User talk:Nightstallion/ν

ISO codes for St. Barth/St. Martin

Hey,

I may have found the ISO codes for both St. Barthelemy and St. Martin. According to this UN document, the three letter code for St. Barth could be BLM; the numeric code could be 652. For St. Martin, the three letter could be MAF, the numeric code could be 663. (I'm unsure about the two letter codes for both places. I have a feeling the codes could be BL for St. Barth and MF for St. Martin. This is based on the process of elimination.) Once ISO 3166/MA puts out a newsletter with the changes, I have new cells ready for the table in the ISO 3166-1 article here. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! —Nightstallion 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday's Elections and fate of monarchy on Jamaica

What’s your opinion about perspectives of Jamaica to became a Republic in short term after loosing of control under parliament by PNP on Yesterday's Elections? --User:CrazyRepublican (--Ex-User:212.98.173.133) 10:37 04.09.2007 (UTC)

Good question; I only know that the PNP was pro-republic, I actually don't know the JLP's policy on this. Do you? —Nightstallion 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Durova, recognize Nightstallion with the Triple Crown for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) —Nightstallion 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro - good or bad news?

A while ago one of three Montenegrin newspapers, which was always in the middle but in the end pro-governmental and pro-Milo, has completely transformed its politics to an opposition newspapers (the Serbs and other have got Day, so this one is now supposed to be for the Liberals), and is a harsh critic of the Montenegrin regime and Milo Djukanovic.

And guess what - the stationman of the newspapers was threatened (they said they'll hurt his family) by two unknown people a while ago (they were arrested), while yesterday, the Chief Director of the News was very severely beaten up by three men (two masked), who had specific orders to beat him up. They said that they will do worse things to him if he doesn't change his papers "you know what way" or they'll do worse things to him. He has openly accused Milo Djukanovic and his part of the government for this, stating that all they want is to do is control every aspect of life in Montenegro. Milo Djukanovic has announced charges for these accusations, and we all know that his Italian lawyers (infamous in Italy for defending the Mafia) are very powerful, and that all courts answer to the government. The government has run out now and remains with only one (of three major totally) newspapers that is pro-regime, and that is Victory, which is unlike the other two who were formed after the fall of Milosevic created by the Communists after WWII. Its popularity is drastically decreasing and today most consider it a regime's propaganda pamphlet (which it was in Tito's time, in Milosevic's time and many say it remained so today). All TV and Radio stations are state-controlled, but the government is losing on the newspapers field, so it's panicking.

Nebojsa Medojevic said that all we need to do is to is to observe the fact that almost all media are state-controlled and those that are in opposition are heavily oppressed, and that this when combined with the fact that no law regulates freedom of speech nor independence of media in Montenegro, as well as the fact that the Courts are directly dependent on the Government, is a correct indication that Montenegro isn't quite a democracy. He said (overestimating to my opinion though) that the only thing remaining is formal ban of civic rights. He commended that the West has finally began to criticize the Montenegrin regime, but said that he will never be able to forget for taking so much time, with a "light" dictatorship forming in front of Europe's eyes. The youth of the Liberal Party of Montenegro is making yet another movie to show the truth, the "Two-way", one story, idolized through the televisions under control of Milo Djukanovic, which make him a God and Montenegro the center of freedom, where everything is growing; and the other "behind the scene" truth. However this movie is already banned at start, just like countless other movies - Montenegro has a law which enables it (and which it regularly uses) to ban movies that are "against the state and the Montenegrin people". So these documentaries are mostly shown in Croatia and Serbia, where they are very popular (to a lesser extent Bosnia). However the Liberal and Democrat opposition is very furious because the Croatian and Serbian governments, as well as the EU, are actually not paying attention very much to the horrors conducted by the "South Slavic Castro".

A DPS candidate would win the first round of the presidential election, but there's a chance to be beaten in the 2nd. However, polls say that even (hypothetically) in a dual between Milo Djukanovic and Nebojsa Medojevic, both would be evenly matched.

EU officials have stated that Montenegro cannot entered the European Union with such a poor constitution as presented by the DPS-SDP. I myself must say that FINALLY the West is starting to see the truth in MNE, but I cannot understand why opposition to Milosevic is enough ignore some of the worst things imaginable in political life. I know that USA supports many hard-core dictatorships (with horrible things occurring) many a time for political goals, but that's not the characteristic of Western Europe at all... isn't it? --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope not, and I'd very much wish for Medojevic to win the elections... —Nightstallion 11:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DS and DSS are "playing" again. This time, Kostunica completely ignores the principle that the President and Prime Minister couldn't come from the same party (the one from the government), by which he became the first real President of the Serbian government. This is yet another attempt of the minority Populists to impose their will on the whole government. In an attempt to prevent that, the Populists have secured the support of the Socialists and the Radicals, as well as the Roms, to adopt Constitutional Amendments (!). However, they will need to ensure the success they'll need to convince at least LDP (super-majority), which means it's not gonna happen. DS & G17 threaten they'll stop supporting Kostunica and withdraw from the government if a new Premier isn't placed, if the DSS-NS ever bring the proposal to the assembly.

DSS has just adopted a new program. This one is a bit conservative, puts lower priority on European integrations, puts that DSS should prevent at any cost entrance of Serbia into the EU NATO, demands closer links with diaspora Serbs (priority on Republika Srpska) and mentions opposition to independence of Kosovo. Dusan Prorokovic, 'the State Councilor for Kosovo-Metohija (from DSS) has said that if Kosovo unilaterally declares independence, they will violate the Kumanovo Agreement and Serbia could freely protect its territorial integrity'. He says that Serbian forces would block Kosovo's borders with Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro, impose a trade embargo (isolation) and martially protect the Serb enclaves (including whole North Kosovo). The current Government of Serbia has absolutely no common stream, and its ministers are acting completely independent and on their own. For instance, the Serbian Orthodox Mileševo Episcop Filaret isn't allowed entrance to MNE - so Velja (NS) has refused to go to MNE to arrange the construction of a first Serbia-Montenegro major route (a highway). Kostunica's council has spat at MNE, calling it an uncivilized quasti-state, causing international protests and bad relations between traditionally allied countries of Serbia and Montenegro. Filaret isn't allowed to enter Montenegro because the EU has accused him as a potential hider of ICTY indictees.

If you ask me, DSS is closely inspecting and checking out the situation. Kostunica wants to see where is the future of Serbia - with DS or SRS - in attempt to keep the seat as head of government in any case. Because we all know that after December this year (if Kosovo declares independence), Serbia will instantly completely change like on 5th October 2000. My guessing is that if they manage to delay/get a good offer for Kosovo, they'll remain with DS and receive the credit, while in the case of independence, they will attempt to blame DS for it and head to make a new Serbia with the Serbian Radicals! --PaxEquilibrium 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Will they succeed in that? I certainly hope not... Sounds like very bad news to me. —Nightstallion 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In the end, all folds down to Kosovo in December, and the alarming statement that the USA would recognize/support a unilateral declaration of independence that has riled up entire Serbia. I guess one of the viable options is for DS to repeat the path of SDP in Croatia... "solidarize"... but I guess that's not gonna happen... good think that Boris Tadic's Montenegrin - if he weren't, I don't think that MNE and SERB would so quickly recover their good relations. Montenegro has also at the requests of its faithful granted permission to Serbian Orthodox Episcop Filaret to come and hold service in his Eparchy in MNE... --PaxEquilibrium 19:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, what did Serbia expect since 1999? The people aren't more stupid than anywhere else, they can read the newspapers just like anyone else -- why the hell do they still think there's any chance of keeping Kosovo, after what happened in the past and due to what current international politics clearly indicate? I just don't get it. —Nightstallion 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the politicians or the people?

Well, you forget that in 1999 no one thought that Kosovo could one day become an independent country, not even even the Kosovar Albanian leaders (well, at least openly). --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The people.

Really? Noone? —Nightstallion 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep on mind that if say, the 2007 parliamentary election was held today, the so-called "Populist coalition" probably wouldn't get half the votes it got on 21 January (667,615; 16.55%).

Yeah. All global politicians opposed the "handling" of the situation in Kosovo as well as separatist tendencies of a part of its population. In the (failed) Ramboullet talks the United States convinced the Kosovar Albanian leaders to forfeit their independence plans, for which the KLA protested and organized assassination attempts of them. The United Nations Security Council 1998 & 1999 Resolutions 1160, 1199, 1203 and 1239 which never set on foot all call for end of hostilities between the KLA and the Yugoslav/Serbian forces and introduction of a peacekeeping force that would secure peace in the province. The final 1244 resolution was adopted in '99 and it mandates the UNMIK till today. FRY had to hand over all sovereignty over Kosovo to the UN who would take over administration and protect the civil population from further violence and prevent separatist tendencies in Kosovo. Representatives from both Serbian and Yugoslavian regimes in Belgrade signed in Kumanovo in 1999 with the shadow Kosovar Albanian leaders the "Kumanovo (peace) Treaty" in which Belgrade decided to withdraw all of its forces from Kosovo as well as give up on administration while the other side forfeited all independence desires. Future negotiations were determined to establish the level of Kosovo's autonomy (those're the failed ones, 2005-2006, led by Martti Ahtisaari). After the end of the bloodshed the Council of Europe brought the decision of full support of the act (including Serbian sovereignty), and when FRY was accepted into the UN after Milosevic's fall in 2000 the UN High representatives voiced their support of the plan to soon draft the level of Kosovo's autonomy within the Serbian state.

It is actually this "evolution" of opinion of many factors across the globe, including the Kosovar Albanians, that frustrate many Serbians. Many analysts in Serbia refer to Kosovo and the USA as "Revisionist forces", comparing them to Germany and Italy from the beginning of the 20th century, trying to revise the previously signed treaties in their own personal favor. Hence the stereotype in Serbia that Serbs are hated in the world, hence the mischief rumors about Kosovar Albanian criminals bribing western politicians - hence the strong Serb Radical electorate. I myself never begin to amaze how the European Union supported a common state of Serbia and Montenegro even to the very end in 2006 (anticipating that which is occurring right now, I guess), but very quickly adopted US' views on an independent Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the information... BTW -- which populist alliance do you refer to? DSS-NS? —Nightstallion 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the informal name of the coalition is the "Populist coalition", their members, supporters and thereof call themselves "The Populists". It's actually an attempt to match the DS and theirs "The Democrats". Of course, I don't even need to mention "The Radicals". --PaxEquilibrium 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There are also, the you-know-who "The Socialists". --PaxEquilibrium 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Serbia

SRS (ate SPS' and many DSS') and DS (ate LDP's, G17's and many DSS') are gaining in strength. Polls say that other parties are even further losing in popularity as the Democrats' popularity further grows attempting to become one of two main USA-like parties in Serbia, while the Radicals are growing even stronger. The other parties, unless running in large (DSS-NS-like) coalition, would probably not pass the census. Serbia is becoming bi-polar like USA... like Montenegro used to be until just recently. --PaxEquilibrium 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I'd prefer to see more of the LDP, actually, but still... Could you link to one of the polls or give me some results? I'd be interested in some numbers. —Nightstallion 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually polls but CeSID's research. They will not release official polls until they're on-time regular reporting time releases, and that will be either during the electoral campaign or their annual report at the end of this year. --PaxEquilibrium 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, do their reports contain any estimates, or just voters' leanings changes which you indicated above? BTW, do you think the LDP will grow further, stay as it is, or shrink back to nothing? —Nightstallion 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Voters' leanings changes just. LDP maybe has a political future, but only long-term. Now with the "Battle of Kosovo" on-line, it'll be a bad game of cunning play between DSS, DS and SRS this year. --PaxEquilibrium 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

nods What do you think will be the result? —Nightstallion 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for 10 December before I answer that. --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Where did you get the date for the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo (28 November?). They said they'll all wait for 10 December to see how it goes from there. --PaxEquilibrium 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That was from one of their earlier announcements, but you're right, I should remove it. —Nightstallion 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, the source was this interview with Ceku. —Nightstallion 14:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Hashim Thaci mentioned 11 December as the potential date of proclamation, but don't use it, I'm not quite sure myself... --PaxEquilibrium 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Would be logical. —Nightstallion 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

EU page

Hi, sorry to bother. I wonder if you could pop back and comment on the EU talk page, again. We just need to sort out the number of cities (yes, still on that) for the table. If you have time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Thanks so much! - J Logan ^t: 07:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Accessioncroatia.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Accessioncroatia.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XVIII (August 2007)
Project news The fourth project coordinator elections have now concluded. Nine coordinators have been selected to serve for the next six months: Kirill Lokshin, Carom, FayssalF, LordAmeth, Kyriakos, TomStar81, Cla68, Eurocopter tigre, and Roger Davies. Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to all of the candidates who put themselves forward for this responsibility, and to the retiring coordinators for all of their efforts to improve the project! The contest department has completed another month of competition. The leader for this month, with 23 points, is Blnguyen; JKBrooks85 is in second place, with 17 points, and Carom is in third place, with 13 points. Carom is also the overall leader, with 45 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. The project's article tagging and assessment drivecontinues; project members are cordially invited to assist with this effort.		Articles of note New featured articles: Attack on Sydney Harbour Augustus Cædwalla of Wessex Confederate government of Kentucky Ine of Wessex Harry S. Truman Hispanic Americans in World War II Ironclad warship Pham Ngoc Thao Victoria Cross for New Zealand New featured lists Surviving veterans of World War I New A-Class articles: Battle of the Plains of Abraham Enfield revolver Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) Ho Chi Minh Campaign Jacques Le Gris Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Current proposals and discussions A set of flag icon usage guidelines has been proposed; discussion is ongoing. Potential guidelines on military unit notability are being discussed.	Awards and honors Wandalstouring was awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his long and dedicated service as a project coordinator and his many contributions to the structure and operations of the project.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Democrat Party

I know it sounds weird, but the Thai party really is called "the Democrat Party", and I've reverted your move. Please see Talk:Democrat Party (Thailand). Jpatokal 12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; I had assumed that the issue was similar to the erroneously translated "Democrat Party" in Turkey. —Nightstallion 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue XVI - September 2007
Project news During August we signed up to the WikiProject advertising facility {{wikipedia ads}} initiative. Our tagged articles now number over 14,000 and more are being added every day. In reality the article count for our project scope is likely to be much higher so the more who can get involved and assist the process of improving the quality of the articles the better. Member news The project has currently 261 members, 7 joined & 0 leavers since the last newsletter at the start of August 2007. A number of editors have signed up to our "task forces" without signing to the main project so the figure could be slightly higher. Other news Although many editors are doing sterling work actually working on writing and maintaining articles we could always do with more volunteers to assist with the project wide tasks. Our Collaboration of the Month is in need of more suggested articles for our attention and more votes for those already proposed. Novel related news The eagerly awaited Fatal Revenant by Stephen Donaldson is ever closer now, due for release October 9, 2007 in the U.S., October 18 in the UK. As the second part of the The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever#The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant it should seal the character of this trilogy as the closing set from this classic sequence of fantasy novels. Current debates One experienced editor has requested feedback on guidelines such as WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Check out his comments first and get your views felt.	From the Members Welcome to the sixteenth issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor Collaboration of the Month This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is The Firm (novel). Newsletter challenge Last month's The Sphinx of the Ice Fields challenge had quickly a short line about it by New Babylon 2 (talk · contribs). The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Susan Cooper's Over Sea, Under Stone, which currently is only a redirect.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 10:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Safia Aoude

In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Subnational monarchies

Say me please, what from now existing subnational monarchies are legalize by Constitution. As I understand, it’s KwaZulu-Natal in South African Republic, and 5 kingdoms in Uganda. I found that there are more subnational monarchies in German version of a table “Subnational monarchies”. Do you want to add its regions to the table? I don’t found in English version of this table the kingdom of Mustang in Nepal, but I think, that Tibet and Maori king will must be clear from this list as a pretenders but not as real leaders with the control under claiming territory. What can you say me about?--User:CrazyRepublican 15:17 09.09.2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the Maori and Tibetan kings, and am not quite sure about the German ones. —Nightstallion 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Election titles

Hi! Just FYI, you're naming election articles slightly incorrectly: It should not be "Area council election year", but "Area council election, year"... —Nightstallion 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment regarding the titles of the election articles I have created. I have started moving them to the correct titles and will correct them alll over the next few days. Davewild 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! :) While I'm at it: Great work on those local election articles. —Nightstallion 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asmara alliance

Have you seen Alliance for the Liberation of Somalia yet? —Nightstallion 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be interesting, though bloody, months ahead for Somalia. --Ingoman 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that may indeed be the case -- though if the outcome is a central government of *any* sort, it'd be an improvement, I reckon... —Nightstallion 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for fixing PR strike

Thanks for renaming the article I started, 1998 Puerto Rican general strike. I should have gotten it right the first time. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! Actually, putting years in front and correcting demonyms is something of a pet peeve of mine. ;) Very well-written article, BTW! —Nightstallion 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Croation elections

Would you like to comment on our discussion at Croatian elections? Also, thanks for your support on my RfA :) Number 57 08:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! —Nightstallion 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and to let you know, I have no intention of dropping out. I'm not a "quitter" :) Number 57 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Thanks for the kind message; recognition, here or elsewhere, is always nice. Making the front page was a pleasant, warm surprise, too. Lapicero 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SAA with Albania - Ratification in Italy

I was the anonymous editor that deleted the WRONG table entry regarding Italian ratification of SAA agreement with Alabania. As i stated in the edit summary on 03/08/07 the bill was proposed by the cabinet. Anyway if you feel that I'm wrong i suggest you read:

Official press release of the Italian Govern concerning tha approval by the cabinet of the draft bill to be presented to the parliament [1]

Official journal published on 3rd August [2]

Of course these are in Italian. I suppose if you continue not to belive me and not to have enough humility to check before revert correct changes you can at least read Italian. --87.4.96.170 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I deleted again that wrong info.

PPS Found something in English [3] hope this sound enough official

Fair enough about the correction, but the last source is irrelevant -- those are only the dates when the ratification is deposited, not when it occurs. —Nightstallion 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a comment. It woud be difficult in Italy to know when the ratification actually takes place. The Parliament authorizes the ratification but it's the President that ratifies almost all the treaties. And the ratification may occur of course the same day the authorization is given but could also occur later. --87.4.96.170 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the president's office issue some kind of notice about those kind of things? —Nightstallion 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Never see such a kind of notice from the presidency. But this is not a surprize. It wouldn't be easy for a President that prevoiusly signed the law allowing him to ratify the treaty subsequently refusing to ratify the very same treaty. I think it would sound quite a nonsense. As far as i know when talking about a ratification it's custormary to make reference to the law that authorized that.--87.4.96.170 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll use that date. —Nightstallion 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

French Polynesia in the Notes section

I updated the independence referendum section information based on the words of the new president, but I'm not sure what to do with the elections section, since an election was already held this year, which I'm assuming was under the old election system, not a revised one. Lexicon (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What? An election was held in French Polynesia? I'm quite certain the election you mean was part of the French parliamentary election, 2007, and not the an election for the French Polynesian Assembly. —Nightstallion 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, BTW. :) —Nightstallion 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The election was an election by the assembly of a new president after the former president lost a no-confidence vote on August 31, so plans for a reformed nationwide election shouldn't be considered altered by it in any way. Lexicon (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's the one you meant. Yeah, I knew about that one, too. —Nightstallion 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

CeSID and other

Did you ever check out CeSID's website? --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some time ago. Why?

Thought you didn't know. --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing that gives SRS strength is the alleged use of double standards. The US Ambassador to Serbia isn't very popular down there. When asked about the status of RS he replies that there are signed treaties that balance the world, but with Kosovo he says that everyone should stop looking into the past and look at the future. This way, hundreds of thousands believe that RS cannot become independent because most of them are Serbs, and Kosovo can because most aren't. And then they can believe in any anti-Serbian conspiracy the Radicals spread and then, what is horrible truthfully, SRS' biased claims have a foundation. --PaxEquilibrium 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Still, the difference is that Bosnia's status is considered settled, while Kosovo's isn't. —Nightstallion 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whom do you know thinks Bosnia's status is settled beside the OHR? He is the only thing which prolongs the status quo, and by using his internationally-mandated nearly absolutist powers further riles up the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina? --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant as in "it's considered internationally settled that BiH will remain a state", while the same isn't true about Kosovo. —Nightstallion 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, but I'll ask anyway: how come? --PaxEquilibrium 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: most Serbian politicians believe that Kosovo has been settled internationally, internationally being considered a part of Serbia. They consider it an internal problem, as mandated by the peace treaty between the two sides and the international resolution, to determine the level and shape of autonomy of Kosovo within Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the US and most of the EU would beg to differ with that interpretation of Serbia's. ;) —Nightstallion 09:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Today. Which is a result of evolution of opinions, or perhaps new politicians. Which is frustrating simpleton masses in Serbia. Which is giving SRS power.

Many Serbian politicians assure the Serbian population that all the cards are on its side, while the Kosovar Albanian political leaders are shooting blank artillery shots. Kostunica "reminds" (?) that we are not in the Age of Depression with a fragile League of Nations, but in an organized order with a strong United Nations, so that there's no chance that will occur. --PaxEquilibrium 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then many Serbian politicians are aiding the SRS to gain support, effectively... —Nightstallion 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The only moment when the international community made a precedent in recognition were the cases of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (I'm skipping Slovenia because it's a totally different case). Everywhere else, except with the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1971, was international law obeyed. Even the recognitions of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which many consider also illegal, were so, because the Soviet imposed annexations of the Baltic states weren't ever recognized. So, with a precedent already made in former Yugoslavia, I do not understand why Serbian politicians think it's not going to happen again, since this is practically the same place? --PaxEquilibrium 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I really don't know... I'm afraid that the situation is becoming more and more like an ICE running full speed towards a skyscraper... —Nightstallion 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

DSS canceled all agreements on transferring control over some state resources to DS. Negotiations will have to start all over again. Ya know, I'm becoming very pissed at how this party acts. It controls 70% of state's companies and just wants to prolong this to control it "some more time"! --PaxEquilibrium 11:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're only now becoming very pissed at how this party behaves? ;) Frankly, I think they're the second worst party in Serbia, possibly even the worst -- because everyone *knows* what to expect from the Radicals, but Kostunica is a lying backstabber IMO. —Nightstallion 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In that view, yeah. But don't you normally mean third? --PaxEquilibrium 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Socialists are pretty much irrelevant now, aren't they? —Nightstallion 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well they are still stronger than the Liberals, so it's enough for me to consider them worthy of notion. Also I guess when they voice themselves about the presidential election we'll find out their candidate (if they have one). He's/her's fairing will show us just how irrelevant they are.

BTW, I can know firmly tell you (I assumed using common sense and logic as my sources). DSS (or some parts of it) seem to be willing to cooperate with SRS should the ruling coalition crumble at the end of this year of Kosovo. They also seem to be willing to openly consider that the Kosovo war still lasts if "one side brakes the peace treaty", by sending forces down there.

But I don't understand Kostunica himself. He is for long unhappily married (we've never ever seen his wife in public), and still after a long marriage they have no children. He lives modestly, in an apartment, and is known for not taking a lot of money (he donates large amounts of his pay to many people). He's quite an odd fella. It seems that political power is actually the very only thing he has in his life? --PaxEquilibrium 11:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid that an DSS-SRS coalition would be likely after Kosovo's status resolution, in whatever way it actually happens... —Nightstallion 11:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's only possible in the case of Kosovar independence. And that's why I'm counting on that the PISG Assembly of Kosovo will not declare independence by the end of this year. I'm counting on further status quo, at least until the presidential and local elections are over. --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I somehow doubt they'll wait that long... —Nightstallion 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm somehow worried that this will go on for years. Maybe even with Serbia entering the EU like Cyprus. --PaxEquilibrium 13:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MNE

The Serbian government and the parliament have adopted new laws on citizenship. All in the world are now free to apply for Serbian citizenship, with special marking of those who are ethnic Serbs - an explanation was that that is standard practice applied by neighboring countries and to prevent assimilation of Serbs. The Law also grants Montenegrin citizens who have lived up to the dissolution of the state union the freedom to apply for citizenship, a number of over 250,000 (if you ask me, much more) people. The Montenegrin government (Montenegro's practically estimated one hundred thousand inhabitants desire Serbian citizenship) is lodging official international protests.

Serbian police busted a major cigarette gang which used Croatian, United Arab Emirates and Chinese products to smuggle into Montenegro, Croatia and south Italy. From Serbia cigarettes were/are across Hungary shipped to Western Europe across illegal channels. They have been connected with the Government of the Republic of Montenegro. This is the true root of the growing Serbo-Montenegrin political conflict.

(continuing from the 1st paragraph) DPS President and national leader Milo Djukanovic responded to it by openly announcing that every single citizen of Montenegro that applies for citizenship of any other country will be automatically deleted from Montenegrin citizenry, not recallable. By making the diaspora apply for local citizenships, this way they will be free to "delete them", thereby forever removing the fact that most of holders of Montenegrin citizenship are ethnic Serbs, which the government sees as a potential threat. And Serbian citizenship of its inhabitants would be an obstacle to assimilation aggressively pursued by the DPS regime, according to the Radicals who are one of the original draftees of the law.

For long now DPS has fought against more than one citizenship, because the potential electorate could considerably change the election results. Its speaker and vice-president, Miodrag Vukovic (current Minister, Deputy Prime Minister in the 1990s and known mafia boss, indicted by the Italian state prosecutor) says that the new Constitution will clearly ban any Montenegrin citizen to have another citizenship and that they will never cross over that one. The Montenegrin government still hasn't regulated the status of several tens of thousands of Serbian citizens living in it, who are still illegal citizens. However the Serbian government has made special annexes to help ease the status of Montenegrin citizens in Serbia: Montenegrin citizens in Serbia will henceforth be treated domestic, as a personal temporary solution to their difficult situation.

Nebojsa Medojevic asks why most of the thousands of ethnic Croats have freely Croatian citizenship, which was a result of an open compromise between the two countries and why, for instance, even one governmental official has US citizenship too? He points out that this has nothing to do with anything but "a grossly corrupt system with holes trying to pry its cold icy fingers everywhere to sustain itself at any cost"... this whole situation is getting more and more disgusting! --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Generally, I'm in favour of allowing dual citizenship; while I generally recognise if states want to limit their citizens to one citizenship only, in this case it's quite obviously apparent that Djukanovic is scheming again. —Nightstallion 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well all Yugoslav countries have agreed to allow citizenship, if there are good enough reasons, between each other. Consider it a sort of ZND Russia-like "compromise" of former Yugoslavia (where everything's so mixed everyone is partly from another republic). Technically meaning that one could be a citizen of SERB, BH, CRO, FYROM and SLO at the very same time. That is, all five, except Montenegro.

Just several days ago Boris Tadic and the Hungarian President (hard to type the name) have reached a compromise - the ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina can now freely apply for Hungarian citizenship. --PaxEquilibrium 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read it at B92. What's interesting about that is that Hungarian voters rejected the proposal to grant all ethnic Hungarians abroad the Hungarian citizenship since they were afraid that they would all come to Hungary and cash in on the social services -- I hope the Hungarian government knows what it's doing, this may be rather controversial actually. —Nightstallion 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Speak of citizenships, I'm a little worried about the situation in Slovenia. The deleted citizens and minority rights don't sound good. What can you tell me "from the inside (of EU)"? --PaxEquilibrium 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That from all the countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, Malta was likely the only one who really met all the entrance criteria? Okay, possibly Czechia and Hungary, too, but the rest -- no chance.

• The three Baltic states: neo-Nazism, no rights or citizenship for ethnic Russians, and so on.
• Poland: homophobia, too agricultural.
• Slovakia: authoritarian tendencies (Meciar), treatment of Roma and Hungarians.
• Slovenia: deleted citizens, minority rights.
• Cyprus: I don't need to mention that it was completely irresponsible to let Cyprus join while it was still divided -- now there's no chance in hell the Greek Cypriots are going to compromise, since *they* are already in the EU...
• Bulgaria and Romania: simply too poor.

Honestly, I'm absolutely pro-enlargement, but most of them weren't ready -- Slovenia was one of the more harmless problems, apart from those two issues, they're even "better" EU members than Greece or Portugal (economically, for instance). All in all, the issue is pretty much ignored AFAIK... Which is not good. —Nightstallion 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd say Czechia was ready, but not Hungary, perhaps just a month or two more for economic development. I too am for enlargement, but am for a strictly strict policy, not like with Bulgaria and Romania. Frankly, I thought that EU committed suicide when it accepted those ten states... by the way, did you know that there was a referendum in Slovenia in 2003 in which the majority voted against minority rights?

Have a poll on the Croatian parliamentary election. --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't -- it's not in {{Slovenian elections}}, though... Thanks for the poll! —Nightstallion 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo - it was in 2004. And yes it is. --PaxEquilibrium 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I = stupid, I only checked whether there was a 2003 minority rights referendum... —Nightstallion 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the background origins and some aims of the Slovenian Democratic Party are a result to that which is happening. Also, what do you think who will win the presidential election? I sure am glad that Janez Drnovsek is finally leaving. --PaxEquilibrium 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the SDP issue? I hope that the election will be won by Türk, or Gaspari -- I'd prefer it not to be Peterle, and Jelincic would be horrible. What have you got against Drnovsek? I find him rather... amusing. ;) —Nightstallion 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean SDS? It's nothing worthy of greater mention. Compared to the ruling parties in the rest of Yugoslavia (e.g. HDZ in Croatia, SPS in Serbia and DPS CG in Montenegro) the party is practically paradise. But comparing it to the other EU (not the right-wing ones in Slovakia and Poland, though), it's "backing" in its origin. Some of the party's founders (though not working today) were extreme Slovenian nationalists and a openly ready for war (not pacifist at all). They were also the ones who deleted 18,300 Slovene citizens originating from other Yugoslav republics searching across population censuses, based on "not being of Slovene ethnicity". It's originally "closeness" on grounds that ownership is entitled only on Slovenian citizens of Slovene ethnicity (excluding the Italian minority as well), that was revoked only in 1996 by the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. But of course, the current SDS is a lot different from their Social Democrat origins. It's also a bit far too conservative in forms of Catholicism still today.

AFAIK I have nothing at all against Drnovsek. ;) I'm just glad he's retiring from politics, for you-know-which personal reasons (cancer). I mean I also don't think it's natural for the president to spend a year resting trying to mend his heavy illness, rather than the duty he's supposed to. He himself constantly kept announcing withdrawal, and constantly prolonged doctor's care in favor of presidency. And now, he's dying because of it.

Do you know which parties comprise the current government of Slovenia? I think it corresponds to Wikipedia, but can't find anywhere. --PaxEquilibrium 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've read that it's the three right-wing parties (or how many it was) in newspaper reports, but no primary sources, no... —Nightstallion 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's (referring to most up) why I to an extent agree with Zobel's highly overestimated estimate that Serbia (and Kosovo) should enter the EU some time between 2025 and 2050. --PaxEquilibrium 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a news on Montenegro to get a better grasp on that which I told you about the news incident. --PaxEquilibrium 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Milo control the courts completely or is there some chance? —Nightstallion 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that the judges are members of the Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro and that all courts (legally) answer to the Government of the Republic of Montenegro. You can conclude from that as much as I can. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And some good news from Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that -- I regularily read Angus Reid. :) —Nightstallion 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

SL chiefs

You added this source to support the claim that the chiefs have already been elected, but I don't think I'm reading it the same way you do. "Also in the parliament are 12 traditional chiefs seen as allied to the SLPP", to me, is a reference to the allocation of those 12 seats to the chiefs, and it says they are allied to the SLPP because that is the tendency the chiefs have displayed in the past. I don't think it's referring to an election already having taken place for them. Everyking 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh, possibly. At least we can use it for the SLPP-aligning; have you seen anything else at all on the chiefs' election? —Nightstallion 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't found anything on it. Everyking 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh, too bad. —Nightstallion 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Radicals

Hi! I reverted your redirect on Radical Socialist Party (France), it's messing up everything (see [4] -- it almost always refers to the historical party). I hope you don't mind, cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't revert it yet... But I've done it now, you're right that the redirect should be used differently. —Nightstallion 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: FYI

I changed it back to Sammarinese. It didn't look right, but I never was good at spelling. The issue I was trying to fix at the time was frustrating me so much that I thought perhaps the spelling could be in question as a possible solution. But of course, it wasn't. --Theeuro 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

nods Yeah. —Nightstallion 11:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Choose!

Someone moved the article to Decidere. I do prefer an English title for the article. What is your opinion and what can we do to fix the current situation? --Checco 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the end I did my way. --Checco 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that is a better translation of the name... If not, we should move it back. —Nightstallion 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, it was my mistake the previous translation. --Checco 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. —Nightstallion 14:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

United States and the International Criminal Court

Have you been following the changes to the United States and the International Criminal Court page? I'm concerned about some of the recent edits, but have had a hard time convincing the editor who made them of the issues (even the topic headings, i.e. The Skeptical Left, the ICC, and the United Nations are concerning). I wonder if you had any thoughts on the edits? Cheers, JCO312 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'd prefer not to invest too much time in the issue. Is there some work-extensive way of helping you? —Nightstallion 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have time and don't mind reviewing the edits I've made and commenting on them briefly (however you feel about them, of course) I think it help to convince the editor in question. Thanks, JCO312 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A new party in Italy

You may be interested in this. --Checco 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I answered to your questions in my talk page. --Checco 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello. As you seem to be interested in Australian politics, I'm wondering if you'd like to contribute to this discussion to help in coming to a consensus, something that I believe it's important to do before the Australian federal election, 2007. Thanks! Frickeg 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice

As long as we update the templates about Italian parties,we need to remember to update List of political parties in Italy. --Checco 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. —Nightstallion 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatian elections template & other

Could you please answer me what you meant at the top section? --PaxEquilibrium 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the case with DSS and NS' similarity not a coincidence. DS was created a party on purely everything against SPS, and the two (DS and SPS) are the only two political parties in Serbia which never to this very day have had any contacts with each other whatsoever. DSS seceded from DS in 1992 as a "more moderate" version. SPO was a party with SRS as its worst imaginable enemy. In 1997 NS seceded from SPO. and Now DSS-NS together, with similar attitudes of reluctance towards SPS and SRS? Is it a political phenomenon or a coincidence? --PaxEquilibrium 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather strange... —Nightstallion 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AN's symbol

In the National Alliance (Italy) article there's no more the symbol of the party because the image was deleted. What can you do about it? Is it possible to find another image with AN's symbol? --Checco 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there should be no problem if we upload it and classify it as fair use... —Nightstallion 10:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Category

I'm working on "Category:Political party factions". If you find or create articles about party factions, you can put them into the state-by-state subcategories. --Checco 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Croats & Serbs

Nightstallion, could you please find me some demographic data on Austria? I'm interested in the Croat and Serb population in Austria. --PaxEquilibrium 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Only *citizens* of Croatia and Serbia, or people born there? —Nightstallion 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, we've got 60,560 Croats (of which 48,080 were born abroad -- which needn't mean that all of those were born in Croatia) and 132,975 Serbo-Montenegrins (of which 108,723 were born abroad; I haven't got data for Serbia and Montenegro separately, as the last census is from 2001). You can see all the info at http://www.statistik.at/web_de/static/bevoelkerung_2001_nach_staatsangehoerigkeit_geburtsland_und_geschlecht_022890.pdf if you want. —Nightstallion 09:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out the presidential election talk page.

Also, can I use that on the Croats and Serbs articles? --PaxEquilibrium 09:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? —Nightstallion 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Elections

I've noticed that some (but only some) election table results have weird colors to the left of the list(s). What is that?

Actually, do you know some "perfect" (as much as it can be) election result table on Wikipedia according to which I should align the parliamentary election in Serbia? To use as a model? I ask because I find so many different variations. --PaxEquilibrium 09:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are the party colours, for instance in Template:Austrian legislative election, 2006. And that template is pretty much exactly as it should be. —Nightstallion 10:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What are party colors? --PaxEquilibrium 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And how did you manage to count the /- for votes and percentages? --PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Party colours are simply the colours officially or commonly associated with the party -- red for the SPÖ, black for the ÖVP, green for the Greens, blue for the FPÖ, and so on. Isn't that system also used in the Balkans? —Nightstallion 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's very strange to me. What, a color just associated with a party? I think DS is Blue and SRS is Light Blue. G17 could be said Yellow, and LDP Red. DSS-NS uses Red-Blue-White Serbian tricolor, can that be put? --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... Well, yes, just a colour associated with a party. In most European countries, there's a colour with which a party is identified -- usually, red is social democratic, dark red is communist, green is green, yellow is liberal and blue or black is conservative/nationalist, but there are lots of exceptions and special cases. Using a tricolour would be very difficult, but possible, I suppose. —Nightstallion 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea - how about if I just put the colors associated to them by the Republican Electoral Commission when it published graphically the seats gained? --PaxEquilibrium 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, yes! The colours you use should also be used in the infoboxes on the party article pages, obviously. —Nightstallion 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And what about those that didn't pass the census? Should I leave blank (default White)? --PaxEquilibrium 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you've got colours for them from previous elections. —Nightstallion 13:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For the changes, I simply took the results from the last elections and noted the change... —Nightstallion 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But what in cases of differing coalitions - like DSS and SPO-NS in 2003 and then DSS-NS and SPO in 2007? --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh, in that case it's rather difficult; if it's obvious that one of the parties of the coalition was the main part, I'd compare the results to those, or simply don't compare votes and percentages, but seats only, for those cases where a direct comparison is unfeasible. —Nightstallion 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the SRS is the only list which single-handedly ran on both cases. All others either didn't run in 2003, or are grossly different coalitions. Should I just add for SRS and leave all the others empty? :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's simply forget it, in that case, unless we happen to come up with some ingenious way to do it... —Nightstallion 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got an unorthodox idea - how about I split the votes proportionally in accordance to gained seats? It is de facto the number of votes each individual party got. --PaxEquilibrium 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm worried it might be considered WP:OR... —Nightstallion 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any way to find out? --PaxEquilibrium 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply try it and wait to see if anyone complains -- if you don't mind possibly having worked in vain. —Nightstallion 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - almost all done with utmost perfection. However a problem has surfaced. I can't calculate 5 lists because their differing coalition members didn't pass the threshold in 2003, so I cannot add to them a proportional number of votes. What to do? --PaxEquilibrium 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply leave them out of it then, I suppose, perhaps with a note about the problem. Do you need help with the colours, or have you figured out how to do it? —Nightstallion 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a little research, go to the parties' centers to try to get the coalition contracts.

I don't know, let me try first. :) --PaxEquilibrium 09:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I just discovered recently looking some info, Western politicians' reports on the Balkans. It appears that Milo Djukanovic actually asked the NATO to bomb Montenegro, in 1999. The latter I cannot confirm, but his proposed targets were supposed to be Milosevic's supporters and pro-Serbians. He allegedly suggested bombing of numerous houses of prominent Montenegrin politicians that supported Milosevic or were pro-Serb, like of his own model, Momir Bulatovic's, for instance. He also listed the HQ of the Socialist People's party of Montenegro, "The Day" newspaper and allegedly, even the following two: the Tzetinye Archbishopric seat and the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. --PaxEquilibrium 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, DSS is trying to get G17 on its side on the delayed election. --PaxEquilibrium 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a desperate attempt to keep the postpone the event, keeping the posts at least a while longer. --PaxEquilibrium 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope Kostunica will stumble over his own ambitions some time soon... —Nightstallion 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Dog Coalition & more

These days I'm bothering you too much, I know, but forgive me: I've somenthing more to ask you. What do you think about moving Blue Dog Democrat to Blue Dog Coalition (see Talk:Blue Dog Democrat)? And what about merging New Democrats with New Democrat Coalition, and Main Street Republicans with Republican Main Street Partnership? --Checco 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you're not bothering me too much at all! I'm in favour of all of those changes. —Nightstallion 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! --Checco 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Myanma

I'd never seen Myanma in use before. The circles I travel in seem to use Burmese. Anyway, sorry for causing the confusion with my unilateral move of your page. I figured it was just a mistake. Again, sorry. Thanks for your work on the article and moving it back to the correct name. — WiseKwai 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, no harm done. I'd certainly prefer to use "Burma" and "Burmese" again, too, but as long as the military dictatorship is active, I'm afraid it's unlikely the name change will be reverted... —Nightstallion 14:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Destiny New Zealand

Yes it should. --Lholden 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iccho Itoh

I reverred your move; Iccho Itoh spelled his own name in English in that fashion in a letter to George W. Bush: http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/abm/abm_e/kougi/usa_e.html - Therefore, as per the MOS, we spell it that way. WhisperToMe 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nightstallion, STOP! Read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc17#Tetsuya_Shiroo_and_Itcho_Ito WhisperToMe 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Conservative liberalism was proposed for deletion. --Checco 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

MNE Controversy

The President of the Democratic Institute of Montenegro reminded that tens of thousands of Montenegrin inhabitants also have Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian and US citizenship. He reveals the truth of the governmental panic over the all-Serb-citizenship-right. The Government had hoped and promised the people that when MNE became independent, all nationalist controversies would die forever. However as it's closing by to another (the Constitutional) referendum, the Montenegrin people is frustrated with the same old primitive fights on two halves repeated. On the 2006 parliamentary election DPS has barely, but succeeded in retaining its "half", while the other squandered into bittering smaller lists - the spine of the pro-Serbian coalition SNP-NS-DSS winning the 3rd place in the opposition lists, and subsequently SNP braking off from the other two, replacing its leadership and adopting a Social Democrat line. But now, the "undead" Serb bloc appears to be almost shortly resurrected, with newfound strengths facing the constitutional referendum. And the final answer is - if more than a hundred thousand Montenegrin inhabitants take Serbian citizenship (and not get deleted as per the threats), the Serb bloc will be forever "eternalized", which's the Montenegrin government's worst horror after the independence referendum.

P.S. Recently several people were rounded up and arrested across MNE. The charges are "offending administrative officials", no further comment. One of them is a Serbian nationalist writer known for his 1990s speeches. Another is a member of the Montenegrin Board for Democracy and European Integrations. I'm not sure, but it seems to be there was also a Moslem Priest. --PaxEquilibrium 12:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe a solidified Serbian opposition wouldn't be too good for Montenegro either, but as long as it gets rid of Djukanovic... —Nightstallion 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, many of them are hard core nationalists, and I could never forgive if they include the SRS into the government (if they every win). An exception is the People's Party which is moderate, includes members who nationally declare as Montenegrins, Serbs, Muslims, Bosniacs and Albanians and people of all three religions (Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim). They're pro-Serbian, but not a dip more than simply holding to Montenegrin cultural heritage & tradition. They're sworn enemies of the Serb List, frequently accusing it of Serbian nationalist xenophobia and spreading hatred in Montenegro. The only other exception is the Democratic Serb Party that just gathers Serbs, but is completely pro-European, democratic and not nationalistic.

Sadly, they're minor parties without much prospect for the future. Nationalism is always an easier means, and I am worried because the political alliance under the Serb People's Party is gaining in strength with every passing moment, mostly at the expense of other pro-Serbian elements. I sincerely hope they don't use the constitutional referendum for further gains (so that you can understand better, they're like a "lite" SRS in Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We can only hope that the liberal opposition will grow faster than the nationalist opposition... —Nightstallion 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I forgot to say - the party with the greatest number of prospect for the opposition is the Movement for Changes, and it isn't one bit pro-Serbian. It's going to be (if it's not already) the leader of the opposition. :) --PaxEquilibrium 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See the /- in the 2006 election result. Also, you might as well forget about Liberalism in general. Liberalism is dead, unpopular and has absolutely no prospect in MNE (sadly). --PaxEquilibrium 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the MfC liberal? Liberalism isn't dead then... ;) —Nightstallion 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's centrist Liberal Democracy. The truly liberal leftist Liberal Alliance of Montenegro is history and the so-called Liberal Party is truly nothing worthy of mention. But yeah, I sort-of didn't express myself right. :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway in short all parties in Montenegro were/are Socialist, and with Liberalism dead, the people are in general getting tired of the Leftist option (when I say Left-Right politics, I mean solely the economic view). The reason why PzP is so interesting in MNE, because its the very first political party which advocates "Liberal Capitalism", Open Market, privatization etc... Never has any like it existed in MNE. The people actually perceive it as a door to a "new path" not treaded before. --PaxEquilibrium 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If that improves the chances of replacing Djukanovic with a non-nationalist politician, I'm all in favour... ;) —Nightstallion 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention the Socialist People's Party, which has considerably evolved with some Social Democrat lines and has a completely unknown future. --PaxEquilibrium 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

nods BTW, what are the latest developments on the constitution? —Nightstallion 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "two-prong negotiations" just began. Serbia and the Kosovar Albanians will try to negotiate the status of Kosovo (from today), while the Montenegrins will try to negotiate the new constitution; both of the cases are 2nd round and is very little possibility of success. The Center for Democratic Montenegro's opinion is that MNE will probably not manage to bring a constitution by the end of this year.

And as for the other matter, Serbian authorities are taking more and more a more direct approach to the Kosovo issue. Its negotiating team has demanded that negotiations not be held in the UN building because Kosovo isn't an international factor, its representatives are boycotting international gatherings with members from Kosovo, and the Parliament will even start discussions on whether CEFTA needs to be revised. Local elections in Serbia might be held on 17 November, symbolically because of Kosovo's elections. --PaxEquilibrium 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

shrugs No harm done if they hold their elections at the same time, but -- what do they think their actions will effect? It seems to me that Serbia is on its way to international isolation again if they aren't careful... —Nightstallion 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The popular opinion in Serbia is the the Western Powers were convinced that after without Slobodan Milosevic Serbia is wimpy, weak and that it would stand to absolutely nothing. Some of its politicians' acts (in this manner) are a means to show "toughness". I do not think it's on its way to international isolation; first, DSS has to start braking relations with other countries that recognize Kosovo after 10 December as promised, and stubbornly keep opposing its independence even after the proclamation. :) I don't think that DSS's allegations that the war could continue are serious, frankly.

In what I'm interested no are the recent proposals of the Hong Kong theme. EU member of the Trio has stated that he might be interested in that. Basically, it's only a slightly insignificantly amended Serbian proposal, so it's not as if Serbia would refuse that. ;) It's the Albanians that might have difficult time convincing. As for the other Italian-initiated proposal of confederacy - I'm sad that they're dead, as Kostunica riles up and does not want to hear anything about a confederacy - it reminds him how he failed to keep Serbia and Montenegro together. :( --PaxEquilibrium 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the Albanians would accept that -- frankly, a confederacy is the only compromise that would be sensible, and if Serbia rules that out, well, then there can't be a consensual resolution of the issue, I'm afraid... —Nightstallion 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why the Kosovar Albanian political representatives want nothing but independence is because certain powerful factors in the world, most notably the US, support its independence - and it's just like your Minister of Foreign Affairs said, criticizing US "alternate outcome". I mean I can even freely say that the failure of the negotiations would mostly be because of US, much more than Russia which has stated that it supports just negotiations. But - since the EU might be willing propose, as Wolfgang said, a Hong Kong-type solution, which Serbia would undoubtedly accept - Kosovo might lose strong offshore allies in its independence movement, and perhaps could also gradually accept a solution. In 30 years or so, the world will be completely different, and Serbia won't care if Kosovo then becomes a separate country (perhaps even sooner), or Kosovo simply won't want it. Doesn't that sound like a possible scenario? (Some of the) Serbian political analysts predict a major international crisis after 10 December, with this eventual outcome some time in 2008. --PaxEquilibrium 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the Kosovo Albanians would settle for "possible independence in thirty years" -- you might get them to accept some sort of compromise, confederacy- or autonomy-based, with the promise of an independence referendum in ten or fifteen years' time or so -- provided, of course, that the Serbians who lived in Kosovo will be resettled there. That's a sensible compromise, IMO. —Nightstallion 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you that I became a Serbian citizen several months ago. ;) (you)

Well then, just shorten the 30 down to 15 and you'll basically get this. --PaxEquilibrium 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean the first part...? Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Still, I doubt that either Serbia (still too much) or Kosovo (too little) will accept it. sighs Well, they say that a compromise is achieved when *ALL* people are dissatisfied with the result... ;) —Nightstallion 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, did you know that there was no election threshold for minorities in Montenegro, just like it's today in Serbia? Also the minorities needed twice less votes for each seat than Montenegrins. Those rights were regularly used by Moslem/Bosniac and Albanian political parties. But in 2003 a large mass of the Montenegrin population brought their political affiliations into the population census and declared as Serbs. In 2006 the parliamentary DPS-SDP majority quickly enacted a law that abolished all minority rights, just when the Serb List coalition was formed and announced that it would run as an ethnic minority list, on the grounds that giving more power to the minor ones is undemocratic. :) But mass protests of Albanians occurred, Albanian political movements to secede eastern Montenegro and grant it to Albania were gaining in strength, full-scale separatism was born in Kraja, whose villagers miraculously self-declared a Republic and there were even acts of terrorism. So, the government made special laws on which elections would be repeated in 5 municipalities in which Albanians were in majority, each giving a single seat. To symbolically show that Milo does care for minorities, they included the Croatian Civic Initiative into their coalition. However this permanently chased away most Bosniacs and Slavic Muslims, of whom only a minority now supports Milo.
What do you think of this? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too supportive of the Serb List, but... Urgh. Utter madness. —Nightstallion 09:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AN logo 2

I remind you that we have no more the party logo in National Alliance (Italy) article. If you can fix it, I thank you very much. As always. --Checco 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find one on-line -- have you tried e-mailing the party yet? When I did that for an Austrian party, they sent me a high-quality version of their logo with expressed approval to use it on Wikipedia; you could try the same... —Nightstallion 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so able of doing such things, if you want to do it instead of me... --Checco 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it's better if you write them in Italian than if I try it in English, wouldn't you agree? —Nightstallion 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When I have time, I will do it. --Checco 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

National liberalism

What do you think about starting an article about national liberalism. It is not a very oft-used concept, but it is a little bit interesting (see for instance this): do you think that it deserves an article? I personally do. We have also a source. --Checco 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? —Nightstallion 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When I have time I will do it. --Checco 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SERB-RS

The Federal BH authorities refused special links with Serbia, and Kostunica stated he wants only with Republic of Srpska. Tadic, alone without allies, is defeated on this initiative. RS and Serbia have drawn much closer, economically their key companies have merged and a "Council of the Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbia" has been created from parliaments of both entities. The 1992 special links treaty mandated its creation, but it was AFAIK never realized before 2007. And there's a very bizarre act from Kostunica - the Government of Serbia has personally funded a creation of a school in Banja Luka called "The Serbia" (!). --PaxEquilibrium 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OHR stated that RS has made no violation of the Constituency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (principally the Dayton Accords), making completely legal and allowed procedures, on the outrage of some Bosniac and Croat politicians. --PaxEquilibrium 18:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've also read that they've finally agreed on a police reform, in more positive news... —Nightstallion 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only links. The Serbs say they won't give up RS police.

Speak of the devil, you're missing BH on the Constitutional reform in your notes. The UN (OHR) has put the deadline up to this month, but local politicians are ready to reach a consensus in October. It's about a new Constitution and new order of BH! --PaxEquilibrium 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Any news report on that which summarises the issue? —Nightstallion 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a Wikipedia article on that: Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but obviously iy lost editors. Sorry I couldn't find German/English-language good online info. All I could find is this.

Some good news at least. Let's hope this final - SRS lost their sole mayor. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard about the mayor. :) Thanks for the links! —Nightstallion 16:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you're referring to the same thing? Not the tragic death of Belgrade's mayor two days ago? --PaxEquilibrium 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I heard about both. Incidentally, who becomes mayor of Beograd now? —Nightstallion 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Milorad Perovic from DSS Speaker of the Civic Parliament will be the acting Mayor until the local election. Then if the new laws are finally adopted, Tadic's second hand Mr Jovanovic from DS will be Mayor. If not (if the current laws are re-enacted), Aleksandar Vucic of SRS will be elected through popular vote. --PaxEquilibrium 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really terrible for Belgrade. Nenad Bogdanovic is the first...only Mayor of Belgrade who has greatly contributed it. After all, he's also the first mayor elected by popular vote. During his era, hundreds of structures and streets were renewed, the "Wonder" Temple of Saint Abbass has been brought to completion and Belgrade has been officially (re)accepted as a Metropolis, and the most prosperous city of South-East Europe. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad news, then... —Nightstallion 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The new negotiations in the Constitutional Assembly were supposed to start tomorrow (1 October), but the ruling coalition decided to delay them for some other matters to attend to, so Ranko Krivokapic scheduled for 15 October. I am very satisfied to say that the opposition (SL, PzP & SNP) is unified in its demand that general elections be held immediately after the election's proclamation. So far the Opposition has made a consensus on several matters - the current ultra-nationalist preamble is unacceptable. Also the national symbols and language, as well as the judicial matter, you already know.
BTW the opposition is negotiating among themselves to present a common candidate whom all would support directly in the first round. The most mentioned opinion is that he should be from the strongest opposition - which means that it would be either from PzP as the strongest party or SL as the largest coalition. --PaxEquilibrium 09:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think will be the result (both regarding the constitution and the elections)? —Nightstallion 09:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The ruling coalition will never give up on control of courts. I'd reckon there's far more chance they'll be a referendum. The opposition fears of a referendum, because it would again be a rematch and divide the population into two half yet again. They also fears of losing. If the Milo's coalition wins - then the international community would accept the constitution, which would be horribly dreadful for Montenegro.

The reason for this broad alliance of completely differing people is the most recent decision of the ruling coalition several days ago. The Parliament was supposed to ratify the "Seven Points for the Montenegrin Constitution from the Council of Europe", which is also one of the promises for MNE joining the CE. While most of the opposition voted for it, the ruling coalition voted against, making it fail. The argument is that the demands of the Council of Europe are not realistic, and are jeopardizing Montenegrin integrity (they mostly relied on judicial independence and right of minorities, btw).

Oh, you should also know that the Albanian Alternative has joined the Opposition (with capital O). They did that because the ruling coalition is now conducting bizarre checks of ethnic Albanian citizens in eastern Montenegro, in "Tuzi and Malesia", because of fears of terrorism and Greater Albanian activity. --PaxEquilibrium 09:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

nods And what are the chances of improvement any time soon? —Nightstallion 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Also, check out Parliament_of_Montenegro#Opposition. :) Nice. Those listed under that broad political alliance will also be the NO! opposition in the constitutional referendum, should it occur. --PaxEquilibrium 10:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo. Is my question clearer now? Nice, yes. :) —Nightstallion 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, as I said. On 15 October the session will begin and negotiations between DPS-SDP and The Opposition. Btw "The Opposition" has adopted (sorry, only in Serbian) a common Platform (a political alliance "constitution"). According to the platform, it calls for

1. unlocking the negotiation status and adopting the Constitution in the Parliament

2. reordering the Constitution's composition in a more orderly manner

3. declare illegal all illegitimate regimes

4. not declare Montenegrin language official

5. separation of the Church and the State

6. right of citizenship guaranteed for Montenegrin inhabitants (because of that issue, remember?)

.

.

.

loads of other ponts mostly orientating on making the Courts independent. --PaxEquilibrium 10:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I agree with all of that, but I'm not sure what the big problem with declaring Montenegrin the official language is...?

Well it's difficult to explain. Mostly because below 22% people declared Montenegrin language their native tongue. There is no standard for Montenegrin language, so declaring a not yet formed language official is a huge glitch. That move have been highly criticized by a large portion of the Montenegrin intelligence, most notably the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. The reason why conservatives and Serbian nationalists want that needs no explanation. Anyway, in the end it's mostly centered at declaring solely the language official, as per the ruling coalition's desires. For example, as I've posted to you the attitudes of all political parties in Montenegro long before - PzP wants "Serbo-Montenegrin" or "MonteSerbian" or similar... --PaxEquilibrium 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they also ask that EuroAtlantic integration be added into the Constitution, in a preamble. --PaxEquilibrium 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh, fair enough, I suppose "Serbo-Montenegrin" or "Serbian and Montenegrin" would be just as fine. The lack of standardisation is something which should be remedied beforehand, of course -- but on the other hand, a lot of languages are not regulated or standardised officially at all... Euro-Atlantic integration in the constitution is a good idea. —Nightstallion 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Which for example?

The state media are playing dirty (watching it myself). They're assuring the population that PzP has changed their attitudes and will support, giving it a parliamentary majority - which, when their website is observed, is a complete invention. On their website they even wrote that it's an invention from the ruling coalition. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 11:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

English, for example? ;)

I sincerely hope the PzP and the other opposition parties will displace Milo as soon as possible... —Nightstallion 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

English has no Grammar or Primer? --PaxEquilibrium 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a *single* authoritative one like the Académie française or the Real Academia Española. —Nightstallion 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But than it has at least some, right? :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. Some may consider Oxford or Merriam-Webster to be one, but there isn't an authorative source which defines how English should be used. —Nightstallion 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah. But of course, any at all is always better than none. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin polls

In June this year Montenegrin public persons have been rated with grades (Center for Human Rights and Democracy research, from 1 to 5):
1. Vanja Ćalović, President of CEDEM - 3.18
2. Željko Šturanović, Prime Minister (DPS)- 3.14
3. Nebojša Medojević, opposition leader (PzP) - 3.1
4. Milo Đukanović, national leader (DPS)- 3.09
5. Filip Vujanović, President (DPS) - 2.99
6. Gordana Đurović, Deputy Prime Minister (DPS) - 2.86
7. Andrija Mandić, opposition leader (SL) - 2.51
8. Vujica Lalović, Deputy Prime Minister (SDP) - 2.48
9. Ranko Krivokapić, Speaker (SDP) - 2.45
10. Srđan Milić, opposition leader (SNP) - 2.27

Others are insignificant. Their whole political careers' ratings for the last year are calculated. --PaxEquilibrium 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And these are "civic trust" grades of institutions:

1. Serbian Orthodox Church - 3.4
2. President - 2.86
3. Government - 2.8
4. Police - 2.68
4. Parliament - 2.68
5. Courts - 2.57
6. Montenegrin Orthodox Church - 2.55
7. political parties - 2.34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

CEDEM is the Electoral Commission...? And is "1" the best as in school grades, or is "5" the best? —Nightstallion 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but a non-governmental one - and the only at all Montenegro has got. :)

5 is the best. --PaxEquilibrium 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And about the Constitution:

• 19.6% are certain that a compromise will be achieved
• 29.8% think a parliamentary compromise will be achieved
• 15.4% do not believe a parliamentary compromise will be achieved
• 5.8% are certain there will be a referendum
• 29.4% undetermined

And should there be a referendum:

• 44% will support the (DPS-SDP) Constitution
• 14.8% will oppose it
• 41.2% will boycott —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is about the parties (the previous poll I gave you is split only among the politically conscious eligible voters).

Party	June 2007 poll
DPS CG	28.8%
PzP	15.7%
SNS	8.5%
SNP CG	4.3%
SDP CG	2.5%
SRS	2.1%
LPCG	2%
NS	1.6%
others	4.7%
abstinent	29.8%

All parties are included. All the other polls I gave you are too much overloading info, so just observe this table. :) Where a party isn't mentioned, it's a part of another (obviously which). --PaxEquilibrium 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in these, from the latest June 2007 poll:

EU membership Yes   78.3% No   6.5% undecided   15.2%

NATO membership No   39.7% Yes   32.9% undecided   27.4%

ICTY cooperation Yes   48.2% No   30.6% undecided   21.2%

language Montenegrin   33.3% Serbian   30.7% Serbo-Montenegrin   3.1% Mother tongue   2.5% other   1.6% undecided   28.8%

And a list of entities with whom Montenegro should be closer:
1. Serbia
2. European Union
3. Russia
4. USA

Thanks for the information! —Nightstallion 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice how the DPS fell from 30% to below and PzP jumped from just 9% to 16%. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

:) —Nightstallion 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, check out this on the newest Montenegrin parliamentary election: Ifimes. I'm referring to the bottom short article. --PaxEquilibrium 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part? —Nightstallion 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The text below the image... --PaxEquilibrium 09:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting, but it doesn't really surprise me that Milo has contacts with other criminals... It's really sad, though. —Nightstallion 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

You'll probably be interested to know that DPS has presented its amended draft proposal to the Opposition. They altered the language part, so that it now includes that Serbian, Bosnian and Albanian languages are recognized, next to Montenegrin being official. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that make it more likely it will be accepted by the opposition? —Nightstallion 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The minorities - perhaps. Which is sad because I really thought that this is going to be some sort of a Montenegrin DOS. SL, SNP and NS-DSS probably won't. This is actually an attempt to bribe off smaller parts of the alliance, in order to destroy the unity of the Opposition - because none of the PzP's proposals on Free Courts or general elections afterwards have been added. But the opposition remains united through their platform - when they hold negotiations, they send a representative from a party to represent all of them. They take shifts. One day the Albanian was there for example. Most of the time Nebojsa Medojevic leads.

I mean it's actually a funny picture - the ethnic Albanian is attacking the government for brainwashing the population and conducting hideous propaganda, denouncing its Serb tradition, while the SNS nationalist is defending Albanian and Muslim minority rights (!!!!!). :)))))))))) It's very interesting and funny to see this actually, I could never expect ever to see something like that in ex Yugoslavia, not after the 1990s. --PaxEquilibrium 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Sounds great to me. :) —Nightstallion 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

DPS-SDP proposal includes "The Church, the Islamic Community and other religions are separate from state", while The Opposition thinks none, or all should be named.

Also the day before yesterday's declaration of the Montenegrin government's interesting. It says that the aims of Montenegro are to enter the EU, enter the NATO and create a close as possible community with Serbia. I think they're trying to make peace. :)

Also, Filip Vujanovic has lodged an official protest in the Council of Europe about the Serbian law that grants citizenship - he clarified that this law is an invasion of Montenegrin sovereignty. --PaxEquilibrium 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... —Nightstallion 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Constitution

NS (&DSS) withdrew from the negotiations for good, calling for referendum. PzP seems to have brought a compromise with DPS-SDP. Nebojsa said that the amendments of the Council of Europe will have to be in the constitution and that he will never go beyond that. DPS seems to have accepted that, including the Movement's request that general elections be held exactly one year after the constitution is adopted. On the other hand, Medojevic gave up of dual citizenship (Serbian Montenegrins). However, a super-majority is still lacking - and SNP thinks that negotiations should be continued. I don't know about SL, but I think they'll probably back down and ask for a referendum. LPCG also hasn't voiced its opinion, but it seems they'll call for boycott (of the referendum). --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, so there'll be a referendum? —Nightstallion 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The DPS SDP PzP SNP=61; 75%>

This means it'll be adopted, if SNP accepts it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, PzP will most surely vote - however SNP refused, but is prepared for more negotiations. The Serbs, Bosniacs and Albanians seems to be backing off from the negotiations (perhaps aiming for referendum?). --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sinistra Democratica logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Sinistra Democratica logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious coin

Hi,

It has been a long time since I stop to bother you. But I have a question maybe you can answer (and maybe not). I've found a strange coin: it's a French commemorative €2 coin « TRAITÉ DE ROME 50 ANS, EUROPE, RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE », but very poorly struck. On the national face, the twelve stars are almost unvisible. Only two (maybe three) stars can be guessed on the bottom (under the "RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE"). Do you think this coins can have a special worth? Is it rare? Or is it simply a fake? (unrelated PS: Go and see that) Švitrigaila 11:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth something, I'd ask collectors about it (more than one, obviously ;)). —Nightstallion 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have something about it, could you exceptionnally warn me directly on my talk page? Švitrigaila 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do! —Nightstallion 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria

Hi, I noticed that the article on MLPÖ was deleted. I could, however, not find any AfD posted for it. Please undelete it, and we can discuss an AfD. --Soman 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's obviously non-notable. —Nightstallion 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins

Hi,

I was wondering why you undid my changes to the €2 commemorative coin page. As it stands it is factually incorrect as the countries it says haven't produced such coins yet have in fact done so this year with the Treaty of Rome coin. I was just making this clear.

I also thought it was worth adding that in certain cases no ordinary €2 has been issued, but you seem to disagree.

Regards

Angus Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.42.84 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed your concern regarding the common issue, but the lack of ordinary €2 coins is completely out of the scope of the article. —Nightstallion 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the map is still incorrect in stating that the red countries 'have not issued a €2 commemorative coin', and simply referring to the Treaty of Rome coins at the end of the main text does not properly negate the statement "Four eurozone countries have not yet issued such coins (France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia)". Also, "there has also been common Treaty of Rome €2 commemorative coin" does not make grammatical sense - it should be 'have' and 'coins'. Finally, I have just noticed that the totals for Belgium and Germany are incorrect. On the point about the irrelevance of referring to ordinary €2 coins, I don't see how this is any less relevant than the earlier statement that the reverse of ordinary €2 coins cannot change before 2008. Regards, Angus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.42.84 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is correct insofar as it is *one* common design. The part about the reverse is relevant as it was part of the same reform that made €2 commemorative coins possible. Clarified the legend for the map, thanks for alerting me to the incorrect totals. —Nightstallion 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RS presidential election, 2007

It's sad. Milan Jelic is the very first democratic and reformist President of RS (no matter how trivialized his position was). And he barely stood for a year...

By the way, Kostunica is convincing the Serbian people that great victory he achieved in New York. He said that both sides have signed the New York Declaration, which reconfirmed the UNSCR 1244, for the first time after the 1999 Kumanovo Treaty when it originally accepted. He said that this means that the Kosovo Albanian side bounded itself to respect Serbian territorial integrity. He also said that the US Foreign Affairs Minister stated that USA draws back from supporting unilateral recognition of independence after 10 December, as a response to irresponsible statements by Condoleezza Rice.

Also Kostunica has accepted to support Boris Tadic and has succumbed to DS demands to hold presidential and local elections at the same time, but he asks that a DSS mayor be elected for Belgrade. The compromise is that the Speaker schedules the elections by the end of this year, and that they are held after the Kosovo Status Process, in March 2008. --PaxEquilibrium 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont be so happy Pax!

Albanians have waited for 7 years now there is no way they will remain in Serbia. Visca el barca 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not expressing happiness, I'm expressing worry.

By the way, make that eight years now. And for all the "waiting", better count since 1989, which makes it 18 years. We could even count it for almost a whole century, even since Serbia/Montenegro regained it. The same things were said before, and yet those Albanians were reintegrated twice - once while they were even a part of Albania. --PaxEquilibrium 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried, too. While I'm generally supportive of independence movements, my worry in this case is regardless of that -- I'm just afraid something terrible will happen in the Balkans again if there won't be a solution which both sides can somehow accept... —Nightstallion 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, both the local and the presidential elections will be held in March 2008 at the same time. DSS and DS agreed; they will only be scheduled by the end of this year (so that no incoming Kosovo crisis could further postpone it). DSS will directly support Boris Tadic. The only remaining controversial matter is that DSS wants the seat of Mayor of Belgrade in return, traditionally held by DS. --PaxEquilibrium 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

nods Then the articles should be updated, no? —Nightstallion 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, obviously - but it's still not yet final. Boris Tadic has refused that any non-DS man hold the Mayor of the Capital City, which is traditionally the Democrats'. Kostunica has even accepted that his Civic Speaker Milorad Perovic switches places with the Deputy Speaker from DS, so that he becomes the acting Mayor when the Parliament officially abolishes Nenad Bogdanovic's term (currently held by his deputy, Radmila Hrustanović from G17 ). It appears that DS might be willing to grant the places of several municipal presidents to DSS. Although I think this really goes nowhere, this party makes fearsome demands so the following ones no longer seem so fierce.. and on and on... --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the kind of strategy... —Nightstallion 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moves

What do you think about moving Democratic Party (Poland) to Democratic Party (Poland, historical) and Democratic Party – demokraci.pl (a bad title, for me) to Democratic Party (Poland)? --Checco 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Actually, I think the current titles are fine... —Nightstallion 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the "historical" solution is not the best, but do you really like Democratic Party – demokraci.pl? It seems to me a unique case among party articles... --Checco 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the official name, isn't it? I don't see much of a problem with using the official name, if it's widely used and not too complicated... —Nightstallion 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually prefer short titles, as for Democratic Left (Italy) instead of the official name Democratic Left for the European Socialism. --Checco 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but it doesn't hurt in this case... (BTW, it would be "Democratic Left for European Socialism", I'd say.) —Nightstallion 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. --Checco 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Yeah, I was going to get to the poll. It's interesting how SPS further falters, and strange for G17 - which is a ruling party. LDP strengthens greatly too. --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

SPS didn't shrink too much -- but the DSS did, good news. ;) The fact that both the DS and the LDP grew a lot is great news in my eyes; the fact that the Radicals are growing, too, worries me a bit. As do the other poll results, which value Kosovo more highly than the EU... But at least two thirds support EU membership, and very few people are now prepared to fight for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the differences between the two CeSID polls.

Party	June	September
SRS	32%	33%
DS	26%	29%
DSS	13%
DSS/NS		13%
SPS	8%	5%
LDP	6%	9%
G17	5%	4%
SPO	3%	-

Both SRS and DS are gaining in strength, just like I said a while ago. However DS appears to be faster. DSS has managed to keep the same amount of supporters - but only by including the NS electorate as well. SPS falters and LDP rises, both significantly. It's also interesting that SPO even further continued to fall, so that it's now officially not considered a major party. :))) Also, again only a third of the electorate is determined to vote - which is very bad. --PaxEquilibrium 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's great, then. :) Apart from the abstention... —Nightstallion 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not great to my opinion. I hate two-party systems (like the one in Montenegro until a while ago), and simply adore when there are countless minor parties offering so many different choices, that one can always find the one you like instead of always picking a lesser evil - I'm referring to the extinction of SPO and the obvious path G17 is taking. --PaxEquilibrium 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I mean, I just meant that it's good that the political directions which I do not favour (most notably SRS, DSS and SPS) are either shrinking or not growing as fast as their rivals. I dislike two-party systems, as well. —Nightstallion 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Table of political parties

I can't find it. Could you show me the link?

Also, if you didn't know - SRS is left-wing and LDP right-wing. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This one? I'd have called LDP centrist, actually... —Nightstallion 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Neoliberalism with most Open Liberal Capitalist ideology purely right-wing?

Oh, you call it centrist because it's got (sort of) a Social Democrat line? Hm... I'm not sure that it's enough for center... is it? --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no - a table. You invited me to include Serbian and Montenegrin parties, remember? --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Centre-right, at most, but not absolutely right, IMO... Corrected the link above. —Nightstallion 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The table should contain only political parties parties with more than one seat - right? --PaxEquilibrium 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

... plus all parties that are officially members, associates or observers of a pan-European party, whether they have seats or not. —Nightstallion 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about countries with tiny parliaments, where 1-seat parties are vast in numbers. --PaxEquilibrium 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In those cases, we should likely include them all. —Nightstallion 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say be carefull with using right-wing and left-wing. The LDP is clearly a non-nationalist party without conservative values. I would label them as liberal, not as right-wing or left-wing. Electionworld Talk? 13:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, as I said -- centrist. —Nightstallion 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I mostly think connoting rightism with nationalism and similar is actually a very bad stereotype - just like "Montenegrins are lazy" or "Bosnians are stupid" - very, very horrible. For example, the ultra-nationalist Serb Radical Party has all symbols of a leftist party. The nationalist Albanian movements (that created the KLA) in the early 1990s were Marxist-Leninist, etc. I mostly use Liberal Capitalism as the clearest point showing LDP's right-wing. --PaxEquilibrium 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rightism needn't be nationalism, but the key point Electionworld made is that it has few conservative values, if any -- therefore it's centrist. —Nightstallion 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Law and Justice

Is Law and Justice conservative or national-conservative? Please, state your opinion in Talk:Law and Justice. Thank you. --Checco 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Regarding

I'm just busy with real world matters... --PaxEquilibrium 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then's the elections (local and presidential). There'll be also the presidential election in Montenegro in the meantime, the Croatian parliamentary and the RS presidential. I'll manage to cover everything before. :)) --PaxEquilibrium 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll always be there, I just won't be writing articles, only updating from time to time. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Croatian election

The manager of Croatian national television has been sacked by the Government, under accusations of working against national interests - in a popular TV show known as "The Pyramyd", one of the three guests was the leader of Slavonian Serbs, who was for a short time a member of the Serb Radical Party during the war. The journalist that replaced her is Hloverka - a well-known Tudjman's personal literally "Mistress for Propaganda" back in the 1990s. Ever since she kicked in, the television is conducting somewhat anti-SDP propaganda, while HDZ and HSP are favored. On the television we could see the SDP potential future Premier on the concert of Marko Perkovic Thompson (the musical band that glorifies the Ustashas and Tudjman's war crimes), while the (originally pro-Ustasha political party) HSP is presented quite strange through several political talk shows. They say that strongest links with Serbia are necessary, even if the SRS stood on the other side (!). We could also see HDZ officials highly criticizing SDP's claims that it supports continued closeness of Croatian market to Serbian capital/economy. The most recent developments actually back-fired SDP straight in the head. :) Anyway, I sort of think that this act of HDZ is a way of desperacy. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MNE

Check you Template talk:Montenegrin elections. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anythin' to add? --PaxEquilibrium 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask because I consider the controversy of 1918 still open on table? --PaxEquilibrium 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd include, if they were legalised post facto. —Nightstallion 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that include a statement from the King not long before his death, in 1920? --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. —Nightstallion 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Central African War

Should this article even exist? —Nightstallion 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, I made a mistake by creating it. No idea what to do with it --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete it and redirect all links to it to the appropriate sub-conflict? —Nightstallion 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't answered you I wasn't online. It's OK now --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. :) —Nightstallion 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks endlessly for deleting this articles, it always gave me the creeps since it was first created. Ciao,--Aldux 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. :) —Nightstallion 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Austria & Germany in Serbia

Did you know that Austria in Serbia is mostly presented in Serbia as a "friendly country", while Germany is observed as an opponent (as Milosevic kept saying "an extremely hostile nation")? That's very strange, considering the 'closeness' of the two countries? --PaxEquilibrium 10:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What closeness of the two countries? We speak the same language, that's about all there is. We have more in common with Czechia, Slovenia and Hungary, frankly. —Nightstallion 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Germany isn't specifically promotive of you in the EU? --PaxEquilibrium 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? —Nightstallion 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Germany lobbied for Austria to enter the EU in 1994? --PaxEquilibrium 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh? Why? I think there was some talk about problems arising with having neutral states in the EU, but the same would have applied to Finland, so Germany wouldn't have needed to lobby for Austria alone... —Nightstallion 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo potential refugees

The US envoys have come to Croatia to negotiate the possibility of hundred thousand non-Albanians receiving an exodus when Kosovo declares independence. He was there to ask the Croatian government to accept possible waves and stop them, before reaching NATO countries, further destabilizing them or jeopardizing NATO's reputations in those countries after it supports Kosovar independence. The Croatian authorities insured them that they will prevent further inflow of refugees and accept them in Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 20:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting... —Nightstallion 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

European Parliament Elections

Dear friend, do you think pages like European Parliament election, 2004 (United Kingdom) should be merged into a larger European Parliament constituency (United Kingdom) articles? Your thoughts please on Talk:Elections in the European Union. C mon 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Incident

The SRS forcefully seized (occupied) power in Ruma and won't relinquish it. --PaxEquilibrium 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean "occupied"? Militarily? —Nightstallion 14:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The SRS deputies are blocking entrance to other parties, most notably the DS, and have imposed their own local self-management body. --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And what will happen? —Nightstallion 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The police guards the building. I suppose the Government of Serbia will attempt an operation to remove them by force from the building, if they persist on this. --PaxEquilibrium 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SRS has less MPs in the parliament than DS. --PaxEquilibrium 15:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

nods The SRS is obviously a danger to democracy, in my eyes... And why has the SRS got fewer MPs...? —Nightstallion 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They lost the election and keep refusing (for a long time) to hand over power, accusing electoral fraud, and even expelling from the parliament building all non-SRS deputies, seizing all the power for themselves. The Serbian Government actually ignored this until today. --PaxEquilibrium 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs Outlaw them all... Really, I don't get how a third of Serbia's electorate can vote for these idiots voluntarily... —Nightstallion 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A third of the determined voters. Most of Serbian eligible voters are abstainers, completely disgusted by the (1990s) politics. --PaxEquilibrium 11:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

... thereby enabling the SRS to get as many votes as they do... —Nightstallion 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also - remember the situation with the National Socialists and Germany after the "Great War to End all Wars". --PaxEquilibrium 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There has been a fascist gathering in Novi Sad, Vojvodina. The major neo-nazi "National Machine" with a minor clerofascist group tried to organize a rally to celebrate Hitler's birthday. They were arrested and broken up, at the demands of LDP, LSV & G17 after the gathering was banned. The SRS indirectly supported them. --PaxEquilibrium 11:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin President

The DPS-SDP amended draft now notes that there are no direct elections for the President - the President of the Republic of Montenegro will henceforth be elected by the Parliament. Milo said that the ruling coalition will not go beyond that line. If you ask me, this is because they lack candidates that could win the election. Since DPS now again refused general elections immediately after the constitution's adoption, I believe that when Filip Vujanovic's current mandate expires, the present session (which will last until 2010) will elect a President.
P.S. DPS's proposal also accounts that any person can be elected for President unlimited number of times until his/her death.
The Opposition is due to hold a session, on which it will decide whether to support or oppose this Constitutional Draft. It's widely expected they will oppose. They will also decide whether there's actually any possibility/point left for future negotiations with Milo's alliance.
By the way - it has been announced that a Triumvirate would return (President, Premier and Speaker): Milo Djukanovic, Svetozar Marovic and Filip Vujanovic. Any guessing how they'll take the office perhaps? --PaxEquilibrium 14:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I seriously hope that the constitution proposal fails. That change is absolutely horrible in my eyes -- taking democratic power away from the people. —Nightstallion 14:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Any speculation on how the three would take offices from you? I heard Milo might return to President, and that Svetozar is furious for having no post for a long time - he'll probably have Premier. As for Filip...I have no idea if he'll agree to trivialize himself as Speaker. :) --PaxEquilibrium 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, I'm still far too worried about the prospect of removing the public vote from presidential elections... I hope the opposition can make this constitution fail. —Nightstallion 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pax, this must be a joke. Milo is seriously afraid of losing power, no wonder he's making these draft proposals. And as for the president having unlimited terms, what the hell is he thinking and how the hell are we supposed to be democratic when Milo wants a communist-like country. Well, this will surely lose support big time. Well, I hope his stupid mind realises he's lost after what he's done to the country after gaining independence and I hope he runs himself straight to the down to the bottom and become as poor as those Roma refugees in Konik. And as for the Triumvirate, what the hell? They just want absolute power for themselves. They've become power hungry as it seems. Hopefully, this draft proposal will fail and the Opposition and the ruling coalition will finally agree on a constitution that will be neutral and benefit Montenegro, not run it down, but it seems like that will never truely happen. *sigh* --Prevalis 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...but tell me, when was Milo not afraid of losing power ever since he seized it in 1997? Every single time he won, and each & every of his victories are "za dlaku".

Nightstallion: SL, SNP and NS-DSS retreated from the negotiations for good. The Movement for Changes is still willing to negotiate. The Bosniac Party as well the Albanian Alternative are also willing to continue negotiations, which means that adoption of a good constitution is still possible. The ethnic albanian Democratic League in Montenegro was the main fighter against Milo since its foundation in 1990, so there's possibility that it will also withdraw. --PaxEquilibrium 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

nods I can only hope... —Nightstallion 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party (Italy)

Created Socialist Party (Italy) based on it:Partito Socialista (Italia), please expand it. Thanks! —Nightstallion 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I expanded it a little bit, however I would suggest to merge Socialist Constituent Assembly into it, as the two things are actually fully coincident right now. If you agree, I would make such a merger. --Angelo 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, good idea! Please do merge SCA into SP(I). —Nightstallion 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

General Strikes

The most relevant MOS guideline is this. As with other major conflicts, you would never see the "Winnipeg General Strike" lowercased in any credible publication. It's a proper noun the same way the Cold War is a proper noun, and therefore uppercased. bobanny 06:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not. It's not a military term. If you want to move those, file for a requested move, but I doubt you'll succeed -- it's squarely against guidelines. —Nightstallion 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't say it was a military term, but that's the closest thing for which there is a specific guideline. But whatever, it's still a proper noun. I don't know what your WP:RM comment means. bobanny 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As the move is contested (I simply do not see any source for your claim that they are proper nouns -- e.g. 2007 Guinean general strike and 2007 Swazi general strike certainly are not), you would have to file a requested move at WP:RM; after a few days of discussion, a neutral admin would decide whether it should be moved or not based on the evidence presented. —Nightstallion 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Winnipeg strike, it seems you are right, though; I won't contest that one. —Nightstallion 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The trend generally has moved increasingly towards lowercase for a lot of things, so recent general strikes are more likely to be written as such. Whether a historical event is treated as a proper noun, i.e., whether it should be capitalized, is determined by widely accepted usage, and some things are only sometimes capitalized in the real world, such as the Cold War. According to the Chicago Manual of Style (the most cited source in Wikipedia MOS articles):

"8.81Historical events

Names of many major historical events and projects are capitalized. Others, more recent or known by their generic descriptions, are usually lowercased. If in doubt, do not capitalize...

• the Boston Tea Party
• the Cultural Revolution
• the Great Depression; the Depression
• (President Johnson’s) Great Society
• the Industrial Revolution
• the New Deal
• Prohibition
• Reconstruction
• the Reign of Terror; the Terror
• September 11; 9/11 (see also 6.115)
• the South Sea Bubble
• the War on Poverty

but

• the baby boom
• the civil rights movement
• the cold war
• the crash of 1929
• the Dreyfus affair
• the gold rush"

Neither Chicago MOS nor Wikipedia MOS specifically mention general strikes; it looks like there's not a universal convention, but that the older ones are more likely to be capitalized. I'm most familiar with the Winnipeg General Strike, but I'm convinced the Seattle General Strike would be in the same category. I'm only bothering to RM Winnipeg and will leave it up to you to reconsider your position on the others because I'm not in the mood for sparring. I will point out though that the onus is on you to make the case that the guidelines demand lowercase for all historical events except military conflicts. If the Winnipeg General Strike is an exception to the rule, what is the rule? And what is the basis for such exceptions? In addition to the Chicago MOS list above, how about Red Scare, Suez Crisis, Champagne Riots, Great Irish Famine, Boston Police Strike, or The Holocaust? The convention - in guideline and practice - that you're claiming doesn't exist. Moreover, the civility and procedural guidelines suggest that the proper protocol for making a contested change to a longstanding edit is to build a consensus for change (in the Winnipeg case, it's been capitalized since 2003; Seattle since 2004). Guidelines are just that, and do not trump discussion and consensus-building as the final word on anything. Your cocky and authoritave tone don't appear to be justified by your knowledge of Wikipedia. bobanny 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to sound cocky, but the onus does rest on you to prove they *are* usually are capitalised, as I've readily conceded in the case of the Winnipeg Strike; I suppose evidence can also be found for the Seattle Strike. However, the moves you did in the Guinean and Swazi cases were at least as uncalled for as mine were. Either way, I suppose we'll be able to agree on the capitalisation of the individual articles on a case-by-case basis. —Nightstallion 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we both mistakenly assumed general strikes can all be treated the same, but I only moved the Guinean and Swazi articles once. Try moving Great Depression to Great depression without a consensus to change it and see what others think about where the onus lies. Anyway, I was able to uppercase Seattle and Winnipeg, but am leaving the Winnipeg General Strike move request up in order to do away with the "1919." There's no need to disambiguate the title for this article, and it seems to me that standardization isn't a good enough reason to make it extra bulky. If you have an opinion about this point, please weigh in here.—bobanny 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem with that. —Nightstallion 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It's quite nice. Where did you get the info for all of 'em?

He's actually just acting Mayor - as Speaker of the Civic Parliament. He's from DS. --PaxEquilibrium 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly from the official sites and from de.wikipedia.org. Until when will he be in office? —Nightstallion 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Serbian sites are poor on any info.

Until the next local elections (March 2008?)

How do you like my rewrite of the presidential election article? --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian sites at least have the dates of the past elections. Well, mostly -- the site on the Burgenland elections has no dates earlier than 2002. sighs

Ah, so at least it won't be a DSS guy in charge of Beograd until then. I like your rewrite a lot, though I don't like the move quite as much. ;) If you still think it's possible they may be held this year, we can move it to "Next Serbian presidential election". —Nightstallion 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The official demands of the DS are still to hold it by the end of the year, yeah - no matter how less and less likely it seems probable. Just as the article says - there is no Constitutional Court which could interpret the Constitutional Law's ambiguous definitions (the points over which DS and DSS conflict). Hopefully it will be elected by the national assembly by the end of this month - which means that then we'll have a clear answer. Or of course, until DS and DSS officially make a compromise. Yeah, I suggest moving to that one until either of these two occurs. --PaxEquilibrium 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do so. To make matters easier, I'll leave the Vojvodina and local election articles at ", 2008" for now, though, okay? —Nightstallion 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can't BELIEVE I wrote parliamentary instead of presidential in the very beginning of the text! --PaxEquilibrium 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Montenegrin presidential election, 2008 --PaxEquilibrium 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the PZP will support Milo's constitutional proposal. Nebojsa said that this is the only way to attract some more of the ruling alliance's electorate - statistics show that most of the people who're now the Movement's electorate are former proponents of the proSerb forces.

What do you think about the rumors that the US is hiding Radovan Karadzic? --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, a Florida University professor and member of the SNS said that Montenegro just lacks camps. :)))

I hate that the Serbian and Montenegrin regimes still haven't opened all the 1990s files. In DS's campaign we heard that Tadic wants to open all filed to the public - but still hasn't occurred. In MNE The Opposition demands opening of all secret files to the public, however the DPS (for obvious reasons) refuses...sigh. --PaxEquilibrium 12:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue XVII - October 2007
Project news The Articles-Images in danger of deletion noticeboard page was created for the project. The page can be used by project editors to alert each other where articles or images are under challenge in some way in Wikipedia. Project members are still more than welcome to make use or comment on the Novels WikiProject peer review department. Member news The project has currently 274 members, 13 joined & 0 leavers since the last newsletter at the start of September 2007 Other news Reminder: the ISBN is 13 digits long if assigned after 1 January 2007, and 10 digits long if assigned before 2007. ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 can both be used in the book template, see related discussion here. In either case just prefix the number with the string "ISBN". Enthusiastic Novel's WP members are welcome to edit the list of missing works available in The Literary Encyclopedia — a part of WikiProject Missing articles, an effort to use outside sources to determine what articles are missing from Wikipedia. Novel related news Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea is undergoing FA review. Current debates The genre "Plausible fiction" is discussed here. The revival of the so-called automated lists is suggested.	From the Members Welcome to the seventeenth issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor Collaboration of the Month This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is The Handmaid's Tale. Newsletter challenge Last month's Over Sea, Under Stone challenge had quickly a short stub about it by Applejuicefool (talk · contribs). It did need some rapid work to expand it, but there you go. The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Angus Wilson's The Middle Age of Mrs Eliot.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Italian political parties

What do you think about the changes to the template made by C mon? I don't like them and, although I would prefer a rollback, I hope that we can at least align the names of the parties to the left. --Checco 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the original version. —Nightstallion 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your reversion: It is important to realize, that contrary to popular belief, wikipedia is not a democracy and arguments matter. C mon 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but until the discussion has been ended in some kind of consensus, the status quo ante is usually seen as preferable, is it not? —Nightstallion 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Socialist" parties in Italy

Actally we should have 3 "Socialist Parties" in Wikipedia: the historical one (1996-2001), the current one (that of De Michelis) and the future one (that of Boselli-De Michelis-Angius-Craxi-Turci). What can we do about it? --Checco 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple:

• Socialist Party (Italy, historical) --> Socialist Party (Italy, 1996−2001)
• De Michelis' party: Socialist Party (Italy, 2007−2008) (unless the new party is founded on 1 January 2008)
• the new one: Socialist Party (Italy)

D'accord? Will you be creating the missing article soon, BTW? Thanks! —Nightstallion 14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. I will do it ASAP. --Checco 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! —Nightstallion 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Liga Fronte Veneto

LFV changed name into Liga Veneta Repubblica, its historical name. Can you invert the redirects? --Checco 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, it simply added the old name to LFV, thus no change is needed. Sorry. --Checco 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I had already moved it when I read your second notice. Never mind, undid it. —Nightstallion 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again. It is unclear what will be the definite name anyway: it sometimes refers to itself as LFV, VdE, LFV or LRV-LFV, all the names it had in the past 10 years. --Checco 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, I suppose. As long as its official name stays LFV, we should leave it there, I suppose. —Nightstallion 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. --Checco 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Constitution

Compromise established between DPS-HGI, SDP, PzP, BS and AA. PzP withdrew from most demands, including the immediate elections. The Constitution will be adopted by the end of the month.

Yet another episode of the Divided Land is over...I don't think the two halves will ever reunite - SL, SNP and NS-DSS has united now to lead the formerly pro-Serbian forces, and will together face off in the pre-term 2009 parliamentary election. --PaxEquilibrium 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Official Montenegrin; Serbian, Bosnian and Albanian in use" is the language. There's a compromise over citizenship too - no Montenegrin citizen that attained that citizenship before 1996 will lose it. All who have acquired after 1996 will hold it a year after the constitution's brought. --PaxEquilibrium 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And the other controversial issue? What about the change to having a president elected by parliament? What about the courts? —Nightstallion 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The President will be elected in general elections, but his powers will be extremely increased - and a person can be elected only twice in his life for President. He will be the supreme commander of the Army, he will declare laws, he controls all foreign representer bodies (Foreign Affairs) and he can dismiss the Parliament at his personal will.

Court independence has been greatly increased, but it still depends on some parts on the ruling coalition and the President of State - this victory (if we could call it) is why Nebojsa said he supports the constitution. --PaxEquilibrium 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and one good thing - the death penalty will be banned! :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, that sounds like it's a half-way sensible compromise, doesn't it? Why the sudden change, why have they agreed on it now? And I thought the death penalty already *was* banned... —Nightstallion 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you might've missed my comment some sections to the up. Nebojsa Medojevic's electoral body are mostly proponents of Serbia, supporters of the former pro-Serb bloc (PzP took took a third of votes of the pro-Serb bloc's electoral body - which is why many erroneously consider it one of three pro-Serb separate minor lists). Nebojsa said that this is his own personal victory, and that this is the only way to attract some votes of the DPS' electorate. Though I think he's now jeopardized his party's popularity greatly...he probably will lose a lot of the Serb voters.

No, it wasn't banned - it's just that the last executions were in the 1990s (by greatest part Croatian POWs, Bosnian refugees and political opponents). P.S. What do you think about the possibility of the Hoolbroke-Karadzic agreement? --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's gonna be actually adopted though - Serbs will most definitely raise the heat up like before, there gonna have to make some amends for them or they'll do what they did in 2004 (mass strikes, total anarchy in the country). All is not yet done. --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why will Nebojsa lose votes...? I don't quite understand it yet...

Mh, then Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation#Europe is currently de iure wrong.

Mh? What other demands would Serbs have? Ah, yes -- what about the church issue? —Nightstallion 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:41686392_monagbody.jpg

This is a rally of the (once) unionists. They bore three flags. The Serb Orthodox tricolor represents the Serbs, the electorate of the Serb-centric list. The axis of the bloc, electorate of the SNP-NS-DSS, had the Slavic tricolor. And the EU flags are those of the electorate of the Movement for Changes. The Unionist Camp went in its campaign three-prong, civic equality for S&M, Serb nationalism and European Integrations (the EU clearly put demands that it wants MNE and SERB together in the EU, and that it would be faster). The Independent Bloc's rallies just had the Red Montenegrin flag, and most of their campaign relied solely on history - how Montenegro was recognized in 1878 as an independent country, independence it lost in 1918 and faces Serb domination.

CEDEM's research shows the PzP's supporters are by large ethnic Serbs, proponents of Serbia and Orthodox faithful. The Movement in 2006 literally took all of the pro-Serbian camp's reformist electorate. It took also the alliance's name: Together for Changes. I don't expect that those would support him now.

No religious institutions are mentioned at all in the Constitution. Serbs complain about the language. --PaxEquilibrium 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So they split - the Serb nationals/ists voted for the Serb List. Most of the pro-EU voted for the Movement for Changes (some SNP snatched), while simply all others voted for SNP-NS-DSS. Historically, the pro-Serb bloc was for pro-European, while Milo's coalition was Eurosceptic. --PaxEquilibrium 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do you expect in future elections? Will PzP still become the second largest party? —Nightstallion 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most surely not. The first place will be DPS and the second some sort of a Serb political option.

Also why do you think it's a half-way sensible compromise? DPS used/uses the identical tactic of DSS in Serbia. Imagine this situation: there's an apple, and you and your friend want to split it. You suggest that you split it equally, with each getting a half - while your friend suggests that he gets the whole apple. So, as a "compromise", you get a quarter of the apple and he gets three quarters. Get my point? --PaxEquilibrium 11:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, yeah. That much for political change in MNE. —Nightstallion 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There might be some more chance though - now that LPCG also said it'll vote for the Constitution, SNP has brought several amendments giving the super-majority an option that if they adopt some of them, that SNP will as well vote for the Constitution. The larger the majority, the less instability will be there - plus, unofficially, I heard that SNP might be willing to use its links to pacify the Serbs if it joins the Constitutionalist majority.

Some of SNP's amendments are: not mentioning any particular date or historical event in the preamble, declaring all undemocratic/illegitimate governments illegal, two flags for Montenegro (the current as state - and the tricolor as national; this is an attempt to emphasize unity of the two Montenegrin halves), correcting the Coat-of-Arms to heraldic correspondence, rewriting the Nazi-era lyrics of the national anthem, declaring citizenship for Montenegrin citizens protected, keeping Serbian language of the iekavian dialect official, naming all religious groups and a bunch of other amendments dealing with independence of courts and civil and minority rights. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. BTW if PzP doesn't manage somehow to snatch off DPS's electoral body - I think it just committed political suicide and will end up like the liberal option. --PaxEquilibrium 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can still hope. —Nightstallion 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I can't find out whether Parliament of Vojvodina uses Mixed member proportional representation or Parallel voting system. Also, what do you think about Template talk:Infobox Legislature? --PaxEquilibrium 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a parallel system, as the results are not at all proportional -- in a MMP system, you'd only get so many supplementary list seats that the overall result was more or less proportional, which is not the case. —Nightstallion 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! —Nightstallion 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ISO, Pt. 2

Thanks for the heads up! I feel good knowing that I was right on the two letter codes. I have updated the ISO articles. I have held off on updating the articles on St.-Barth and St.-Martin with their new ccTLDs until IANA/ICANN adds them (.bl/.mf) to their WHOIS. Thanks again! - Thanks, Hoshie 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: IANA has added .bl/.mf to their WHOIS; see [5] and [6]. If .me and .rs is any guide, it could take up to a year for the ccTLDs to become effective. - Thanks, Hoshie 12:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, time to create .bl and .mf, then, ain't it? —Nightstallion 12:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles are done! I used an old version of the .me article to make things easier and fleshed it out from there. - Thanks, Hoshie 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

EP apportionment

Just for you, I'll adopt that article to see how much I can expand it. I won't be able to do a lot of work on it right now because of some real life stuff but I'll see what I can do and get onto expanding it properly next week with luck. - J Logan ^t: 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) —Nightstallion 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes (MNE)

Nationalism is being reintroduced to the stage. This caused a mild increase of popularity of DPS. The SNS further continues to grow (the sole party that only grows) as a result of stacking of Serbs, who mostly dislike the constitutional draft. The PZP falters and appears that it will keep falling. SNP, a party ever closing nearer extinction, now slowly returns to prominence, probably mostly from the Movement's electoral body. It is suspected that SRS is now strong enough again to enter alone the parliament. LPCG (which is not quite as its name insinuates - it opposes the NATO and is slightly nationalist) falls into political mist.

The support of EU continues further to fall, but still has a strong majority. Opposition to NATO has now grown almost to absolute majority. --PaxEquilibrium 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about the EU

Attitude	Jun '06	Aug '06	Feb '07	Jun '07	Sep/Oct '07
YES	81.5%	76.5%	74%	78.3%	72.4%
NO	5.5%	5.6%	8.4%	6.5%	9.4%
Without option	13%	17.9%	17.6%	15.2%	18.2%

This is NATO

Attitude	Jun '06	Aug '06	Feb '07	Jun '07	Sep/Oct '07
YES	44.2%	36.9%	36.6%	32.9%	32.4%
NO	27.3%	31.4%	34.6%	39.7%	40.7%
Without option	28.5%	31.8%	28.8%	27.4%	26.9%

Quite interesting... Where do you think will this lead? —Nightstallion 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to the first part, then if Serbia and Montenegro sign a bilateral agreement allowing the Montenegrin Serbs citizenship: the pro-Serb bloc will become eternal and once again the Montenegrins will split into sovereignists and "serbs", and this time forever. In effect, it will be again like completely two different nations and worlds in one country, pitting to vie for power on the Republican level, which in effect would never ever be liked/accepted by the other of the two sides.

If you refer to the polls I expect conservativisation (currently all political parties in MNE are pro-EU) - DPS, SDP and SNP are the only ones who support entrance into the NATO. I suspect them to change their opinion (the last one as opposition party first). I also suspect contra-Euro parties to arise, and one like SRS in Serbia - if DPS doesn't again mutate as a political act to actually become that party, in an effort to maintain power. --PaxEquilibrium 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Colombian Civil War naming

Hi there. I've replied to your reasoning for changing the name of the article, providing several reasons and links you might want to check out. While all the possible names are technically valid, I think we can and should still discuss this, through the proper channels if necessary. Other than that, have a nice day. Juancarlos2004 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanization of Armenian

Hi,

I've created a new page dealing about common transcription of Eastern Armenian alphabet. I'm not sure my English is correct enough and I need someone to read it again. Furtehermore, this guideline has not be voted yet. I don't know how to put a sign somewhere to warn about it. May I require your help? Švitrigaila 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really know how to do that, either, but I'll certainly read it! —Nightstallion 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thein Sein

Would you mind talking some sense into 84.172.212.54; I'd really appreciate it! Therequiembellishere 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've gotten stuck in an edit war with and IP who seems to have decided to move around a bit to make things harder. I don't know what to do to stop him! Therequiembellishere 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, Lord, please help! Therequiembellishere 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is he moving things around? I'll simply move-lock the page. —Nightstallion 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a she and she's now evading the block by creating an account. *slaps forehead* Therequiembellishere 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs —Nightstallion 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Factions of PD

I never heard before of a "Reformist" faction within PD (I suppose they are the social-democratic tendencies from DS) nor of the "Liberal-progressives". Who are they? I'm very interested in it and this time I guess that you are more informed than me... --Checco 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or the Italian article is wrong again -- I got my info from there. —Nightstallion 08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the it.Wiki article which was incorrect. Indeed Rutelli's group is named "Reneal Democrats" and it is more than a small group: almost every former member of DL who is neither "Popular" nor "Ulivist" belongs to this group. --Checco 11:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! —Nightstallion 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

NMKP

Hi. Is it possible to move the Nepal Workers Peasants Party back? It might appear an odd naming, but it is the name used for the party in English. --Soman 11:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain? Okay, if you say so... Sorry for my mistake, then. —Nightstallion 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I need advice from every international jurist

Hi (again and again),

My new question is not only for Nightstallion (whom I thank for every help he brought me in every sort of subjects) but for every person here interested in international law. I have a discussion on English Wikipedia about the totally artificial distinction between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

I uphold the opinion that the long form name of the country is "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and its short form name is "the Netherlands", although "the Netherlands" can refer legally to the European part of it in some contexts.

On the other hands, some argue that "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is an entity including three distinct countries: the Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. "The Netherlands" by that definition is only one of the three parts of it. According to this point of view, using "the Netherlands" instead of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is a language abuse (like using "Holland") and the fact that the term "the Netherlands" appear in international treaties is a proof that "the Netherlands" are a country and that only the European part of the countries are memebers of EU, NATO and so on.

Would anyone interested in this discussion post his opinion her? I thank you in advance. Švitrigaila 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for article assistance

I recognise your name from somewhere, and notice you are associated with some of the Russia-related projects. I hope you can either help or divert this to the right place.

Lekianoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is poorly sourced, and the term has very few Google hits, most of which appear to be either highly partisan or not English. I suspect this is a notable term in Georgia, but am unsure whether it has any currency in English, and what, if anything, to do about the article. Please see if anything occurs to you. Thanks, Cruftbane 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I'd ask User:Ezhiki. —Nightstallion 11:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Cruftbane 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Velja

Kostunica seems to be denouncing him, a legal process has been started because of illegal trade. --PaxEquilibrium 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why that? —Nightstallion 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's robbing the state funds for raising monumental buildings for himself and his cause (a very morbid hospital, two Churches...). --PaxEquilibrium 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Partito Democratico

Hello, where did you take the logo of Partito Democratico (Italy)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzop (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Italian Wikipedia. —Nightstallion 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah!!!

The PD primaries were an incredible success: more than 3 million voters for now! No matter who wins (and we all know who will finally win), it is a remarkable day for Italian politics. Italy starts to be a normal country someway (and more like the United States): left-wing grassroot activists, party rank-and-file, independents, young people, nuns, billionaires... all voting for the same party. The great divide between Catholics and non-Catholics is near to an end. What is the party of Catholics? FI, UDC, AN... sure, but also the PD. No matter all the small parties (PS, LD, UD), the real news is about PD. What is sad is that PD could have been larger with the partecipation of PS and SD, or at least of IdV and Radicals.

Be aware that today's news doesn't mean that the centre-left is out of the crisis. The country is turning to the right and Berlusconi has the wind behind himself, but today's result could be the beginning of a moderate centre-left. This could be a problem for Prodi, especially now that the leader in charge is Veltroni, youthful and inovative as he is. The centre-left remains in crisis, but today's could be very good news for Italy. There are many thing on which Veltroni is closer to Berlusconi than to Prodi or Bertinotti. He is also a supporter of presidentalism, first-past-the-post, federalism (althogh he is from Rome) and direct democracy. We'll se if he will be able to do these things. I hope so.

It is a wonderful day today: we have a new party and rifts between Catholics and non-Catholics seem to be an end, as the dominance of Communists and post-Communists is eventually history in Italy. --Checco 19:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:) —Nightstallion 06:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Political party factions and PD logo

Two questions: firstly, where did you take the Democratic Party logo? I looked around the whole official website and I quite failed to find a logo version, the truth seems simply to be that the party still has no logo at all, so I would delete it. Secondly, I saw you created a number of political party faction articles, and well I really doubt about their notability. Some of those are really news to me, and received no significant media coverage, consequently failing WP:N. I'd like to know more about your thoughts before to start an AFD process, in any case. Thank you. --Angelo 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Angelo, most of those factions are well known thanks to media coverage (especially newpapers, as the Corriere della Sera), some have websites and some have presented lists at PD primaries. --Checco 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it that media coverage significant? Is there more than a simple name citation? I doubt this. They are all pretty short articles with little context and composed mainly by lists of politicians; how about instead merging them into their parent article? --Angelo 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But where did you see those articles? I wasn't able to find them... --Checco 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Ecologists, We Blue Reformers, Popular Liberalism. In addition, I feel the Template:Italian political party factions as useless: how to define a faction within a party relevant enough to stay there? Factions are not a formal thing, and sources are not so obvious to be found. --Angelo 23:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I definietly don't agree with you this time, especially when we are talking about factions as the Democratic Ecologists and We Blue Reformers, having an organization, a leadership, clubs, offices and hold meetings and conventions. The Eco-Dem have even a website. --Checco 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Every single organization and individual in the world can start its own website and hold meetings, conventions and whatever they want to. This means nothing, the fact is the articles feature very little content and are highly unlikely to grow up in terms of size, so it's much better to start a faction section on their parent article including all such information rather than fragmenting it all. --Angelo 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtely, in the case of FI factions, we can add more information to those articles you want to delete taking it from Forza Italia#Factions, but I continue to think that those articles are useful and can be improved. --Checco 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the logo from the Italian Wikipedia, and I did not create faction articles, actually. I just created the template, IIRC. —Nightstallion 06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This was created by you, according to the article history: [7]. --Angelo 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but back then I thought it was a splinter party, not a faction. —Nightstallion 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The secret agreement with Karadzic

I asked you twice, but you didn't answer. Do you suspect ICTY (Florence) might be right on this? --PaxEquilibrium 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, kind of confused right now -- right on what? —Nightstallion 06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The ICTY claims that the CIA and other USA forces are deliberately obstructing its work, on many occasions, an important one being the Radovan Karadzic case. According to (some) of its allegations, Richard Holbrooke has in 1996 made a secret treaty with Radovan Karadzic, according to which he would be given a 'safe house', 200,000 American Dollars, bodyguards and immunity if he resigns from all posts (President of RS, President of SDS) and withdraws from all political life willingly - which did occur, and unlike Ratko Mladic and the other ICTY indictees, Karadzic's story is constantly diminished and no voice of him at all from 1996. --PaxEquilibrium 10:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Rather strange... —Nightstallion 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Measure of a Man

Hello Stallion! Question about disambiguation pages; what is the normal stances on cases for articles that have the definite article the, For example, should The Measure of a Man redirect to Measure of a Man or remain an independent article? Kyros 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. In this case, I'd use "Measure of a Man", as the majority of the articles does not have a "The" at the beginning. I don't think there's a general rule on that, though... —Nightstallion 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Former Italian political parties

For once users in it.Wiki had a very good idea: creating a different template (see template) for the historical parties in Italy with the period of activity, the historical leaders, the best electoral results... It would fine to have something like this also in en.Wiki. What do you think about it? --Checco 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks great! —Nightstallion 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

EU/Montenegro news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7045814.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the new Montenegrin Constitution will distance slightly from the purely civic principle by naming the main ethnic groups living in Montenegro: Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians and Croats. In the same manner Montenegrin will be official, while Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian are recognized as used. The Constitutional discussion in the parliament lasts as I type this. --PaxEquilibrium 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On 11 May 2007 Montenegro became a member of the Council of Europe. June this year it submitted its first report. On the Government's insistence, the language is noted "Montenegrin". Today the DPS Deputies use the fact that the Council of Europe recognized the Montenegrin language as one of the reasons to proclaim it official, rather than Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also the first official recognition from the Montenegrin government on atrocities in the 1990s. It reported that Milo Djukanovic's (solely Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro) 1992-1997 cabinet conducted wide-scale discrimination of minorities, in first image the ethnic Albanians and in the religious sense Muslims in general, including Roms, by firing from all state-held position. In this period no member of minorities was employed in the state/served for the state. Aside from the 1992 roundups and deportations of Bosnian muslims to Bosnian Serb camps I mentioned before, two other instances are mentioned: in the village of Štrbci the villagers of Muslim confession were kidnapped and tortured by the local authorities. Another example is a town near Pljevlja, in which the population was ethnically cleansed by the Montenegrin forces - they fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, those who remained were slaughtered and the town raised. All Roms were intentionally moved out of Danilovgrad into Roma settlements during the 1990s and members of the bosnian Party of Democratic Action were prosecuted, with SDA practically banned in Montenegro. It also mentioned discrimination towards political dissidents, and those who believed contrary to the official state policy. --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The report is, however, controversial - it doesn't recognize the Serbs as a national minority - or an ethnic group at all. It treats them Montenegrins who have expressed that desire politically, just as proponents of union with Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting, thanks! —Nightstallion 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The status of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy in the European Union

I found some very interesting information about the status of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy in the European Union in the Draft version of the Reform Treaty. I saw you also discussed on this on Talk:Special member state territories and the European Union, so I wanted to let you know. Please take a look there. Kind Regards, Maarten 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that, too (that's why the list of European Union member states by accession looks as it does ;)). Could you include that bit of information in the Reform Treaty article somewhere? —Nightstallion 06:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PD factions

I'm working hard on PD factions in it.Wiki (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partito_Democratico_(Italia)) because some users wanted to delete it. When I have time I will work on this also in it.Wiki. If you want you can start. --Checco 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a lot of things to do in RL right now, so I'll simply wait until you've got time, but thanks for notifying me! —Nightstallion 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even I am busy. I worked in it.Wiki only to prevent the deletion of the section. Anyway, what is surprising about PD factions is that they are pretty organized groups (also with an electoral machine, due to the recent primary elections) with a variety of political views and ideological affiliations. Very, very interesting. --Checco 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

nods And, do you think other parties (or splinters) will join? —Nightstallion 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope it, but I can't say how much it is likely. Undoubtely the primaries were an astonishing success and the party seems very pluralistic in its outlook: this can lead some groups to join (Idv, LD, Radicals), but also some other groups to split from it (for instance the social-conservative Theo-Dems). Anyway, as the LD seem to be heading towards the centre-right, maybe IdV is more likely to join, but, as you know, they were not accepted in July when Di Pietro wanted to join. Same thing for the Radicals. --Checco 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs I can only hope. —Nightstallion 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Actually they haven't decided yet I believe - will recheck. The ANA voiced again. It announced a martial takeover of North Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks. —Nightstallion 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Republika Srbska presidential election will most likely be held on 9 December 2007 (as per the Central Electoral Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina), but the final proclamation hasn't been put yet. --PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that, but I've also read that candidates had to be nominated by *today*, and I haven't seen any indication of who has been nominated... —Nightstallion 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no - they haven't reached an agreement. One of the main problems is that it has been proposed that a Bosniac should become the new President (or Croat?). The two ethnic groups opposed the election of Igor Radojicic for transitional president, because the rules clearly state Vice-Presidents (one Bosniac and another Croat) become acting Presidents of RS - which are in this case non-Serbs. The boycott of Bosniac political forces in the Serb Republic isn't helping, as a Serb candidate will probably be put forward again by the single party that rules the entity, especially now when nationalism is growing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

By the way, did you know that from the RS anthem God of Justice lyrics were removed? For some time the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared the anthem insulting to the other two peoples, Bosniacs and Croats. Recently, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Srbska passed the decision. All lyrics were removed from the anthem. However the Constitutional Court still considers the melody, as an anthem in general insulting to the other two constituent nations of RS, so polls for the new anthem have been scheduled. The non-lyrics one will serve as transitional. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, interesting. Thanks! —Nightstallion 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

File:RS amblem.gif

Emblem of the Republic of Srbska

The Coat-of-Arms of the Republic of Srbska was banned too. The institutions now use the emblem, it has no coat-of-arms. One of the reasons states was that Coats of Arms were symbols of states, and not entities - aside from the fact that Bosniacs and Croats consider the Serb Coat-of-Arms insulting, not representing them too.

However problems emerge when the subject is brought up to the Serb flag, used as flag by RS. The Serbian tricolor is definitely not a symbol of Croats & Bosniaks. The Serb authorities claim the central Bosnian authorities are working on abolishing the statehood of Republika Srpska in fact, piece by peace, so that it only remains on paper. This greatly increases Serbian nationalism. If you ask me it's not a very bright idea - and doesn't make much sense, either. --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs Yeah, but the way the Serbs oppose all attempts to diminish nationalism (by creating smaller entities with a more mixed population, for instance) doesn't help, either. —Nightstallion 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because most Bosnian Serbs see the future outside of BH, rather than in it - in the 2006 parliamentary election a single party that leans to independent Republic of Srbska won. The idea is parallel with the status of Kosovo, so the Serbian political leaders will, as so far, obstruct and delay all reforms of BH until the status of Kosovo is solved. This tactic is in practice ever since Montenegro's independence and braking of the state union with Serbia in 2006. They're waiting to see the outcome, and will most surely keep status quo until then. --PaxEquilibrium 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then they'll have to wait even longer to enter the EU. shrugs Their choice, really. —Nightstallion 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - the RS also has a patron saint, Saint Stephen. This point as well was proclaimed insulting to the other two peoples which do not celebrate saints (and especially to the non-Christian one). --PaxEquilibrium 10:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MNE

The Movement for Changes supports all of SNP's amendments and asks the ruling coalition to reconsider some of them, in order to make SNP vote for the new Constitution to gather a greater majority as possible. Nebojsa Medojevic says they'll vote for the Constitution regardless if the amendments are adopted or not, because it is important - he also says that in term his party agrees with all of SNP's amendments.

For adoption of the Constitutional Draft a simple majority is needed, as well as for amendments - rather than a super-majority as for its adoption. PzP seems to be trying to improve its position, because its up-to-recent allies are massively calling him a traitor and criticizing him far more than Djukanovic and his minions. --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Think they may yet save their face and their party's future? —Nightstallion 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If they oppose this Constitutional proposal, yes. If they support SNP's amendments, perhaps. If they vote for the Constitution and not the amendments - no chance. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

nods We'll see. —Nightstallion 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The leading and oldest ethnic Albanian party - DSCG - remains in The Opposition with the Serbs and the others. It criticized the AA for betraying the opposition draft, and says that the Albanian people will punish it at the next election. They criticize them highly for siding with the ethnic Albanian pro-regime DUA. They say that DSCG has been founded in 1990 and is the oldest democrat party in Montenegro, while AA founded in 2006 is still far too inexperienced.

The media in Montenegro report that Milo Djukanovic has allegedly offered to Nebojsa Medojevic the seat of Head of State. --PaxEquilibrium 11:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship: all who have dual or more citizenships will be able to keep it, the Montenegrins (300,000?) in Serbia will have to give up their citizenship. --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

... which Nebojsa obviously can't accept, if he wants his party to have any future at all. —Nightstallion 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See first 30 seconds of this youtube video. There's English translation. --PaxEquilibrium 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs —Nightstallion 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's Milo Djukanovic promising to "deal with the anti-Serb Croats" once and for all. --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the sigh was my reaction to that... Can't he simply do the honorable thing and die of cancer? —Nightstallion 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have thrown it away to his current puppet-Prime Minister, Željko Šturanović. Or Zeljko's willing to take that for his master. :) --PaxEquilibrium 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The Serbian Question lasts in Montenegro for years. The authorities are clinging them between not recognizing them as an ethnic group and considering them a national minority. Nothing responds really. However this constitution will effectively declare the Serbs a national minority (32%) and Montenegro a nation-state of Montenegrins (43%), which is bound to cause problems. Also declaring a language spoken by 22% of the population official and one spoken by 63.5% as "just recognized" is another reason. Serbs don't complain a lot because the Church isn't mentioned at all, but because of this. It's bound to cause problems. I myself don't even know a possible solution. --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I... —Nightstallion 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, regarding to the electorate I spoke recently: this is the video of the Independent Bloc from 2006. This is the video of the Unionist Bloc. You can see how history influenced the first and the other mostly by PzP's (liberal?) electorate to effect the style. No need for the language, the latter's actually a song. Check 'em out. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: papal "conclace"

The articles you have moved are not papal conclaves. They were papal elections that took place before the proceedures of the conclave were created. Please be more careful in the future. Savidan 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. —Nightstallion 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical EP groups

Hi, looking into what you mentioned on the EU talk page. this list is the only thing I have on it, and thus I do not have English names for them. But most seem to be different forms of current parties, most can be dealt with through developing existing group's history sections I think. Others, we can include in the European Parliament group history section. That sound okay? - J Logan ^t: 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, great! So, just to collect the info somewhere, the groups which are not current and thus do not have their own article right now are:

EFA:

• Groupe de Coordination Technique et de Défense des Groupes et des Parlementaires Indépendants (CDI) 1979-1984
• Groupe Arc-en-Ciel (ARC) 1984-1989
• Groupe Arc-en-Ciel au Parlement Européen (ARC) 1989-1994
• Groupe de l'Alliance Radicale Européenne (ARE) 1994-1999

EGP:

• Groupe de Coordination Technique et de Défense des Groupes et des Parlementaires Indépendants (CDI) 1979-1984
• Groupe Arc-en-Ciel (ARC) 1984-1989
• Groupe des Verts au Parlement Européen (GVPE) 1989-1999

GUE/NGL:

• Groupe Communiste et apparentés 1973-1989
• Coalition des Gauches (CG) 1989-1994
• Groupe pour la Gauche Unitaire Européenne (GUE) 1989-1994
• Groupe confédéral de la Gauche Unitaire Européenne (GUE) 1994-1995

EPP-ED:

• Groupe Démocrate-Chrétien 1953-1978
• Groupe Démocrate-Chrétien (Groupe du Parti Populaire Européen) 1978-1979
• Groupe Conservateur Européen 1973-1979
• Groupe des Démocrates Européens (GDE) 1979-1992
• Groupe du Parti Populaire Européen (Démocrates-Chrétiens) 1979-1999

Union for Europe: (requires its own article...?)

• Groupe de l'Union Démocratique Européenne (UDE) 1965-1973
• Groupe des Démocrates Européens de Progrès (DEP) 1973-1984
• Groupe du Rassemblement des Démocrates Européens (RDE) 1984-1995
• Forza Europa (FE) 1994-1995
• then split into EPP and UEN

I&D:

• Groupe Europe des Nations (Groupe de Coordination) 1994-1996
• Groupe des Indépendants pour l'Europe des Nations (I-EDN) 1996-1999
• Groupe pour l'Europe des Démocraties et des Différences (EDD) 1999-2004

ALDE:

• Groupe des Libéraux et apparentés 1953-1976
• Groupe Libéral et Démocratique (LD) 1976-1985
• Groupe Libéral, Démocratique et Réformateur (LDR) 1985-1994
• Groupe du Parti Européen des Libéraux, Démocrates et Réformateurs (ELDR) 1994-2004

PES:

• Groupe Socialiste 1953-1993
• Groupe parlementaire du Parti Socialiste Européen (PSE) 1993-2004

What do you think? —Nightstallion 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See European_Parliament_political_group#Historical_groups, it's all there (with French names, though). —Nightstallion 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work on the page, translated names to English for a start. I remove some as they are older versions of current parties (socialists never changed for instance). Remaining data of course needs to be put into party articles (which have always been lacking) but I wish we had an English source! ENA doesn't say anything on parties and the party websites don't bother to streach back beyond the current arrangement, if at all. - J Logan ^t: 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have all former names in the article, could you revert that, please? —Nightstallion 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

President

Ceda will win the third place, rather than Velja according to polls. By the way, I haven't heard anythimg from Slovenia? PaxEquilibrium 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peterle win will the first round, and either Gaspari or Türk will face him in the second round, which Peterle is also rather likely to win, being the first PM of independent Slovenia and such... —Nightstallion 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know very little about Peterle. Is he OK? --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure. I'd prefer Gaspari (liberal democrat) or Türk (social democrat/social liberal) to win, as I'm highly critical of the right in Slovenia in general -- I've heard lots of bad news about how they treat the media (privatising government-critical media by force and then turning them into rightist newspapers)... —Nightstallion 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about those problems - but they are not new, and I am convinced they will pass through time. (note to you: I may have a lower higher threshold for critics regarding such things, because of the horrifying situation in MNE).

So then what'd you advice me to advice my Maribor-stationed cousin? :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be so. I hope you're right.

Well, I would vote for Türk in the second round, and likely for Peterle's opponent in the second round -- but only if it's Türk or Gaspari, and not the nationalist. Kind regards to your cousin. ;) —Nightstallion 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And let me know what your cousin thinks. ;) (Both on the election and on the media issue.) —Nightstallion 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, you might be intrigued to know that the SRS deputy has submitted an amendment: "The official language of the Republic of Montenegro is the Anti-Serbian language". :D --PaxEquilibrium 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

grins Interesting. ;) —Nightstallion 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very bad news: Today a Serb deputy has torn apart the new Constitutional Draft. He and his alliance said that they will never recognize it, and call for all Montenegrin Serbs to boycott all Montenegrin institutions until it is revised, like DPS has treated the Yugoslavian Constitution when Milo took over. (slightly sympathetic) President of the People's Party Predrag Popovic has yesterday shown the solution by which he is accepted as citizen of the Republic of Serbia. Today Serb List leader Andrija Mandic has also stated that he has Serbian citizenship. The Montenegrin authorities have started a process of revocation of Popovic's and Mandic's citizenship. They will also vote tomorrow in the parliament to revoke their immunity and expel them from the parliament, with open possibilities of charges for violating the Law of 1999 that banned dual citizenship. This is the beginning of a bad era. --PaxEquilibrium 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound good... —Nightstallion 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If I haven't informed you: The Supreme Judge of the High Court will be elected by President, Premier and Speaker (a joint compromise).
New symbols will be adopted. The Coat of Arms will be similar to this one - the 3 crosses (on the crown and on the two insignia in the eagle's paws) will be removed. The same change will be done on the Flag.
You might add to your notes that they'll adopt the Constitution today, it's on daily schedule.
Could you please help me with the image of Nebojsa Medojevic? I don't know what to do (tag) - Montenegrin state officials' creations do not fall under copyright laws (just like Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They told me I should use SerbiaGov for now... but that seems highly improper.
Also, a new Law is being prepared by SDP. It proposes the transfer of funds from the Bank of Montenegro to numerous private banks across Montenegro. What the heck is this??? --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- I trust you'll update the articles when the new constitution is adopted? —Nightstallion 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Constitution adopted.
SL, SNP, NS-DSS, PzP, DSCG and LPCG have voted for most of their own amendments, however the ruling coalition refused all of them.
The Serbs say they will treat this Constitution the same as the DPS treated the previous one, until it is revised. --PaxEquilibrium 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I greatly fear that the Movement for Changes will be remembered amongst the pro-Serb electorate - and its own - as an agent of Milo Djukanovic, just temporarily created to obtain a two-third majority, which will likely be lost at the pre-term 2009 parliamentary election when the opposition part snatch off PzP's electorate. I fear this will be remembered as a short plot/episode of the government in another attempt to further its goals. --PaxEquilibrium 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When does it come into effect? Can you update the flag article and so on? —Nightstallion 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a great day for Montenegrins. We finally have a constitution and we finally can truly declare our language as Montenegrin. Though, I shouldn't be celebrating just yet, I have a bad feeling that this will bring even more instability in Montenegro because the pro-Serbian parties (Serbian People's Party (SNS), Democratic Serbian Party (DSS), People's Party (NS) and even the Socialist People's Party (SNP)) all voted against the constitution and oddly, the Albanian parties (Democratic Union of Albanians (DUA), Albanian Alternative (AA) and the Democratic League in Montenegro (DSCG)) didn't vote at all, while the ruling coalition (Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), Socialdemocratic Party of Montenegro (SDP) and Croatian Civic Initiative (HGI)) and members of the former Opposition (Movement for Changes (PzP), Bosniak Party (BS) and the Liberal Party (LPCG)) all voted for the constitution, a total of 55 votes, which out of 81 total votes, formed the two-thirds supermajority to adopt the constitution. This came rather quick, wouldn't you say? --Prevalis 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Albanians didn't because that Constitution is against the interests of the Albanian national minority in Montenegro. They didn't get what Milo promised to them back from 1998. All in all, Albanians don't quite approve this Constitution. Not quite quick as I expected - but with a shocking twist at the end, when practically everyone thought it was over and a new referendum was in sight. --PaxEquilibrium 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh* Wow. This is shocking. I was hoping that the Albanians would vote for the new Constitution, not knowing that it was against the interests of the Albanians. But technically, only DSCG and AA abstained from voting, DUA couldn't vote because its representative (and leader) was abroad and had announced that he couldn't make it in time for the session. And also, why did the ruling coalition reject all the amendments? --Prevalis 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "Serb national" amendments were refused for obvious reasons. The majority regarding court independence, civic rights and democracy was refused because it would jeopardize DPS's rule. --PaxEquilibrium 12:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Persian political parties

What do you think the point of this article is? Should it be turned into a redirect to List of political parties in Iran? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged, if there's info exclusive to that article, but basically -- yes. —Nightstallion 14:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)