Talk:European Commission to investigate anti-competitive allegations against Google
Review of revision 1137336 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 1137336 of this article has been reviewed by Wackywace (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1137336 of this article has been reviewed by Wackywace (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Image edit
I was well-aware the Berlaymont photo was nommed for deletion - in September. The argument, FoP is 'Freedom of Panorama'. This legal argument may apply in Belgium but, is nowhere in US copyright law. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not very familiar with image licenses; I saw that the image was up for deletion and just thought, 'We can't use that.' I should have checked, sorry. wackywace 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- You live and learn. ;) Please note the removal of QuoteRight. To me, it looks horribly unbalanced to have the quote up against an infobox. Additionally, never put text in a QuoteLeft/Right that isn't in the body of the article. These templates were created for pull-quotes. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Spelling edit
{{editprotected}}
This article contains the phrase “at-stake”. This phrase is not usually hyphenated and should be written “at stake”. Please remove the hyphen. Thanks! Timwi (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
