afterall, the history of the EU isn't very long, and has few notable dates and years of something that changes other than the treaties.

It would allso be nice to have the {{Europe topic|History of}} template below, but I've tred to integrate the EU into those "in Europe" templates before and been reverted by people saying that only "real" countries should be in them._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. In terms of time periods; there seem to be plenty of breaks use din other histories, such as treaties, enlargements and commissions, but overall - especially concerning Europe as a whole, it seems very hard to pin down an exact date for a major change. Though I agree with really need them, especially as it would allow us to treat them as detailed units of a bit of history, to link to from articles about a slightly different line of history.

Another problem is that so many are minor individually, but together form an era - meaning we have no single fixed dates for major changes. There is a lot of overlap between eras. Those events with dates (1/5/4) would break up the writing, the 04 enlargement began with 1989 and still hasn't finished. Again, this is the organisational problem I see.

I was wondering is there was some way to display the overlap, have it run like parallel timelines or something? I think I was trying to run with that idea on the history with the Presidents of the European Union timeline, but there is no way that can be applied like that, we need the details.

On the Europe in topic template, had noticed the hostility to including the EU, if Kosovo gets in then I think the EU ought to be considering how many articles that would link up. I do with the leaders would stop mucking around and call a spade a spade, like Blair deleting the word "federal" without changing anything else. Dishonest cowardice. Perhaps if we just work to integrate links to EU pages into the Europe pages more?

- J Logan ^t/_c: 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just started a plan here: User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory. Bit of a mess, but in terms of the divisions, that would work you think? I've kept post-1993 on the same page as a lot of that is on going and I think it would be best to hive it all off post 2009 when the new treaty comes in. In terms of the detailed sections, both the post-1993 and what would be in the extra pages, I think we could do with some long timeline down the right side. - J Logan ^t/_c: 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great! It really tells the most essential things in a good and concise way. You know that some eurosceptic editors will seek every sentence for "ad-like" formulations. 1945-1957: Peace from coal and steel might sound too europhilia for some, although it's true.

I'll try to find a template or something to try to standardise that timeline._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the WP:GUS was to migrate non-Babel userboxes away from the templatespace, you may not be aware of this, but as it stands now that page could be speedied. I suggest you apply WP:GUS asap to prevent that happening. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Library screenshot.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in, its... em.... where do this leave us?

"the Audiovisual Library of the European Commission is not in a position to change its copyright mention on its website as our website is being used by a huge number of different kinds of people. We, however, do not see any inconvenience as to Wikipedia / Wikicommons using our images without limits in the fields of education and information as stipulated before. We insist on having the copyright mentioned on your website as you are already perfectly doing it. Moreover we especially refer to the 0. PREAMBLE, 1st paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Licence that we totally agree with. Wikipedia will not have any conflict of informationin that respect."

First they say without restrictions on Wikicommons, now there are still the education limit and they aren't changing the copyright, how does this change anything? And they have clearly read the texts, well, at least up to the preamble. Not sure how they intended on having no restrictions to a large database but requiring it for every else. This still leaves us with needing fairuse doesn't it? - J Logan ^t/_c: 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no GNU expert, but 0. PREAMBLE is limited to text, so they have misunderstood.
We insist on having the copyright mentioned on your website as you are already perfectly doing it.
They have clearly read our AVS tag (ignored Tom's fair-use demand) and thought it was fine. The fact that they won't change their copyright notice means that we simply can't get rid of rationales._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To get rid of the education limitations would obviously be a big move internally in the AVS due to the fact that many people are working seemingly solely with requests for non-educational use of their images, but I don't really see what they are afraid of.. Inconvenient photoshop Hitler moustaches? It's just foolish._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They're very good at being infuriating don't you think? I'm just going to have to make things very clear and simple at the risk of sounding rude. Unless you want to have a shot at it? - J Logan ^t/_c: 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of non-EU related material they think might include a photo of the European Commission in. And they did agree with the GNU, text or no the wording goes against their own copyright, free for everyone to use, even commercially? What are they actually doing? Do they know their own copyright? They have given the thumbs up to every form of template there has been, every image we've used (including one of a building...) - J Logan ^t/_c: 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All they've said has been incoherent. Yes, you should send an email and explain things in a clear and simple way, without linking to intricate GNU info, or being afraid of repeating what you've said/explained in earlier mails. No need to mention GNU. Just say that in principle, anybody needs to be able to use all material on Wikipedia etc. Just point out their incoherent answers and make it sound like you need further answers so that it doesn't feel like nagging. Make it positive and use the "Commons = all languages" argument.. You know._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, working on it. Oh and on them not wanting to change their jobs, I think they could always be reassigned but you know what civil service is like, if you have a nice job where you just stamp approval on everything then go home (which seems to be these emails) then why get rid of lots of perfectly productive jobs. I hope it isn't that but in case it is, I'm going over their heads in Margot as well, she is in charge of PR so must be positive to this, I hope. Will see, she has always seemed nice enough, but then again PR. Fingers crossed. - J Logan ^t/_c: 19:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

haha.. are you sending it to Margot Wallström? :D Well I guess we'll have a better chance there.. _└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth a shot isn't it? I mean she isn't a civil servant, likes technology and stuff with her blog and all, like popular people relations. Pitty I haven't learnt Swedish yet, I'm going there for a year in 2 months and will be doing some indepth learning then. That might of helped, but I can still get my foot in the door my mentioning it maybe. Only problem is Commissioners take a while to respond so we'll have to wait a while for her. - J Logan ^t/_c: 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely worth it.. if you emphasise how it benefits for the EU and compares it to the American and Polish policies i'm sure she'll agree, (and maybe even fire Claudia. muhaha!) If Norway had been a EU member, maybe I could have sent her a letter in Norwegian..
As long as people accept this ongoing request as a fair-use rationale, we're in no hurry._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've emphasised that a lot. And now now, we don't want anyone fired... *evil thoughts* but might be nice if my emails were read properly. And if only Norway were in the EU, never have understood that, is it just about the fish thing? If there is another vote any time soon I'll be straight over to help out, I've very good with pamphlets you know, language might be a problem. Swedish and Norwegian is similar though right? I remember my uncle in Oslo (think it was him) saying the Norwegians can understand the Swedes and the Danes but the Swedes and the Danes can't understand each other. Sorry, gabbling. Isn't there some kind of time-out on requests? Have to get a response by a certain time or it can be wiped? Because I don't think any of these counts as a "response" so far, and we're already two men down (They got Kinnock the other day, despite him being irreplaceable). - J Logan ^t/_c: 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess (no-voting) Norwegians are too aware of the fact that they're very few and very rich, and afraid of sharing oil, fish and wealth.. Xenophobia combined with some kind of Patriotism and euromyths. They are afraid of being a minority.
I havent' heard about any time-out on requests.. Who's Kinnock?_└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefuly something will happen after the next election? All laggers will go mainstream at somepoint as everything expands. You think if Denmark and/or Sweden go into the Euro that might give it a bit more of a push? Denmark should be getting rid of their opt-outs soon.
Kinnock, Neil Kinnock - UK Commissioner under Prodi (and former Labour Party Leader). Photo got wiped.- J Logan ^t/_c: 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"we fully understand your position. The Audiovisual Unit of the Eur. Commission will soon have a meeting on Copyright to decide on how to deal with it in the future. For the time being we, however, cannot change the copyright stipulations on our website. Thank you for your understanding and patience." Hopefuly the Wallström email will help. Might help if we got other editors to drop emails of support for a free licence, influence them before the meeting. - J Logan ^t/_c: 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who sent that?_└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Same person, Claudia

Might help if we got Lear21 and other editors to do that.. But i'm not quite sure how such lobbying emails might look like.._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As in the format of the email or the affect of the emails? - J Logan ^t/_c: 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what we/other users are going to formulate such a letter intended to affect their position but without expecting an answer. Nevermind, you don't have to explain. _└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, just like any kind of lobbying, doesn't have to mention the meeting or anything, the idea is just to get pressure rather than have one person emailing. I'm also working on another idea to get images, looks promising, will get back if it work sout. - J Logan ^t/_c: 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

EP

Okay, on that other things I was talking about. I have just checked with them and the entire European Parliament Photographic Service is copyright free; www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu Hurrah for Democracy! Someone does it right, the exact wording of their notice (which I will forward to Wikicommons permission email thingy) is;

"Sir, Madam,

Please find attached the photo(s) you requested. These photos are copyright free, but must be credited "Photo European Parliament". Please acknowledge receipt by "reply". We thank you to send us a copy of your publication.

Thank you."

Which template covers this or do we need a new one? - J Logan ^t/_c: 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats great! Wikimedia Commons here we come! we need a new template for EP images as we still havent liberated the AVS.. However I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand these sentences: "Please find attached the photo(s) you requested" and "Please acknowledge receipt by "reply"."Ssolbergj 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I made {{EuroparlTag}} for this on commons

It is a standard document they send out, usualy it would be with photos on the email. They didn't have it on the website so I emailed asking about the copyright applying to photos, that is what they sent me. Just a .doc file with that in several languages. - J Logan ^t/_c: 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a catagory on that tag, so we don't upload the same things? Because I was just going to upload the vote picture as you put it on the page. - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The EP category is allready on.Ssolbergj 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that when I uploaded Veil, but nothing else went in it and now it is gone. There are no extra categories on any other images. - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The categories are only visible in commons. Ssolbergj 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Same, can't see them. - J Logan ^t/_c: 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why.. Ssolbergj 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, European Parliament, I've been sticking that tag on all mine, thought htat was that one not your one. Do you want to put a different tag though? As MEP ought to be in the MEP category etc. Also, direct link to their CR info, [1] - J Logan ^t/_c: 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are allready a MEP subcategory [2]Ssolbergj 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, but there is no sence in them all being in the main category as well bu defult, rather than a seperate category for photo service images or just their subcategories. - J Logan ^t/_c: 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss these maps before adding them to articles. I cannot believe you're in a vacuum here - you must be aware of all the agro this causes. Thanks/wangi 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted you additions, again best to discuss this. I have no personal; opinion on the lastest batch of "best ever" maps :) Thanks/wangi 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Where should I discuss it? Ssolbergj 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A good starting point is Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, with perhaps a pointer to a discussion there on the country article talk pages. As an example of the agro these things can cause have a look at the massive batch of comments from tonight at Talk:Netherlands (where there's also an appreciation of your map). Thanks/wangi

Hi! These maps are a definite improvement over the prior D Liuzzo orange locator maps. I am also trying to create new locator maps for European countries (resembling the locator maps used for most other countries, e.g., with green/grey colour scheme) -- this is being discussed ad nauseum at Netherlands; however, nothing is set in stone. Perhaps you want to place your map there, and or collaborate to create new ones? Thanks. Quizimodo 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the maps you made are good. I do have some minor issues though, which could be solved by a new version, I hope:

• The lines of the red boxes on small states' maps are too large, and some are not neat. (for example, the top line of the small Cyprus box is larger than the others)
• Perhaps the Swedish lakes should be coloured blue?

WP:WPC would indeed be the best place to discuss this. --User:Krator (t c) 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To my opinion, your map style may have very interesting aspects, though some things should be reconsidered. Yesterday, another user, Quizimodo, had enforced new maps... this is not the way to tackle things. I had already commented on that unilateral behaviour on forementioned user's talk page, and pointed out (and linked) the major section on a lengthy discussion / debate / edit war about David Liuzzo's maps, presented in that section found on the talk page of WP:WPC at which Wangi and Krator directed you. Perhaps take a deep breath and work your way through; try not to take sides but pay attention to argumentations and viewpoints, and considerations for particular countries (also in a few later sections, I think), and better first take a glance on what I put yesterday and especially just a moment ago on Quizimodo's talk page. Hoping to support good work. — SomeHuman 19 Jun2007 00:27 (UTC)

Condescension aside, SomeHuman, I enforced nothing but was merely being bold in improving this encyclopedia and the maps within it. I will also add that, save a couple of very prominent spots, few others have challenged the maps I added. Ssolbergj, I applaud you for boldly going where others have not, and please consider all appropriate arguments and context when moving forward ... particularly from those editors who, in fact, may be part of the current problem. Quizimodo 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Liuzzo maps were presented on 2006-09-04 and only after four-and-a-half months I entered the discussion on 2007-01-19... the European countries finally obtained a same style map again, then David Liuzzo's style, about five weeks later. That does not appear as if I was causing problems, does it? I rather did what needed to be done and accepted the flack. Forgive me my condescendance, it's a natural reaction on enthousiastic present-day inventors of hot water — I don't want to kill the enthousiasm, only weaken an unjustified boldness. A new map is going to run into similar problems and will at best be used for a few months unless it properly deals with all considerations, not just the ones Q or S see as the important ones. Most choices should be clear: e.g. projection starting from a view straight above the middle of the frame, never cut from a world map unless fully recalculated and redrawn as if seen from straight above the middle of the depicted map area. That should be the first thing because it is the only way to minimize distortion; such modified (not seen from the equator) Mercator style allows intuitively seeing directions (whether some area lies to the norhteast or nearly east or nearly north, and which part of the UK is straight north of Gibraltar) with least and then still towards corners evenly spread distance distortion. The only choice that needs to be made without being able to make everyone happy, is the detail: very simple and thus most clear at a first glimpse, or informative like Liuzzo maps. Whatever style would be chosen will afterwards be "improved" (as Liuzzo did, and as now you two are doing). That is why I suggest to give the detail but with lower contrast: on a small locator map it will appear simple enough, but enlarged by a simple mouseclick it offers what others will look for. A map that can only suit one purpose (of locator map in an infobox) cannot suffice because there simply are no equivalent large scale maps at hand, and if they would be created they should not require a different legend than the small ones shown as locator maps. Not having the right equipment or a lack of technical-geometrical knowledge should be overcome by seeking cooperation, WP does offer a large community of volunteers. Just my idea about colours, disregard de coloribus et de gustibus non est disputantum: blue is very common for water on maps, and 'opposite' colours are found to be appealing (matching), thus the shade of blue should determine the shade of yellowish/light brownish (brown being a kind of 'dark yellow', not a really different colour); grey/white/black are neutral and match all colours. I did not analyze the Liuzzo colours precisely, but with bluish cyan for water, one does not have much of a choice for the land areas, those have to be yellowish red, aka orange and a light orange comes close to camel, just to be appealing. The those colours do have the advantage of being suitable, recognizable, as water and land masses. — SomeHuman 19 Jun2007 17:39 (UTC)

I have requested this template for deletion, after email contact, and it is likely to be soon deleted, with all associated images. Sorry, Bryan 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Newropeans logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m just writing to ask about the licensing for Image:Sixaxis2.jpg. You have said that it is your own work, and subsequently have made it a PD image. But I’m curious as to how you procured the image (please don’t take this as an indictment; I’m just trying to figure out if the image is free or not). It looks suspiciously like a promotional photograph of the controller released by Sony — not any particular photograph that I’ve seen, mind you, but the lighting and positioning of the photograph makes me think that it might not be your work to release into the public domain. Of course, it is 100% possible that I’m dead wrong on this, as you could be a professional photographer with a studio and a PS3, and you might have indeed taken the photograph yourself. But if that isn’t the case, just because you got it from somewhere on the web and Photoshopped it a bit doesn’t make it a free image. Please let me know what the status is on my talk page. Thanks! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tagged the pic on commons because it has no source info.--NSX-Racer 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image has been deleted on Commons.--NSX-Racer 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ssolbergj/Archive 01, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurocoin 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Commission EUAVS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurosport logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back, just wanted to say good work in improving the EU Wikiproject , fantastic work as always! - J Logan ^t/_c: 08:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed your changes on the design of the project page. Your design was ok, but I think that the project page should be the decision of the whole members of the project. To install the old design, every member of the project was contacted and all the resulting comments showed approval. Because they were asked, some members even told, they now would be active again. Therefore, before you make any significant changes, please ask the members of the project. --Thw1309 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I support the use of presidency logos, Image:Portuguese EU presidency 2007.svg seems to be missing a copyright tag. The insignia tag itself states it is not a subsitute for one. - J Logan ^t/_c: 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The logo is a great idea... Lear 21 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it within fair use to use on the politics infobox also? - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so.. - Ssolbergj 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I clicked the edit button on my talk page to add a small reply, just thought I'd let you know that it leads you to edit the template rather than the section in the talk page that its transcluded in; I made the mistake of assuming the latter, and maybe other people will too. :) Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:EU2008 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not reinsert fair use images into a gallery formation that is strickly prohibited by WP:NONFREE. As I stated on the talk page, you are more than welcome to readd images that are for free use back into the article, but non-free images, especially for decorative purposes like this, is against policy. — Moe ε 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the the presidency logo being "probably the most essential logo of the EU", it does not qualify for Fair Use if there is no critical commentary about the image in the article. Please be familiar with the WP:NONFREE policy before reverting it again and make sure that is satisfy's all of the criteria. At that revision your reverting to, it doesn't and if you keep up violating fair use, I'll start handing out warnings about it. — Moe ε 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:EURid.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello.
I was wondering something about your svg image of the playstation 3.
It seems to very closely resemble an actual promotional photograph of the system, right down to the reflections. I know that, obviously, you never intended to deceive anyone, break copyrights, etc. etc. etc. (This isn't sarcasm or patronizing, I really do know that that wasn't at all your intention) However, I'm wondering if you accidentally infringed on copyright in this case.
More specifically, you (obviously) drew the image yourself. (good work, btw. I had no idea it wasn't a real photograph until I saw the SVG extension!) My question is whether or not you drew it overtop of a photo, as in, tracing?
Or if it was, in any way, derivative of an existing photograph you might have found online? Bladestorm 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw you edited my text in Reform Treaty#Key features about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. You changed my text to "A document on EU citizens right to strike etc. Legally binding as opposed to the Human Rights." I don't know what you mean by Human Rights exactly, but I think you didn't get my point. A lot of people don't seem to realize that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exists already. It was proclaimed by the EU in December 2000, it only does not have legally binding force at the moment. The Reform Treaty will make the Charter legally binding by referencing to the Charter in the Treaty text (also the text of the Charter will be slightly modified to resemble the text that was part of the EU constitution, but these modifications are barely worth talking about; they are merely fixes of translation problems in the original charter). Best Regards, Maarten 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At [3] and send it to others if you agree. all the best Lear 21 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you might take a look at the EU articles talk page, there is copyedit work going on and a minor conflict of ideas between editors including myself - although there are only a limited number of people contributing to the discussion on the matter. I would value your opinions on it and I'd appreciate your input to the discussion if you have a moment. copy edit discussion (see also, "refs" segment above it). - J Logan ^t/_c: 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on EU talk wether the deletion of visual content is appropriate or not. Lear 21 09:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Patent Office logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Data Protection Supervisor logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i only just noticed that on the 5th of July, you fixed a userbox on my userpage. I'm sorry i didn't notice! I really appreciate that you fixed it for me. If you've forgot what i was talking about, i mean this. I'm really thankful of your little deed, so have a barnstar! Jackrm 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Jackrm is awarding Ssolbergj a Barnstar for fixing my userpage, without being asked or needing to! Such acts of kindness make Wikipedia a happier place, and there should be more Wikipedians like this user. Keep it up! Jackrm 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the logo you uploaded actually appears with a grey background - at least when viewed with Internet Explorer. Also, the logo usually appears together with the text on official EDPS publications. In replacing the version you uploaded, I was trying to improve the look of the page, and make it more consistent with other article on European bodies, such as Eurojust and Europol (both of which have logos with text). --Marimg 07:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:European Film Awards Statue.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother. I was just wondering if you were aware of the concerns about European Union vector map III here. Notably, Moldova being a sea. Great work as usual, its just it is a major map and it has been like that for a while. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it is done, fantastic! - J Logan ^t: 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For your continuous efforts to improve the graphics of European Union articles, in particular your maps and the fantastic chart you made for the European Parliament, I award you this graphics barnstar. You continuing efforts have helped immensely and this barnstar is long overdue. Thank you Ssolbergj! - J Logan t: 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - S. Solberg J. 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You recently reverted four separate edits, each of which had a different reason in its edit comment, but in your comment you only said that the unverified claim does not need a reference. Was this a simple oversight on your part, or do you think that all of those edits were bad? I would be happy to discuss the matter, with reference to relevant wikipedia policies or guidelines, wherever you prefer. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what planet ou live on, but the fact that football, the world's most popular sport is the most popular sport in Europe, is a matter of course.
• I misunderstood your edits on the increasing role of the EU, but I do still think that the sentence "The role of the EU will increase in the future, if the Reform Treaty is ratified by all member states." sounds like a very seperate and direct POV statement. I know it's true, but it sound like a something you'd find on Open Europe's website, not in an encyclopedia. IMO it sounds more neutral to say that the role of the EU might increase.
• I'm sorry, I'll revert the other sport-policy words. I didn't see which tense the sentence was written in.S. Solberg J. 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that a reference should be found for "football is the most popular sport" - for example, more people in the UK go fishing than play football, but then there is no distinction in the article between participation and spectator sports - and the more obvious a fact is, the easier it should be to provide a reference. As for the effect of the Reform Treaty on the EU's role in sport, I'm afraid that it is speculation however it's worded. Maybe instead of rewriting it as a logical "if A then B" sentence, I should have asked for a reference, and a rewrite to convert the claim to fact by attributing it to a source (per NPOV). In summary, sorry for kicking up a fuss, I'm not going to edit war about this, and I do appreciate you taking the time to answer at length. Tusen tak. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alx 91 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going. A small question- a while back on the Berlaymont page you noted that the "Berlaymont appears in the sequel to NRK's drama mini-series "Kodenavn Hunter". Do you know the title of the sequel? Or is it just like a second series or something? Also, I was wondering if you have it you might have an image of it in the film?

Also, you commented on my WikiProject Europe proposal. In principle, would you be interested in participating in it then? Just want an idea of numbers before any formal proposal. Thanks! - J Logan ^t: 08:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find any new title for the sequel. Very few images has been published.

I've joined the Europe project. I'll try to make an SVG logo.S. Solberg J. 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! On the tags. Wallstrom didn't say much on AVS and I have heard nothing more from them and their copyright notice has not changed. I have not heard back from EuroParl's since I asked for clarification (from either email). I doubt another email to them from me will be will received. The scattering of photos has improved things though.

I am also looking at alternatives, I thought I'd checked before but I've just seen on the EPP-ED photo gallery: "All text and pictures in this Picture Gallery are free for use. However, recognition of the source, EPP-ED Group, would be appreciated." - I have emailed requesting clarification, rather than jumping the gun like before. I will check again at PES and ALDE soon. - J Logan ^t: 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Great logo btw, thanks for that. Although could you take a look at its reduced version (used on templates), might just be me but I'm not sure it shows up quite so well. Do you think you could look into ways to make it clearer and stand out more, either by adjusting the current or making a separate smaller image? Thanks! - J Logan ^t: 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made a infobox-friendly version. - S. Solberg J. 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, we could probably recruit people just by showing them how stylish we look now. Great work on the WPEU page as well! One small idea I've had in my head though. I noted on the talk page an idea of exceptional selected content (or some other important sounding name). I see Portugal has something similar here. Now they have a fancy star with the Portuguese colours, do you think you could wip up a blue version? We could call it something like the blue star award perhaps. I don't know, I'm making this up as I go along but it sounds good in my head! Thanks for everything again! - J Logan ^t: 11:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: On the EPP-ED photo gallery, I have not had a responce from them on the copyright question - I used the generic email on the website lacking anything better. It seems like an open statement on there so it might be safe to risk putting up a test image? - J Logan ^t: 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think you should try. - S. Solberg J. 20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what images did you use to create this ad? Fair use images (images which aren't PD and are copyrighted) must not be used in creating ads. Thanks. Miranda 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added them. - S. Solberg J. 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Miranda 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, someone has noticed that when you upgraded the members list some dissapeared. see here. Was there a reason or a mistake when copying the data? Just checking before I do anything. - J Logan ^t: 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

European people KarenAER 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just calling your bat phone! Need a tad bit of help, its about the city table for the EU article, A and I have been developing a new one to try to fit the new ideas with Lear's protests. It can be found here. However it doesn't work that well, for a start on the lower one we can't get the borders to go away. As you made the other new one and you have fantastic skills in this area, I was hoping you could give us a hand? If you have a spare moment of course, don't want to interrupt. We just need to iron out the problems as if there is a single problem Lear will dismiss the whole idea yet again. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've now engaged. Bat phone? - S. Solberg J. 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we need the help. And bat phone, as in from Batman. The red phone what flashes which is called when Batman's help is needed. - J Logan ^t: 07:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know there is another summery for city sizes here. If you have the time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Sorry this is going on for so long! Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for exhibiting such noble restraint regarding the use of the {{Infobox Space agency}} "location" field on the ESA page. Changing the name of that field to "owner" was an excellent choice, and demonstrating the "show/hide" approach on the talk page ought to make everyone happy! (sdsds - talk) 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, quick question if you're not too busy. With the previous discussion on member states in the EU infobox. How close are the two boxes? Is memberstates the only differences? Also, are the others from the country box included in the EU box (Gini, HDI, Demonym etc. - do we just not have HDI info etc?). Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We might want to add some info about the ongoing debate about the apportionment of MEPs...? —Nightstallion 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I guess we should.. S. Solberg J. 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nrk tv logos.png. 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. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi S.! The new EU map of member states looks to much like a CIA WFB map. We should have a fresh colored look like the last one, or something similar. all the best Lear 21 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the two eu maps to:

• {{European Union Labelled_Map (blue)}}
• {{European Union Labelled_Map (brown)}}

I think the earth colours and blue sea of the latter looks more "serious, 'geographic' and encyclopedic". I think we need that in the main EU article atleast. - S. Solberg J. 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The member states are a crucial part of the article. They need to be represented in a comprehensive big size map with completely written country names (with some exceptions). The light blue signifiyng ocean/sea is fine but the brown colors on the mainland are too depressing and ugly. May be a light green ??? And: If you really want a programming challenge here is the task... a) Create a map combining the historic development of membership (History section map) with the map in member states section b) keep the features of both / fixed country links / evolving territory of new members / timeline indicating the year of accession / 2 maybe 3 colors of the same color family for the territory, one for all members today, one for every new accession in history. It would avoid having 2 maps close together as it is now. Think about it & lots of fun with it. Lear 21 13:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for modifying the video template. Whatever you've done, though, has made a bit of a mess of the Science Reference Desk, which had used the template. Can you take a look and figure out what's broken? Lemme know via my talk page if I can help. Thanks, Nimur 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Again you've made a lot of changes that have resulted in breakage. You have unbalanced tags, and even missing > for a tag itself. Please consider experimenting in user-space or some other test area. I think it's great to make the template results look good, but it's more important that they work at all. I am reverting your last set of changes because I have no idea what the goals of them are (please remember to use edit summaries!) or how entangled the seriously broken ones are with the ones that are just minor spacing changes. DMacks 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:DOTEU logo.png. 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. BetacommandBot 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add your voice to the discussion on the template.--Lucy-marie 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)