Talk:European Research Council

message: I accessed the following pages on BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4697883.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4277561.stm, however, I don't think they are suitable to be listed as references. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old chat

message: Story covered here, . Article needs major update. Grunners 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERC Launch 

message: :Image:ERC logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.
BetacommandBot 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ERC logo.png

message: I have reverted a wholesale revision of the article, twice now, since the edits removed references and added original research (that is, in this case, the quality that made the thing read like an essay), as is clearly evidenced in statements such as the following: "The major problem for research in Europe is the fragmentation and disintegration of the whole knowledge space wich is to be organized as a single system of sciences, humanities and engineering thus providing the conceptual base for a single European Research Area." This kind of thing is not OK in Wikipedia, and the IP is urged not to keep reinserting this sort of information, in this and other articles: such changes are disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2010

message: Due to the dispute, the article is fully protected for five days. Please use this time to get agreement on Talk about any changes that may be needed. If reverts continue after protection expires, without first making an effort to get consensus on Talk, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now put the article under long-term semiprotection. An IP from the 83.168.* range keeps putting back a wildly different version of the article which includes some unsourced criticism of the ERC, for example: The first results show that the shortcomings typical for the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development apply to the Ideas programme as well: staff maladministration, arbitrary decisions on eligibility and funding, low peer reviewing, the last comes from the hard scheme of Science and Engineering used by ERC, which is missing the converging and emerging sciences and technologies and setting up the panels of experts only with narrow expertise. Among the interdisciplinary research happened such completely unfitting projects as "Reconstructing Ancient (Biblical) Israel" or "Evolution of Development in Plants". The first ERC advanced grants, mostly distributed among academics from national universities, showed a fateful fault of mixing educational institutions with research institutions, thus leaving aside progressive research companies and so original ideas and avant-garde research projectsThe IP wants to offer this criticism in Wikipedia's voice, as though it were part of what everyone knows about the ERC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and such POV-pushing does not belong in our articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Unfortunately there is no information yet on the further development of the ERC under the Horizon2020 programme of the EU, which should be incorporated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.250.1 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizon2020 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on European Research Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130551/http://www.idconsortium.es/en/news/erc-grant-holder-awarded-nobel-prize-physics to http://www.idconsortium.es/en/news/erc-grant-holder-awarded-nobel-prize-physics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For those following this page, there are two articles created on the grants. I have proposed either merger or redirecting them. Talk:ERC Starting Grant#Proposed merge with ERC Advanced Grant is the discussion link. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant articles discussion