Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Euromynten mini.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Euromynten mini.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 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Project European Union
Hello Glentamara, 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 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Glantamara! Poland has really not ratified the treaty. I know it. I live here. On the 9 April he was only given the right needed to ratify. But he's not as of yet used it. I don't want to overwrite your 'undoing' my edit. Coult you please do it yourself when you change your mind ?? I also tried to change the colour on the map, but its too complicated. You see I'm not very advanced on wiki. Sorry for the comment in this place. You can delete after reading it --User:pawel-kermit 19:00, 22.9.2008 (UTC) Thats the link http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/18280 I had to watch the wrong colour for Poland on the map for quite a long time and it's been frustrating - believe me. Look at the date of the article JULY. Please, help me straighten this up --User:pawel-kermit 19:07, 22.9.2008 (UTC)
Request for comments
Is a bit long, but can you comment at Template_talk:Euro_adoption_future#I_propose_to_change_the_name_and_the_structure? It will be very much appreciated.
Colors in File:Schengenzone.svg
Hi. On the Schengenzone map, can you change one of the colors for either "Associated members" or "Other EU members" to something distinct, like the way the UK stands out? Looking at the map, I can't tell which countries are Associated and which are Other. I don't know how to do it. -- ~Mike~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I came to say! How about making the new-EU, Schengen-candidate countries a pure mid blue? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus for what
- Please, see Talk:Schengen Area#Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus removal (cleaner first map). According to the discussion, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania should not be removed from the map. They are bounded by the Schengen acquis according to the Treaties of Accession. --Glentamara (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
"VILNIUS -- The Lithuanian parliament has ratified the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with Serbia on Tuesday, Tanjug has reported. The news agency quoted Rimantas Stankevicius, deputy director of the International Relations Department at the Lithuanian parliament."
http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/12134-lithuania-ratifies-saa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia)
- The ratification procedure is not completed until the ratification instruments have been deposited. --Glentamara (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bytheway, legally it is the president of Lithuania and not the parliament that ratifies, so it is impossible that the Lithuanian parliament really ratified the treaty. The parliament has only authorized the president to ratify the treaty. When the president has ratified it, then the instrument also has to be deposited. --Glentamara (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Acting on the basis of the Constitution and in view of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Lithuania of 7 March 2012, the Seimas has ratified the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, which was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. The Law on the Ratification of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (Draft No. XIP-4162(2)) was supported by 73 MPs to zero, with 4 abstentions.
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4028&p_d=137646&p_k=2 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
- The law still needs to be promulgated by the President. And then, deposited! --Glentamara (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Prime minister of the Czech Republiv
Rusnok today took oath of office but necas will stop acting as prime minister when he form own cabinet so czech republic have now two prime ministers http://www.vlada.cz/cz/media-centrum/aktualne/prezident-poveril-sestavenim-vlady-jiriho-rusnoka-108247/ in czech republic dates of taking office of prime minister and his cabinet vary.
Please look and analize dates of taking and leaving office by prime ministers on czech government website for example fischer and topolanek http://www.vlada.cz/cz/clenove-vlady/historie-minulych-vlad/rejstrik-predsedu-vlad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, that was actually an interesting thing! Normally, the President first gives the mandate to a person to form a government, and then this person will take office as prime minister when the government takes office. It is very strange to have a prime minister without any government. But I am not an expert on Czech constitutional law. We will see on Thursday who will represent the Czech republic in the European Council. I doubt it will be Rusnok, but I might be wrong. Best regards, --Glentamara (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
hello, you edited template about european council and you switched year of elections from 2018 to 2019. i read constitution and i didn't notice that term can be longer after dissolving of parliament. It's stated that term of the Chamber of Deputies is 5 years only. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant the election law, and not the constitution. According to the election law, the ordinary election should always be held in May/June. If the parliament is dissolved in the previous term, then the next term is prolonged so that the next election nonetheless takes place in May/June after five years have elapsed. This was also the case when the parliament was dissolved in 1968. The next election was not held until 1974. --Glentamara (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Council of the European Union
Aight 2009 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Hello, I would be grateful if you could help or express your opinion at least about Council of the European Union article. User:Kashmiri steadfastly revert names of parties to the generic ones like: Enviromental Party - The Greens (Sweden) to Green Party only. It's like calling every ruling party of Eastern Bloc communist only nut in Poland ruling party wa Polish United Worker's Party. I used in that article full translation of every party's name just like in the Template:Members of the European Council but this user can't stand also that Det Radikale Venstre doesn't mean Danish Social Liberal Party but use this name. He also called me to edit warring but the result was: stale, i'll copy here his and my rationale.
Given our mutual undoing of revisions, I thought it would be more productive to have a rational discussion about this. I do not know you personally, so I have no knowledge about your familiarity with Danish political history, so please allow me to elaborate on it. I myself am from Denmark and has, as my personal interest, history and politics.
When parliamentary democracy was introduced in Denmark in 1849, there were two primary political forces. Conservatives (Typically the aristocracy etc.) called Højre (Literally "Right") and liberals (Typically farmers) called Venstre (Literally "Left"). The liberals chose that name to distinguish themselves from Højre.
However, later the Social Democrats was formed, which represented workers and as such was located, politically, to the left of the party called Venstre. Later there was a split in Venstre, and this new party named itself "Det Radikale Venstre", literally "The Radical Left" as you note. In this sense the word "Left" does not refer to being left-wing politically, it refers to the association with the party called Venstre.
"Radikale Venstre" is a name that ONLY makes sense in Danish, because the name "Venstre", when used in Denmark, explicitly refers to the Liberal Party of Denmark (As Venstre calls itself in English). Also, Radikale Venstre on their web page states what their name is in English: http://radikale.dk/english As you can see they clear say: "the Danish Social-Liberal Party", and therefore, since that is what they call themselves, that is the correct name in English.
Also, there is a problem with literally translating their name as "The Radical Left", because many far-left socialist and communist parties would, in English, use a similar name. Such as Syriza in Greece, whose name is a short of "Coalition of the Radical Left", so you risk major confusion, both in terms of parties, but also in terms of what politics the parties represent. That is most likely also why Radikale Venstre, themselves, say that in English they are named "Danish Social-Liberal Party".
I hope this clears up the situation.
Tsuroerusu (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Joining the discussion as one who did the second revert. Please take time to read WP:NCPP as it directly applies here; any doubts as regards that party's English-language name will only be welcome on the Talk pages under Danish Social Liberal Party. Please also read WP:3R. Regards, kashmiri TALK 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC) So Social democratic party in Portugal should change its name exceptionally for english too because now is right-wing and is a member of EPP? Case of the name Danish social liberal party I understood just like the name of oirechtas. In constitution it is called as Parliament of Ireland but this is just describing of what oirechtas means, not its translation. This situation include irish parties like fianna fail. But because English is a national language of Ireland and in parties register is only one name used irish parties hardly could be included in English name. Aight 2009 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC) If you disagree with the naming Radikale Venstre you can follow the procedure outlined here to propose a page move. Please don't drag the discussion out over other pages and your user page is no place to discuss article naming. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
and this from User:Blue-Haired Lawyer, he didn't respond to this answer. if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
and again User Kashmiri wrote on 23 october with request to refrain from edit: You are mixing up an encyclopaedia and fiction writing. If you feel like inventing names or things, you should perhaps go and write on another website. Wikipedia can contain only properly sourced material
- Hi. Could you give me a link to the discussion page? Bytheway, the official English translation of Miljöpartiet de Gröna is the "Swedish Green Party". My opinion is that we should use the official translations as far as it is possible. --Glentamara (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, i'm sorry for responding late but I didn't have notification that you send a message. It's the original discussion User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22 User_talk:Blue-Haired_Lawyer#det_radikale_venstre User_talk:Aight_2009#October 2014 Aight 2009 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Help with EU financial regulation articles?
Hi Glentamara! I'm looking for editors who'd be willing to help me make improvements to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive article and European Market Infrastructure Regulation articles, and I thought you might be interested. I found you on the talk page over at Regulation (European Union) and hoped you might want to take a look at my proposed updates. They're available here for MiFID and here for EMIR. As a disclosure: I do have a conflict of interest as I'm working on this topic as a paid consultant to the Managed Funds Association and I won't make any edits to the live articles. Let me know your thoughts and if you'd be able to look at either of the articles. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Why did you remove the list of members? According to the EU website, the Foreign Affairs Council is "composed of the foreign ministers from all EU member states", which is what I added. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's a simplified explanation that is not fully true. The council consists of different members from meeting to meeting. Sometimes countries are repesented by their permanent representatives, their state secretaries, trade ministers, defence ministers etc. You can check the participant list for each meeting at the website of the Council. There is no personal membership in the Council. --Glentamara (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ITN recognition for Donald Tusk Comment
I've warned the IP user for edit warring; this is just a friendly reminder about it for you as well. I see you are a longtime user so you probably know this anyway. Especially where you have already gone to the talk page(which I see now). 331dot (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
A kitten for you!
Sorry, I didn't realize that 1° November was in the future, my brain was in auto-pilot
ElDavo (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Commission of Human Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Body (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!
European Fiscal Compact
I cannot revert you to restore the sourced information you keep blanking on bogus grounds because to do so would place me in breach of WP:3RR. You though stand in breach. Would you like to self-revert since you have reverted four times in a few hours? If so, we can use the discussion page. Or shall we hand the matter to the Edit-Warring noticeboard? Your choice. --Happy Padded Hippy (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
EUCU: unintentional POV
I can see how my wording could be read as POV, so I agree that it needed to be changed. I was trying to convey in three words or fewer this text from the Negotiation article:
The August round of negotiations ended on 21 August, with "little progress" being made. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier, noting how little time remained, said that it "seems unlikely" that an agreement can be reached.
I don't think your words capture the urgency though. The normal sequence of events is for the lead negotiators to agree terms in principle and then get provisional approval from their political masters (one in the UK, 27 on the EU side). Then they go into line by line negotiation of a detailed text, 500 pages or more. That is the final draft that has to go to the PM and the Council for approval and then to the UK and EU parliaments for ratification (or not). So Barnier is not BSing when he says that the final draft has to be ready by the end of October absolute latest. That is what I meant by "not even": not even the outline principles have been agreed though hopefully there are minions working on the detailed text of the non-contentious areas (though even that assumption may be doubtful because of the decision that fishing etc has to be agreed before anything else can be started). Could you propose some new wording that captures this? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- In principle, I agree with what you write, but I think we have to be careful so that the text is not perceived as biased. Using the word "even" in this context doesn't sound good. I've reformulated the sentence again. I think it is best to just not speculate too much about the likelihood of reaching a FTA before the transition period ends, even though I personally agree that it seems quite unlikely. --Glentamara (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)