en User talk:Lear 21 Archive 3

Bundesland template

If you do change templates that are used on several pages, please make sure your version makes sense on all of them. Your edit to the German Bundesland template may fit your vision of how it should look in the Berlin article better, but there is no reason at all why "one flag only, need location in Europe" should hold for any other state (not that you have given any real argument why it should be the way you prefer for the Berlin article). Using a variable name like "flag2" for a coat of arms and "coat of arms" for a location map is also extremely bad coding practice, and makes the template very confusing. If you do make such changes, you should at the very least explain in the documentation that "State_coa" stands for "A map showing the position of Germany in Europe" and "flag2" stands for "Coat of arms of this state". That would help others understand your naming convention so they can use the template. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´m sorry for the uncomplete code. It worked for the few Bundesländer I checked. Lear 21 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your recent comments:

a) fixed. Like the map image, the flag images don't work for all sizes. No idea why. With the recent set of changes made, correcting the flag size was forgotten.

b) "Landesflagge", while literally translating to "state flag", correctly translates to "civil flag". Click on any of the "civil flag" images and look at their descriptions. Saying "state flag" or "state service flag" for the "Landesdienstflagge" is correct English.

c) I know that most states for other countries only show one flag - but that is generally because there IS only one. For half of the German states, that is not the case. I don't care much for having both, either. BUT you say that the non-CoA flag should be the only one, others (such as the above comment regarding the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article) say that the with-CoA flag should be the only one. The only way to keep all parties happy is to have both. - 52 Pickup 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the English word "State" can translate to both "Land" or "Staat", depending on how it is used. Trust me, the usage of "state" and "civil" is correct English in this context. Of course, if only one flag were used, you could simply say "Flag". But the problem of which flag still remains. You say the civil one, others say the state one. You're right, Wikipedia is not meant to please everyone - but you're determined that I please you. There might be a way around this but I need to think about it. Rearding the Europe map, see my comments on the Berlin talk page. - 52 Pickup 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to convince you that that is the correct usage of the English language here. But if you're certain that your English is better than that of a native speaker, then there's no point arguing with you. I was in the middle of reworking the infobox when I just got your message threatening to revert all 15 other infoboxes to manual ones just because you're not having your way. Grow up. But anyway, it's done now - and now when anyone complains that the state flag is missing, they can take it up with you. - 52 Pickup 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map section fixed. That should do it, I reckon. - 52 Pickup 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me..:)

Hi, Can you copy edit the Zile article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wowereit.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wowereit.JPG, 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove

King Alaric has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or maybe jut a random person. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep this place a good place. :) King Alaric 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)KatxCore[reply]

Flickr images

Thank you for finding new images for the Berlin page! I have changed the license to precisely the one given on flickr and removed the "own work" attribution (although you may release your edits to it under other licenses if you so choose, even if that isn't useful). Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlickR

Is there any reason you don't use the high resolution version of the pics from flickr? It's recommend to use them. --217.83.45.128 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of cutting and editing with an ancient phototool I need the low resolution. I think the results are still acceptable. Lear 21 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country

You seem to be in an edit war on this template. I know you're aware of the three-revert rule; but I do want to remind you that it's not an entitlement to three reverts per day and that you can be blocked even if you don't revert four times within 24 hours. I hope you'll be able to resolve the problem through discussion or dispute resolution, if necessary. Have a good day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote this, you continued the edit war by adding the EU flag again. Therefore, I have no reasonable option but to block you for 24 hours. Please take this time to read about edit warring and dispute resolution. I will keep your talk page watchlisted, so we can discuss this if you wish. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been properly discussed [1]. A second editor agreed on the introduction of the EU flag and two editors signalized acceptance. My edit is a different version from the ones before. There is no reason of blocking this account. Unblock it as soon as possible. Lear 21 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the {{unblock|Reason}} template to request an unblock. I am unwilling to make this unblock, as you continued an edit war against MJCdetroit after being warned. Note that reverts needn't be the same revert each time, and your last edit did indeed have the effect of reverting as it reintroduced the EU flag. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re EU flag in template

Hi again Lear 21,

It would be very helpful if you argued for your recent edit of the Template:Infobox Country. all the best Lear 21 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean my trying to accommodate the flag on the lefthand side of the template, I did so only in case it were to remain. My own view is that it's unnecessary in that context. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Summerraininberlin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Summerraininberlin.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Please leave a new message.

Berlin featured article candidate

I created the subpage for you: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Berlin. A few objections that have been raised; you may want to edit the article in response to these objections or reply to them. Resurgent insurgent 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG

Hi Lear, are you the photographer of Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG? You've licensed it as if you were, but then you also put "This image was released and featured by the Senate of Berlin" and "Photo is believed to be in the public domain". If you're not the photographer, you need to provide the source of the image, as well as explain why you believe it to be in the public domain. —An gr 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PeopleBerlin.jpg

What about Image:PeopleBerlin.jpg? Are you the photographer of that? —An gr 18:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Großer Stern, Schloss Bellevue.jpg

I found a third one. Since you objected so strenuously to the previous two, I'm listing Image:Großer Stern, Schloss Bellevue.jpg at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images instead of speedy-deleting it myself. —An gr 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop this bureaucratic foolishness. What is wrong? It took a long time researching and licensing these images. Stop it. Lear 21 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU History

Hi there, how are you?

We may have been on slightly different sides on the country infobox thing, but you clearly know what you're doing and have a passion for it.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the History of the European Union page is incredibly thin on the ground considering the subject matter, the only real history there is more a history of enlargement. I've been expanding the histories of Parliament and the Commission as test cases and although there is plenty of media around (ena.lu for example) I do no think I could deal with the diverse nature of the history alone, with many kinds of events not being outside my area or not even knowing about them. Plus there is just too much of it.

So I am planning on setting up a taskforce, or just a small collaboration, on EU history (including the history of the rest of Europe through this period) in order to get the range and skills necessary to create a great article and improve EU history articles as a whole. I also hope it should reinvigorate the EU Wikiproject, which seems a but dormant. If you're interested, hop on board, I need help just setting this thing up and getting people in, let alone the actual work!

Thanks. - J Logan ^t/_c: 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for invitation. Even the History section within the EU article needs expansion... For now, I´m going to concentrate on maintenance rather than expansion of content in any Wikipedia article. all the best Lear 21 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Berlin

I have created a temporary page for WikiProject Berlin. If you are interested, you can sign up there. Kingjeff 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for invitation. For now, I´m going to concentrate on maintenance rather than expansion of content in any Wikipedia article. all the best Lear 21 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about expansion. It's also about maintaining. Kingjeff 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lear 21

I realise your English is not great, Lear 21, so I'll take the time to point out to you that the English word "country" is a term with broader meaning than the English term "sovereign state"; the latter only refers to nations or geographical entities with full or de jure political independence; the term "country" includes the latter, but its meaning is not confined to it. Also, check out WP:Vandalism for guidelines on what that term means on English wikipedia. Hope that clears up some of your confusions. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the political lesson: 27 states = 27 capitals ! Lear 21 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lear, my friend, since you clearly must not have noticed, I'll further point out that no mention of "states" was made in any of the text of the template. The idea of "states" was in your head, it seems, but not the wikipedia text. I hope you'll understand that wikipedia runs on visible text; at the moment, there is no technology which enables your thoughts to appear in wikipedia without first being written down. Maybe one day this can happen, but not as yet. Being the nice helpful guy that I am, however, you'll see that I introduced the term "Member States" for you. I've done so in order to prevent states of confusion such as the one you have found yourself in. Hope this helps. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

why did you revert my change on the Germany page with the map? I think the imagemap version is useful, because you can get to the pages through clicking on the different parts of the map. Csörföly D 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. I´ve only seen the blown up map. Good contribution. Lear 21 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EP - peer

Hi, I was wondering if you have a minute if you could do me a favour. I'm hoping to help get the European Parliament page to featured now it is up to GA. Could you take a look and give a bit of feedback for me to work on please. It would be a great help and I'd appreciate your comments. But of course only if you have the time. Thanks. - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Europe locator maps

Hi there! I have every intention of enhancing and completing this series of maps. However, some editors (particularly at Netherlands) challenged this new/old style of map; this spawned competing maps and a generally productive (though protracted) discussion at the Country Wikiproject regarding new standard maps for EU/European and, ultimately, all countries. Amid some indecision, this discussion is still underway; I have yet to produce some SVG variants but will upload these when I can. I am swamped with work (and am, thus, unavailable) for the bulk of this week, and will return to this on the weekend, after which I can hopefully complete what I started. In the meantime, any comments or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Quizimodo 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIst of countries by population

The entries in the list are based primarily on List of countries. An entry is unranked if its population is included in another entry's figure. Seeing as the EU is not part of that list and there is currently no push for its inclusion in that list, it is not appropriate here. The UN Population Report has 230 entries, which include self-governing territories that do not have full sovereignty and is not related to UN membership. For internal consistency, either the EU should be on all list of countries or on none of the lists of countries. --Polaron | Talk 02:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then start adding the EU entry to the rest of all lists of countries... The EU entry for population and area will be kept. Lear 21 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the ongoing discussion on how to include the EU at Talk:List of countries and territories by total area. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t see the need for discussion. EU will be in, what else? Organizations like Nato, Opec, African Union have not the degree or characteristics of a state or country and don´t belong in the list. Lear 21 02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits at the List of countries and outlying territories by total area, and if you cannot see the need for discussion, then perhaps you need to start looking at this issue objectively. In a strict definition of the term, is the EU a country? Surely not. Therefore, it does not belong on any of these pages. If you argue that it is a country, then either every single constituent country (i.e., France, Germany, England, etc.) must be removed from the list, because they are then provinces within a greater country. Either that, or we can include every single state in the US, province in Canada, Oblast in Russia...see where I'm going? Parsecboy 11:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EU in its current state is a sui generis entity. Because of its multiple 'country'- like characteristics it belongs to the list. It is unranked due to its semi-souvereign status. Lear 21 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, lets remove France, Germany, England, and every other province of the EU. You've violated WP:3RR at List of countries and outlying territories by total area. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Please stop your edit warring, and discuss this issue. Parsecboy 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've also violated 3RR at List of countries by population. Parsecboy 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for violating 3RR at both of these articles here. Parsecboy 13:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Parsecboy The EU entry is justified and can be backed with various serious arguments. You know that and all other decent editors know that as well. The EU entry will be established. Lear 21 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the incivility, or you'll get reported there as well. The EU is justified in your eyes, yes, but not in mine or Polaron's. Therefore, consensus must be reached on the issue. Parsecboy 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz concentration camp image

What is important? Ruins of Berlin or the largest German Nazi concentration camp (1.1 million people were killed there)?
German concentration camp excellently adjust for theme Germany, Nazi Germany... So, why you delete it?

PS: You make it as you want, but Auschwitz MUST to be in this article...

Kajzderski

The small section allows only two images because of layout reasons. Nazi rule and the following destruction have the highest priority here. Auschwitz and deportation is mentioned in the section with written text. Lear 21 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU entry

Of course. --Eurocopter tigre 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Look, I'm tired of wasting my time having to play rv with you. I want to sort this out but I equally want to be blunt about this. I do not think the justification you give for many of your edits even make sense, let along justify what you do. What annoys me though is you hardly even go to the talk page for anything and seem obsessed about images while other editors have spent the last few weeks working hard on improving the text. We're very close to getting GA quality and you keep adding pointless images and uncited information. I won't revert you latest revert, which you didn't even justify this time, so long as you also cease all edits on that article please. I'd like to talk through this first like civilised people. You willing? - J Logan ^t: 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The constant deletion of visual content came to an end, correct (the majority of deletion has done by yourself). The reestablished images enhance and maintain the article´s quality and add to a comprehensive understanding. The number of images are comparable to country or city articles of the same length. Lear 21 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a yes or a no? - J Logan ^t: 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU in lists

Hi! DSuser is on a crusade to eliminate the European Union from all lists of countries, namely:

It would be of help if you could join the discussion. Thanks! —Nightstallion 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a central discussion at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries now. Please state your opinion; thanks! —Nightstallion 09:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lear, you posted a link to [2] on my talk space, and I have to say that I completely agree that the EU should be placed on such lists, primarily as a reference point, but also because, although it is not a country, it is certainly like one in a sui generis way - I cannot see why it should be excluded from such lists because it is unique. I do see your points that you raised on the discussion, particularly that it is already ranked in other media, and because other non-country entities are ranked also. If they rank things like Greenland or Guernsey, the EU should be there too. Thanks for letting me know. Rossenglish 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr - European Union

You may not be interested in arbitration, but I am. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#European_Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLogan (talk • contribs)..

The arbitrators are considering whether to accept this case. You are welcome to make a statement on the page indicated. Newyorkbrad 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

I noticed you changed my edit from "States" to "Administrative divisions". Please reference WikiProject Countries - the corret name for the title is "States". Please do not change this edit again. Thank you. Rarelibra 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU structure

Hi, would you like to comment on the latest outline for the EU page? I think it is similar enough to country outline to have its stability, yet is more adapted to the EU. We are near agreement on it but need more comments. We still need to sort a few things like the CAP section of course. See talk page and User:JLogan/JFS. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you not unilateraly undo the work we have been doing on your own whim after ignoring the discussion we were having about improving the article! It is not perfect but we do this thing called talking, you want to change everything we have been doing, justify it and get feedback FIRST. - J Logan ^t: 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that, but your desire to talk about every detail is overemphasized. Most of the reestablished content has been equally discussed in an extensive manner before your first edits. Lear 21 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every detail, just the big ones. As you can see I have put back a lot of them now. And things have certainly changed, there have been new editors and new discussions. These are edits from the current active editors on the article after long discussions. You could at least have the honour to properly justify your changes, if you did that, or at least engaged with others and consulted then I wouldn't mind. Really, that's why I am fine with a lot of your edits. Its just your attitude, the last time we had a conflict you did nothing to resolve the problem - that is what annoys me. Now, please, if you wish to push your edits which I did not put back, please talk with the others and wait for responses. The Rome image I agree with - I only moved it as I was lacking another. If you can find a new law image (that fits with the text) that would be great. - J Logan ^t: 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just a note

Hi, sorry to bother but I'd just like to say something on the EU edits again. I do think you've been doing some great changes of late, and many of the points you bring up are valid. But I feel your tact is un-necceserily provoking hostility towards your intentions.

People are just being bold in putting up ideas and, while I am sure you do not intend it, your reverts come rather quickly with seemingly cold summaries. It does not help the development of the article in this way as you do not really provide feedback on it so the idea can be improved, and do not engage in the debate long term so your ideas can be added to the brainstorming. Rather you seem to be a hand that comes out of the clouds every now and then to knock the the tower of babel over, as soon as it gets half way, only to retreat back into the clouds without explaining to man that the reason it is being knocked down is that it doesn't have good feng-shui.

So if you could, it would be nice if you'd get into the debate a bit more, and try to fuse new ideas together with your own ideas and principles. Thanks for your time. - J Logan ^t: 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive edits. I know we sometimes disagree, this line just to let you know your recent comments and edit to the intro is appreciated. Arnoutf 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

geografische details

so ziemlich jede abgebildete stadt entspricht nicht dem wirklichen "standort"! -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dmap.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.249.49 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd defense needed

you need to defend this (Template:Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union) ASAP. I've done all I could as a disinterested observer, and will attempt to get the date reset per the tagging anomaly. But you and your helpers need to get into the Tfd to defend it. Cheers // FrankB 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Berlin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??????? !!!!!!!!! I have a long and comprehensive record of constructive edits including discussions. See my edit history. Your remarks on vandalism are baseless. By the way, what are the reasons? What is the issue? all the best Lear 21 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

What do you want me to do? Protest him asking advice? If you feel you are in the right then just be ready to make your case if he starts action, if you want to avoid that then think about the discussion. You seem to have a very confrontational manner which provokes these reactions. I'm sure if you articulated your argument in a softer tone he might be willing to concede more.- J Logan ^t: 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My request intended to ask for an outside statement to the biased accusation made by SE. This is generally considered of higher value than a counterargument by the accused party (Me). Concerning the discussion: there are more negotiators needed who acknowledge the issue in a tuned down manner, for sure. I can´t play that part, because many very uneducated opinions stand in stark contrast to the general view, agreed by highly involved editors (like you), seeing the EU as an advanced integrated state. Your general stance towards a multidimensional EU article would be much appreciated. The current campaign from highly uninformed editors will be not last one and a coherent approach of the established editors is needed. all the best Lear 21 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you were asking, but that was just advice. If be brings action then I'll get involved but it is counter productive to object to a simple comment like that. - J Logan ^t: 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninformed editors". Honestly Lear, if anything, my knowledge on the subject of the EU far surpasses yours, so please do not try to undermine myself or other editors contributions with your disgraceful attitude. Let me get this straight, according to you, your contributions are worth more weight because you are more active on the page than others? Is this "general view" on the status of the EU coming from the council of the wise 5 Wikipedia editors of the EU page, all so qualified to tell us what the EU is and is not? You are awfully presumptious about the views of the EU of those who do not agree with your outlook. Your comment above only serves to highlight hopefully to the administrators where your bias lies and your shocking attitude towards other editors in general. --Simonski 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you read it here incase you miss it over on my page - "Hahaha, oh dear you make me laugh Lear. Try mid-twenties with a first class honours degree in European Law. Lived in Belgium for a year, including being taught by an ECJ judge, half-Italian, voted in both Italian, Scottish and European elections. You know nothing. Go away. I will hang around this EU article from now on just to try and balance out your RIDICULOUS views. And stick your Eurobarometer where the sun don't shine. I'll tell you what I don't represent, and that is the general anti-EU attitude of much of the UK, instead I represent an objective - middle of the road view that the EU is a great thing which can give us things like Erasmus etc but that it does not cover certain issues, such as sport, and that we are "UNITED IN DIVERSITY". I have no idea what insane book you read or what lunatic taught you on the EU, but you are clearly, 100% out of touch with reality, and I will not let you reflect that in the EU article on Wikipedia." --Simonski 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "uninformed", you both have your own perspective on a topic, as we all do, and they can be reconciled. The absence of (declared) qualifications does not allow for disregarding another opinion -indeed it can offer another view of a topic- yet Lear, you should take note of the expertise that can be brought through that. - J Logan ^t: 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "image of the EU from 15 years ago", if anything it is you who is living in the past, given the recent rejection by two of the most pro-EU member states of the Constitutional Treaty, together with the ideology that it represented. The Constitutional Treaty is dead, the concept of European federalism is dead, Europe is taking a new direction, get over it. --Simonski 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lear 21/Archive 3