Talk:Parties in the European Council

message: Would it be a good idea to have a legend for the map? And more self-explanatory headings for the table?--Boson 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The summery table does that doesn't it? With the headings, perhaps it is best to just link them more?- J Logan t: 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe coalitions should be noted differently, particularly since there are different configurations of the Council. This is how it's done in the article on Bundesrat_of_Germany Aryah (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legend

message: I'd like to change all these articles from "Parties in the Council of the European Union" to "Composition of the European Council". Reason being that the leader does not sit in the Council, but in the European Council, and it coalitions mean the parties can't apply to all ministers. Further more, these provide a full historical index of those people who have sat in the European Council so I think it is more helpful to come under the European Council name (hence my dropping of political in favour of something more generic). How's that?- J Logan t: 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, if the content remains unchanged... Keep in mind there's about eight of these articles. —Nightstallion 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about delay on this, I'm on it now. No content change of course, except for those relating to the change in the article name.- J Logan t: 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: The image :Image:Gediminas Kirkilas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Gediminas Kirkilas.jpg

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 21 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ppc wikipedia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Helle-Thorning-Schmidt.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:DiRupo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: It's time to stop presenting Mario Monti, Traian Băsescu, Dalia Grybauskaitė, and Lucas Papademos as independents. Most of them, if not all, have been involved in political parties and all are supported by a coalition of parties.
As regards Traian Băsescu, I don't know who is stupid enough to believe that he has to be independent as stated by the Romanian constitution. Wikipedia relies on coherent sources. If this table has to take into account what national constitution, then I demand that Nicolas Sarkozy also be presented as independent, as laid out in the French constitution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I want to hug you Julien-223. I whole-heartedly agree with your point (although I am not aware of the French Constitution provision, if you are correct that is very persuasive). Perhaps a solution would be to list the parties that are/did support the president and have a new colour for either the main party supporting or something like purple for a mixed result. Also, I feel that the PM of Romania is the real power but I admit I am not nearly an expert. I know the president has power and isn't a figurehead but he doesn't seem to be more powerful than the PM. It seems rather like Finland but a little stronger. Any thoughts on that? (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Funny, yesterday, I was saying to Ignis Fatuus that the EPP website lists Traian Băsescu among EPP heads of States. This was not only visible on the EPP homepage (www.epp.eu) but also on the "Heads of States" page. But astonishingly, the "Heads of States" page was modified overnight (http://www.epp.eu/council.asp?z=5D5B) and Basescu removed. Somebody's being really careful about this Wikipedia page, in times of major social unrest in Romania. But they haven't had the time to change this page (http://www.epp.eu/pressnew.asp?artid=1770) or the dozens of similar EPP press releases (search Basescu http://ppe.eu/press.asp?page=3&year=2001&month=2) of which I keep a copy and where Basescu appears as an EPP head of State. Neutrality is the rule on wikipedia, we should be very careful about that.</br>Ignis Fatuus has rightly pointed out that the French constitution doesn't impede the president to have party membership card. I take that back. I was only referring to the spirit of the French constitution and De Gaulle's ideas on the president's position. I don't know if Sarkozy has his UMP membership card. I know the last article of the UMP statute lays down who is in charge of the party when the party president has been elected president of the Republic. This suggests that president isn't considered as UMP leader or member, but actually without saying anything clearly about that.</br>Anyways, I think that basing our table only on membership cards and legal fictions is legally right, but scientifically poor and poor from a wikipedia point of view. Wikipedia bases on consensus and verifiable sources, and most media underline the strong political links of Traian Băsescu and Dalia Grybauskaitė with political parties.</br></br>I guess Ignis Fatuus will not agree on that, no matter what his reasons are. But I have enough proofs that Basescu is an EPP member, so I demand that he be presented as such on this wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: So-called independents

message: I have fully protected the article for 3 days. In addition, I have reverted the article to the way it stood before this dispute started. Please note that this does not in any way mean that I believe that version is correct, or that the last version was wrong--I have absolute no (zero, none, zilch) opinion on this one way or the other. However, I do believe that since there was a clean "prior version", reverting to that version is the best way to ensure parity while the discussion continues.  
Edit warring is never the correct way to deal with a conflict. Instead, you both should be discussing the issue here on the talk page.  Technically, I could have blocked both of you for edit warring, but figured this was a little bit kinder. At this point, it is clear that you need outside opinions to help guide this discussion. Since there seem to be only 2 people involved in this discussion (maybe 3; I'm a little unclear if the IP is a separate person or one of the other two editing while logged out on mistake), a request at the third opinion noticeboard is probably a good first step. And if that isn't sufficient, I recommend moving on to either the dispute resolution noticeboard or an request for comment. If you need help setting any of those up, please let me know and I will guide you through the process.
However, if the edit warring begins again after 3 days, I may reprotect the page...or I may just start blocking people.  Now is the time for discussion, not edit warring. Please. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a third person (fshoutofdawater) but I am NOT in the editing war. I was simply discussing on the talk page so I think there are no grounds to block me. (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your request for a 3rd Opinion as I see no section made where a disagreement between 2 editors is clear.  If you want to make a request for a 3rd opinion, please indicate clearly the request.  In a separate section would be most ideal, so the 3rd party can opine neutrally and clearly.Curb Chain (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is: Ignis Fatuus won't participate in the Talk page!Julien-223 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection