User talk:Nightstallion/ι
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nightstallion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for December 26th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
European Parliament election, 2009
Hey. Just noticed the seat allocations for the European Parliament election 2009 at the article...Have these allocations been officially confirmed or are the quoted figures predictions?
Cheers
doktorb wordsdeeds 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe they're confirmed; I got them from Growth in membership of the European Parliament, which cites an official Union source on this. —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey cheers for the reply. Yeah it took me about two or three more page clicks to find the page you quote and the source. I should check before I ask next time =). Cheers again doktorb wordsdeeds 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problem at all. :) —Nightstallion (?) 12:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Saparmyrat Nyýazow
Once again, I need your help. Here. Thanks. Švitrigaila 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
DR Congo election template
One more minor issue: For some reason, it's now the de facto standard to use "constitutional", not "constitution"
I was thinking about it, but wasn't sure! Thanks for clearing it up :) Number 57 16:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Gladly! :) —Nightstallion (?) 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
page moves
Just wondering if you have a favorite source for deciding what the adjectival form should be. I'm finding conflicting information. List of adjectival forms of place names seems to focus on what to call the people and language, which is not necessarily the word we want (like Malagasy/Madagascan). CIA World Factbook, if I remember from the last time I looked, is a bit inconsistent, and also prefers Malagasy. I generally check a dictionary, but they don't always agree either. Merriam Webster worked great for Malagasy/Madagascan. For Uzbek, it also lists only language and people, but it doesn't have Uzbekistani, or list anything else for a general adjectival form. Turkmen seems to be an appropriate move. I haven't checked others. We (and by that I mean someone other than me :) should put together a list with sources for future reference. And whatever we end up with, there are all the older currencies to correct (like Tajikistani somoni, for one). Ingrid 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- To be frank -- I go by gut feeling in most of these... —Nightstallion (?) 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Nepal gov logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Nepal gov logo.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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:Fair use, 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 08:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Monegasque euro coins
Ok, I'm on it now. Should I just nominate the old ones for deletion when I'm done? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, please don't; we need the old ones, as well! —Nightstallion (?) 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- The old ones are still encyclopedic. But I have doubt about Image:1ec mo.png. It's a dupe of Image:1ec monaco.jpg and doesn't seem to have counterparts of other denominations. There are also images of the first series on commons. The common images have higher resolution, but with annoying blue background. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin Anniversary
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. My previous revert was for the vandalism, not to endorse any position, but now I agree. NikoSilver 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
 Issue VIII - January 2007 | |||||||
|
| ||||||
|
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 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Burundian Senate elections & Kenyan elections
Hello again!
I have a couple of quibbles about the above. The Burundian Senate elections aren't really elections. I knew the country has a Senate, but it is not elected by the people, but rather candidates are nominated by local councils in a similar way to the Dutch First Chamber. I'm not sure if it should be included on the template, as it's not really a "national" election, which was my criteria for inclusion.
As for the Kenyan elections, I see you modified all the presidential and parliamentary elections to both point at general elections. I was hoping that as there is only one article so far, it could be split into parliamentary and presidential as is the case for virtually every other article. I don't think because the election is on the same day it should be on the same page.
What are your thoughts on the above? Number 57 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- We've got elections for many indirect elections (Italian presidential election, 2006 and the presidential Elections in Turkey for instance), and should strive to have articles on all notable indirect elections in the future, as well; they should also be included in the template, then, of course.
- As regards the Kenyan elections: It's pretty much standard to have a single article on elections which take place at the same time, check a lot of South American election articles, for instance. I'd prefer to keep it the way it currently is, i.e. keep them separate if they've been separate up to now, keep them as one "general election" article if that's the way it's been done. —Nightstallion (?) 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Long time no talk...
Hey, long time no talk. Those maps you request some ehhh... few months back, I actually did them, but I happened to be really busy back then. So, I was wondering what do you think of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria? I guess most "western" Europeans would say that nothing good can come from it... lol :) (Then again you can exploit countries). Anyways, the main reason I am writing you is to ask you what you had in mind for the article Flag of RS. RS is a delicate topic for "true" Bosnians, so I keep my eye out for those articles. I would like to especially thank you for returning the constitutional court ruling, since someone deleted it. Thanks, Vseferović 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the map updates, no matter when they happened. :) I'm always primarily happy when the European Union grows, though I'm wary due to two points:
- I'm not sure whether there shouldn't have been *SUBSTANTIAL* institutional reform some time before the fifth enlargement round, or at least before the second phase of the fifth enlargement round. No matter, though, we'll simply have to agree on something now which gets rid of the unanimity principle in most matters.
- I'm not quite sure Bulgaria and Romania are really entirely ready; still, they'll be observed rather closely for another few years, anyway, and they'll likely develop faster within the European Union than outside it.
- Regarding the flags... Well, I really don't know. Do you happen to know someone in Bosnia who could find out, or maybe there is some institution we could e-mail and ask about the issue? —Nightstallion (?) 09:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:Luxembourgian elections
I just reverted your recent change to the template, and thought I'd explain why here (as well as the talk page). There were two referenda held on 28 September 1919: one on the monarchy (they voted to keep it) and one on whether Luxembourg should enter economic union with France or Belgium (they voted for France; the government ignored them and went for Belgium). Hence, as I understand the naming convention, the article name for the 1919 referenda should be 'Luxembourgian referendum, 1919'. It's silly (there should be separate articles, just as there are for legislative, presidential, European, or local elections held on the same day), but that's the way it is. Bastin 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Sorry, my mistake; thanks for correcting it! :) I think the convention is quite good, though: If there were two separate questions on the same day which are not really connected and can not be sensibly named, just called it "Luxembourgian referendum, 1919"; if there were two different referenda in the same year, but on different dates, make separate articles. Keep up the good work, BTW! :) —Nightstallion (?) 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #8
The Hurricane Herald
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. The WikiProject has its own IRC channel.
Tropical cyclone activity
- Three tropical cyclones existed in the West Pacific during December. Typhoon Durian (Reming) was the deadliest and strongest of the three, killing over 800 people, in the Philippines and Vietnam and peaking at Category 4 strength. Typhoon Utor lasted formed on December 7 and lasted for 7 days, passing over the Philippines and causing severe floods in Malaysia. The final storm of the year, Tropical Storm Trami, lasted for three days and did not affect land.
- The Southern Hemisphere saw a number of storms develop during December. The most significant was Cyclone Bondo, which hit Madagascar on December 23. Cyclone Anita dissipated early in the month, having formed in November and Cyclone Clovis developed on December 30 before reaching its peak in January. All of these storms were in the Southwest Indian Ocean, the only other cyclone was Cyclone Isobel that formed on December 31 to the north of Western Australia.
The Portal
Portal:Tropical cyclones is designed as the entry point to the WikiProject's work and is recognised as a Featured Portal. The structure emulates that of Wikipedia's Main page and needs updating in a similar manner. The following are the key sections that need editorial attention:
- Selected article: This is one of the articles of the project, rotated on a weekly basis. These are selected from the better-quality articles and discussed at Portal talk:Tropical cyclones/Selected article.
- Selected picture: This is chosen from the pictures used in the articles and is rotated monthly. It is selected in a similar manner to the article on Portal talk:Tropical cyclones/Selected picture.
- Did you know: This is rotated as new articles are created and contains an interesting fact from a few of the new articles.
- Active tropical cyclones: The currently active tropical cyclones are listed here, and are linked to appropriately.
- Tropical cyclone news: Recent events in Tropical cyclone activity, such as formation, landfalls and dissipation of storms.
- Anniversaries: This significant anniversaries for each day in the last week. Unlike the others it refreshes automatically, but should be updated if a new significant event occurs.
- Things you can do: Unlike the other sections which are reader orientated, this is aimed at editors to give suggestions of articles to work on.
Please keep all of these sections up-to-date and refresh them as new tropical cyclones develop and articles are created. Also please keep the suggestions to editors current and fresh.
New articles and improvements wanted
These tasks are those listed at Portal:Tropical cyclones/Things you can do:
- Requests: Original-content tropical cyclone articles: Papua New Guinea National Weather Service, Herbert S. Saffir, Hurricane Ginny (1963)
- Copyedit: Rapid deepening
- Wikify:
- Merge: See here
- Cleanup: Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, Cyclone Leon-Eline
- Expand: Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Hurricane Carla, Hurricane Gilbert, Typhoon Nina (1975), 1970 Bhola cyclone, Typhoon Tip
- Stubs: Intertropical Convergence Zone, Kamikaze (typhoon), Typhoon Paka, Harry Cane of 1667, Hurricane Edna, Hurricane Janet More...
- Update: Tropical Storm Beryl (2006)
Main Page content
- Entries from 9 project articles, including Tropical cyclone observation, Bill Proenza, Hurricane Tanya (1995) and Hurricane Erin (2001) appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during the past two months.
- 1970 Bhola cyclone and Cyclone Tracy appeared on the Main Page in the On this Day column on November 13 and December 24, respectively.
New articles
- November
- Storm Articles included: Typhoon Muifa (2004), Hurricane Helene (2006), Hurricane Allison (1995) and Cyclone Heta.
- Non-storm articles included: Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey, South Pacific convergence zone and 1969 Pacific hurricane season.
- December
- Storm Articles included: Hurricane Tanya (1995), Tropical Storm Dean (1995) and Tropical Storm Beryl (2000)
- Non-storm articles included: Storm (novel), Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre, List of fictional tropical cyclones and Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center.
Improved articles
- Featured articles: Hurricane Edith (1971), Hurricane Fabian, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Tropical Storm Bill (2003), 1995 Pacific hurricane season, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, Hurricane Erika (2003), Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) and Tropical Storm Edouard (2002).
- Featured lists: List of Baja California hurricanes and List of retired Pacific hurricane names.
- Two articles were promoted to A-Class: Tropical cyclone and Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware.
- There were a total of 32 new good articles including: Tropical cyclogenesis, Atlantic hurricane reanalysis, Hurricane Keith, Hurricane Fico, Tropical Storm Dean (2001) and Tropical Storm Arlene (2005).
Political situation in Romania
Hi! It's actually unlikely that early elections will occur in Romania, at least in 2007. Although the current (Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu) government does not have a majority in parliament, it is likely to have the support of the Social Democratic Party (Romania) when it comes to a motion of no-confidence, since the Social-Democrats, the largest opposition party, prefer the Liberals over a possible Democrat-Liberal Democrat (PLD) coalition (which scores highest in opinion polls). Early elections would also be painful for the Social Democrats, since they currently poll at around 20% (but have 30%+ seats in parliament). The Conservatives are also very unlikely to vote for the sacking of a predominantly-Liberal government (considering that they left the government because of the Democrats; also, they would poll less than 2% in early elections, and would thus not make it into parliament).
In this case, the only parties likely to vote against the government in parliament would be the Democrats (ironically), the Liberal-Democrat faction and perhaps the Greater Romania Party. In fact, a newspaper recently conducted a survey of political parties' opinions regarding early elections, and the only ones who said they wanted early elections were the Liberal-Democrats (i.e. the PLD). In my opinion, the major concern is loss of seats: opinion polls show that a Democrat-PLD coalition would be very popular, and hence early elections would lead to losses for most of the other parties. So, I believe the Tăriceanu government may last until the end of 2008, when elections are due. I also find it unlikely that the president (Traian Băsescu) will sack the government, despite rocky relations with Tăriceanu and even though Băsescu used to be a member of the Democratic Party and tends to support the Liberal-Democrats (PLD). 
Ronline ✉ 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Elections map
Because I'm going through the templates quite quickly at the moment (not many elections to note in Africa!) I couldn't be bothered with the map - I'd have to keep updating it all the time! Slowly moving up the continent though - just done Cameroon and the Central African Republic. Also, are gubernatorial elections really necessary on the DR Congo template - aren't they regional/local? Number 57 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. I'm not quite sure, frankly... —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Federation Council
Yes, that's it exactly. Frankly, I am not quite sure how to handle it. The Constitution has indeed not yet been updated, yet it is a fact that both Evenkia and Taymyria are no longer federal subjects (there was a constitutional law to that effect, which, however ironic it is, introduced no changes into the Constitution itself). So, if we are to reference the Constitution alone, then the number should stay at 88 for now. Or, we can write an elaborate footnote explaining why the number in the article is two less than the number in the Constitution.
As for the Evenkia and Taymyria Federation Council members, they will continue to serve until December 31, 2007, which is also when the transitional period expires.
Let me know if you want to write a footnote yourself or if you prefer me to do it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, flattery to avoid work... An approach that always worked for me :) Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see you're really good at it :) Which reminds me. Can I ask you for a return favor and review this and this when you have time? I'd be interested to hear your comments if you have them; if not, that's fine, too. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was just wondering if you had any concerns regarding the proposal; apparently you don't, which is good to know. Anyway, I've updated the Federation Council article on my part.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see you're really good at it :) Which reminds me. Can I ask you for a return favor and review this and this when you have time? I'd be interested to hear your comments if you have them; if not, that's fine, too. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkish Cypriots; nationality and continent
They told me you are interested about nationality issues. I have a big problem with user:Saguamundi. Not only he puts the Turkish Cypriots under category:Turkish people but he also put their politicians under Asian politicians, claiming that it's because they have descent from Asia !!!! I have every day to revert his lot edits about Turkish Cypriots. Since he doesn't understand, can you talk him a bit and making a report for him? KRBN 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add Edit Summaries to your contributions
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Gohiking 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Democratic Party and Freedom Party
They are only futurible proposals and it is not sure that they will be effectively launched, so, as you can understand, it is difficult to write an article about something that does not exists yet. Anyway, when I will have some time and, above all, when the formation of the two parties will become more likely (I strongly endorse the idea, 'cos a less fragmented Italian politics is a dream...), I would defenitely start articles on PD and PdL respectively. --Checco 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is little about those proposed parties on the Internet. About the Freedom Party, Silvio Berlusconi wrote a book called Towards the Freedom Party (see review) and on January 27 there will be a conference in Rome (title: The Freedom Party - The EPP's house, see poster).
- About the Democratic Party, it is to say that it will be the continuation of the Olive Tree federation, or, better, the transformation of the Olive Tree from a federation of parties to a single party. Anyway there are a lot of problems about it, because many conservative members of DL and left-wingers within the DS strongly oppose the merge of their parties together. The party is doomed to be the continuations of the Historic Compromise, critics say, and indeed it is likely that it will come to light without the partecipation of most former-Socialists, now split between SDI, DL, DS (but their leader, Valdo Spini, is an opposer of the DS-DL merge), and FI. In general DS members and former-Socialists dislike the clericalism of many DL members, 60-70% of whom are former Christian Democrats.
- Anyway, I found very balanced the articles you started on the subject, but, as of today, there is little more we can write about it. --Checco 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The info was not correct: it is true that in April DL and DS will decide at their party congresses whether to merge in the Democratic Party, but this merge will occur only in 2009, and it is possible that the idea will be rejected by party members of at least DS and that, consequently, DL and DS will form only a federation. About PdL: nothing new, anyway there are rumors of Berlusconi, Fini and Bossi (leaders of FI, AN and LN) putting together the constitution of the so-called "Federation of Freedoms", thus not a party but only a federation of parties. --Checco 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I live in Italy, and I read newspapers, watch news on TV and discuss about PdL and PD with my friends at the Faculty of Political Sciences almost every day. The thing I want you to know is that there is nothing certain about these two parties. It is from 2003 that politicians of the centre-right speak about the possibility of founding a PdL one day, and it is from 1996 that centre-left politicians speak about their PD. Yes, I can say that we are more closer to a PD and a PdL now than we were three years ago, but these are only hopeful prospects about the future. I understand your excitement for the subject, 'cos even I was so excited when Berlusconi said in 2005 "we will fight the next national election under the banner of a united party of the centre-right" (Prodi and Fassino said something similar in 2004), but politicians say that the "political times" are long, long, long (do you know George Harrison's song?). So we have to wait. The "Federation of Freedoms" is the first step in the road toward PdL, as the Olive Tree federation is the first step in the road to PD. Anyway, remember that if FI and AN will put theirs bags together and form a new party together, they'll reach at least the 40% of the votes, while UDC and LN are both around the 5% each: it would be a giant step! When those times will be mature, you'll find me here in Wikipedia writing about PdL and PD, but now, believe me, it is too early. Anyway I am very glad of discussing with you, so when you want to know something about Italian politics: I am here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checco (talk • contribs) . Here is my signature. --Checco 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but for now I think that what you wrote so far is enough. After April, things will be clearer, at least for the PD. --Checco 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dash or hyphen in page name
You reverted my move of War in Somalia (2006–present) from the mdash to the hyphen. I moved the page after a request from an anon (213.155.224.232) who complained at the Help Desk that the special character was causing problems on his system. You cited the naming conventions as a reason for your revert, but I can't find anything supporting the title with an mdash there (and nothing clearly supporting my move either). Could you explain further to me why you moved it back? --ais523 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mh, I'm not sure exactly where it is written down, but I 'm fairly certain I recall the standard to be "–" for periods of time, as in current events articles spanning more than one year and such things... Certainly something that should be clarified once and for all, though, so if you do happen to find something which is absolutely clear, be sure to let me know. :) —Nightstallion (?) 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be right: WP:MOSDASH has a few examples of en dashes in article titles. I'll go and change all the double-redirs back. --ais523 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! No harm done, then. :) —Nightstallion (?) 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be right: WP:MOSDASH has a few examples of en dashes in article titles. I'll go and change all the double-redirs back. --ais523 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As the one who complained I looked it up for myself. At WP:MOSDASH is mentioned Now that Wikipedia uses UTF-8, these can be entered directly into the article markup. It doesn't say it should be used in article names. It doesn't make much sense to create article when its names can't be entered into the search window on the left side without ALT+0150. Certainly therefor is stated at the cited page: Hyphens and dashes are generally rather avoided in page names (e.g., year of birth and death are generally not used in a page name to disambiguate two people with the same name). (...)If hyphens and dashes are needed to write a page name correctly (e.g., Piano-Rag-Music, Jack-in-the-box, Nineteen Eighty-Four), prefer simple hyphens, and avoid hair spaces, even in the odd case of a range forming part of the title, e.g., History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). There is certainly much work to do for some bots. Anyway, Greetings. --213.155.224.232 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. I can see your concerns, but for stylistic reasons it *is* a valid point to use – and — in titles as well; we've always got redirects to such articles, anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't understand ... I cited the official Manual of style, so *it's not* valid. BTW, I certainly found out the reason. When you save a HTML page, by default most browsers use the title tagged name of the page. Windows or even Windows NT however doesn't save the dashes as Unicode characters but as ASCII-150 (for the m-dash). When now loading the file into IE or Firefox the file name is considered an URL to the local HD, but within URLs only lower case characters are allowed. As a result opening it fails. I am not aware if the problem occurs in Latin-1 based languages as well, but at least in every localised Windows/NT version which primarly uses Latin-2 character sets. It's basically a kind of inconsistency between ASCII and ANSI. I experimentated a bit and it seems that the single quotes (left and right) - but not the abostroph - are causing the same problem. Therefore it's a serious problem. EN:WP isn't used by users sitting in the U.S. only. --213.155.224.232 09:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- As the one who complained I looked it up for myself. At WP:MOSDASH is mentioned Now that Wikipedia uses UTF-8, these can be entered directly into the article markup. It doesn't say it should be used in article names. It doesn't make much sense to create article when its names can't be entered into the search window on the left side without ALT+0150. Certainly therefor is stated at the cited page: Hyphens and dashes are generally rather avoided in page names (e.g., year of birth and death are generally not used in a page name to disambiguate two people with the same name). (...)If hyphens and dashes are needed to write a page name correctly (e.g., Piano-Rag-Music, Jack-in-the-box, Nineteen Eighty-Four), prefer simple hyphens, and avoid hair spaces, even in the odd case of a range forming part of the title, e.g., History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). There is certainly much work to do for some bots. Anyway, Greetings. --213.155.224.232 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Euro related topic template
Ready for review at User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry. There's no bothering or annoying. I'm glad that you like it. The new template will effectively deprecate {{EU coins menu}} and {{PreEuroCurrencies}}. Will need your help on TfD when the time comes. The question is, should we continue linking the new giant template with Template:PreEuroCurrencies on non-English wiki? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that. Mh, good question... Probably yes, but I'm not quite sure about that. Please just tell me when it's up for TfD. —Nightstallion (?) 13:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry. There's no bothering or annoying. I'm glad that you like it. The new template will effectively deprecate {{EU coins menu}} and {{PreEuroCurrencies}}. Will need your help on TfD when the time comes. The question is, should we continue linking the new giant template with Template:PreEuroCurrencies on non-English wiki? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
San Francisco Mayoral Election, 2007
This article doesn't require what case it is in but should stay the way it was created out of respect of the creator of the article. If you change it, I'll change it back. --Gndawydiak 22:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the way it's done on Wikipedia; there *ARE* rules to follow, and some of them are the naming conventions. Reverted you again and made sure it stays that way. —Nightstallion (?) 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good evening (GMT time); just to let you know your boxes are very messed up. Just my two pence! Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know, thanks! :) —Nightstallion (?) 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige
So I did some research and checked with some pretty credible sources as to what they print, in ENGLISH, for the name of this region (and province) in Italy.
- Fodor's - a well recognized and respected name (and expert guide) has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Michelin - also expert in travel guides - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bozen".
- Rand McNally (name speaks for itself) has world, regional, and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Streetwise Map's regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Dorling Kindersley or "DK" - by far, probably the best travel guides available - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Lonely Planet (the self-proclaimed largest independently-owned travel guide) regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
- Hammond Map - a subsidiary of Langenscheidt Publishing Group (a privately-held German publishing company) - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
As far as proof, I am quite sure that the above sources are credible enough, especially in the sense of geographical knowledge, expertise, and English-translation. Rarelibra 03:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hrisi Avgi
This message is being sent to some of the active users listed on Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board/Participants because there are concerns that Hrisi Avgi may not conform to WP:NPOV (specifically, that it's being written from a pro-Neo-Nazi perspective). If you have any knowledge in this area I would be grateful if you could review the article and de-PoV it if necessary. Thanks! -- Steel 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007
 WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
The question of capitalising of the letter "t" in The of The Beatles has been raised again. It appears that UK style references (here and here) also maintains that the letter should be in lower case. If the Project is to be appear professional then it may have to change the format. Polite discussion is invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. If possible, please provide sources/references to support your position.
It has been a fairly quiet time with regard to the Project (or at least that is how it seems). If you are reading this and wondering why your efforts in respect of a Beatles article has not been mentioned, it may be that you haven't told any editor. This is your Newsletter, which means you can contribute to it, so please do! If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 010 – January/February 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Kazakh?
Please see my comment at Talk:Kazakh tenge regarding your recent move of the page. Staecker 01:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess?
I am sick and tired of you doing this to me. I take this as a very disrescpectful to me and other users. I am going to report you for misuse of your powers because you aren't letting me edit my own article. When I get this done, I don't want you to edit any of my articles again and stay out of the San Francisco Mayoral Election 2007 article. I want only locals to edit it not foreign users that don't know whats going on and doesn't know how to use American English. This is a warning and listen to it. --Gndawydiak 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Treaty
I have created a treaty that you may want to look at it. You can also contribute to it also but follow the instructions correctly. I am going to involve a third-party so they can make sure everything goes good. I want to get this behind us in a democratic way so I am ready to get this though. User:Gndawydiak/Treaty for Gndawydiak and Nightstallion --Gndawydiak 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you make this far too formal, there's no real harm done. I don't see a problem with unprotecting the page right now as I'm quite sure you've seen by now that all election articles follow the title format I moved the article too, and I want to apologise for not explaining this clearly enough before taking protective measures. —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied
I replied to you at Template talk:Serbian elections. --PaxEquilibrium 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name? Eliko 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry, no idea. —Nightstallion (?) 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
DRC elections
Hey Nightstallion. Do you think you can also start a page for the provincial elections? Because they are the ones that allow for the subsequent Senate, and Governors. That would be really nice. Thanks!! Themalau 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to, but I have not been able to find any information on it... Could you help? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/San Francisco Mayoral Election, 2007.
|
List of sovereign states
You might want to look in on List of sovereign states. The debate on what should/should not be listed is reoccurring. This time it is Transnistria instead of Abkhazia and South Ossetia-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, commented. Thanks for the FYI. —Nightstallion (?) 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Elections
Considering you're interested in elections in Serbia, see this: Serbian parliamentary election, 2007 - according to BBC, it's the news of the year and all of the world's eyes are pointed towards Serbia. This election has gathered a bizarre amount of global interests. The preliminary results will be published in minutes' time (the turnout and the the diaspora results are already known). --PaxEquilibrium 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Mauritanian elections
Yes, I would like to remove the Senate elections if they are indeed indirect. Can the same be done to the Senate elections section of the DR Congo elections? Number 57 09:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps Senate elections should have their own template - I guess it could end up looking like those for countries who only have one level of elections (e.g. Swazi elections. Maybe they could also be included in the local elections template, as in several cases the Senates are elected by local assemblies. Number 57 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would put presidents elected by parliament with Senate elections, as they are indirect rather than direct popular votes. Number 57 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Shutdown
This is my last edit from this account save polls. Please assist in the shutdown process. —Bill the Greek 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sanmarinese parties
Sorry, but I don't know very much about San Marino: after all it has a smaller population than my nieghbourhood has. It will be fantastic if "Santo Osvaldo - Santa Croce / Padova South-East" would have its independent parties, but anyway... About the classification of Sanmarinese parties you can look at Parties and Elections in Europe. The only thing I can add to that information is that Sanmarinese for Freedom is a split from the late Socialist Party, before it merged in the Party of Socialists and Democrats. Sanmarinese Popolari are probably a christian-democratic party, while the New Socialist Party is definitely a social-democratic one, formed by those Socialists who didn't accept the merge with the former-Communists in the Party of Socialists and Democrats. --Checco 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
 Issue XI - January 2007 | |
| |
|
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 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
United Nations Mission in Nepal
Just wanted to make sure you new about the new UN peacekeeping mission, United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) so you could add it to all the peacekeeping lists. I can never keep track of them. :P – Zntrip 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I created the article, so I ought to know about it. ;) Still, it's only a political mission and not a peacekeeping one, actually, so it doesn't need to be added. I should clarify that in the article. —Nightstallion (?) 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, but I assumed it was like the United Nations Mission in Kosovo or something like that. – Zntrip 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, it ain't. :) Hope it will finally help bring Nepal back to democracy, though... —Nightstallion (?) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Plebiscite
I hope we can reach an agreement on this. You are trying to uphold a standard for article names on plebiscites. But thet standard can't dictate the subject of the plebiscite held in Norway in 1905. It was not a plebiscite on independence. As far as Norway was conserned it was already independent. It had a shared king and foreign service with Sweden, but it was not in any way ruled by Sweden. The plebiscite was on whether the union should be dissolved. In fact the voters were asked to vote yes or no on whether they agreed to the already occurred dissolution of the union as decided by Stortinget. So if you could see a way for the standard to be adapted I would be grateful. The use of the word independence is wrong and highly undesirable. Inge 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly! :) How about Norwegian union dissolution referendum, 1905? —Nightstallion (?) 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems good to me. Thanks! Inge 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perfect! Feel free to move it yourself, I'm in the middle of something else currently. :) —Nightstallion (?) 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems good to me. Thanks! Inge 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for this? I can't find any mention of this in the TT press. Guettarda 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- My source is the link in the article, which in turn cites "Élecciones", which I assume is a bulletin on election dates. What do your sources state? Just correct the article to some other month if you've got better sources, I'm fine with that. —Nightstallion (?) 16:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know you cited a source, but is it a reliable source? I can't find any reference to an election date having been set at all, so I am very curious. Guettarda 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, just heard back from someone in TT, they said no election date has been set. Guettarda 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- See article talk page, please. Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Clusterf***
I saw that you had deleted the entry for "clusterf***." I didn't see a corresponding entry on any AFD page, and I just wanted to know why it was deleted.
I note an archived AFD discussion from February 24, 2006 that resulted in a decision to "REDIRECT to Military slang," though I note that the current page differs greatly from how the entry looked at the time of the word's addition. The term is now located in the US Army slang article under "Other terms," and its abbreviation is located under "Slang acronyms."
In last year's debate, there were also suggestions to transwiki the article to its corresponding entry at Wiktionary. We might instead use # REDIRECT [[wikt:clusterf***]].
For the moment, I have set up a redirect to US Army slang. I checked out the Google cache of the page, I don't see how it is much different from many of the other entries in Category:Profanity. I can't help but wonder if it should be posted for undeletion.
I don't have much feeling as to what should happen (undeletion, redirect to military slang, or trans-wiki to wikiquote), but I don't think that the page warrants complete deletion. And whatever happens, both "clusterf***" and "cluster f***" should be the same.
--Runnerupnj 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mh, aye, you're quite right on that. I simply deleted it on instinct, as it was horribly POV regarding the Democrats and I didn't see much salvageable information. AfDing would have been preferable in retrospect, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 11:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Watchlist problems
Did you ever fix your watchlist problems? There are two discussions at the Village pump, one connected from the other one. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_issues. Carcharoth 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen them, but neither of them is really an option for me; I'd prefer it if I could somehow simply keep using my watchlist even though its size may be large and even though I need its content from 2007-01-02 onwards, but I don't think that's likely to happen... Thanks, though! —Nightstallion (?) 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Entity flags of BiH
Finally, BiH is one more step towards "internal" unification! Here is a link. I presume you will not understand anything, but it occurred late in the day (29.01.07). You can look at the pictures and VIDEO. I think you can make it out. English sources will most likely be up on-line by tomorrow. Thanks for your support.
Link:FTV
P.S. to see the video press the link for "video" (in red) under the title.
Thanks, Vseferović 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
BiH
Well, this means that the entity flags and coats of arms (FBiH and RS) will no longer have nationalistic symbols on them. Also the anthem of Republika Srpska (Which is actually the anthem of Serbia, shocking?, I know) is unconstitutional. The attempt is to prevent the outcast of specific groups. Here is the link: [1] (THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS ABOUT THE FLAG/CoA/ATH) Thanks, Vseferović 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Joint year/month elections
Hello again! I see you have been following me, correcting my (many) little mistakes. Thanks! However, I would like to discuss joint year/month elections (i.e. Uzbek parliamentary election, 2004–2005 and a few in the Template:Serbian elections). My problem is that I think it makes the template quite ugly and crowded to put in the whole 2004-2005 stuff. Can we not just put in the year of the first round of voting (as technically the second round might not be necessary), or abbreviate it to 2004/5 or 2004-5 (I also find the long dash too space-filling!), or in the case of the joint month ones, just the first month (the Serbian one is quite disorientating). What do you think? Number 57 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. Frankly, I'm quite adamant about this tiny issue, because I think the article title and links to it should be as correct as possible. We could do 2004–05 instead of 2004–2005, if you think that might help? —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the middle dash is necessary because for timespans, precisely this kind of dash should be used. Hope that's okay! —Nightstallion (?) 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, 2004-05 sound better, but what about the month ones? Number 57 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it should stay that way; shortening it down to the first three letters is much shorter already. —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, 2004-05 sound better, but what about the month ones? Number 57 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
incorrect additions
I have posted a similar post on User_talk:Kseferovic and will post here as well as you have made the same mistake Nightstallion, but on a related article --
Regarding your edit to Coat of arms of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, please double check what you are re-adding. The press release does not state anything about "nationalistic symbols" or "6 months starting from Jan 27", please point out where you getting this as the source provided (press release) does not state this. For your convenience, I've posted the relevant paragraph below. Thank you.
- Finally, the Constitutional Court adopted decision establishing that the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and National Assembly of Republika Srpska failed to enforce the First Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. U 4/04 of 31 March 2006 establishing Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 21/96 and 26/96) and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 19/92) as unconstitutional. Considering that that established inconformity was not corrected within a time limit of six months from the date of publishing this decision in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established Articles 1 and 2 of the Law the Law on Coat of Arms and the Flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Law on Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem of the Republika Srpska shall cease to be in force as of the date this Ruling is published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final text of the decision shall be verified at one of the following sessions of the Constitutional Court.
// Laughing Man 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- So the symbols and anthem were just declared illegal and that's that? —Nightstallion (?) 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't make that assumption either. I've been researching this but I can't find any sources in recent news that discuss this, so I find it strange because I think it is very notable if Kseferovic's (and your?) theory on what it means (from diff) is correct. At this point, the only that this ruling seems to state is that the previously established constitutional articles supporting these as official are now considered unconstitutional. Please let me know if you come across any other English language sources that are reporting on this as I am having difficulty finding anything beyond the English translation of the press release which I pointed out to Kseferovic, and seems that he has shared it with you also. // Laughing Man 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. The reason I called this template Vanuatu elections is that Vanuatuan is not the demonym for the country (even though it sounds logical). It is in fact Ni-Vanuatu, which sounds and looks awful, hence me just using the country name for the template. Perhaps it should be changed back? Number 57 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, for the very simple reason that it's the common English demonym for the region; just google for "Vanuatuan". Also, we use "Botswanan" despite the fact that the correct demonym is "Tswana"... —Nightstallion (?) 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, don't have a problem with that - let's hope it displaces the official one soon! Number 57 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your word in the world's ear... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, don't have a problem with that - let's hope it displaces the official one soon! Number 57 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
RS Flag
- Note: Please read all of this
Greetings. The Constitutional Court of BiH (CC) has declared the flag as unconstitutional. We have already declared this. I have come upon another admin (User:Nlu) who has blocked the articles. Now this does not make sense. LOL. At the same time he blocked the article I asked for semi-protection, which is kind of coincidental. Anyways, I am writing to you to at least change it to a "semi-block" since we did not have any "revert war" problems with registered users. He is biased "as hell" (a common American slur)! I have told him, that both Bosnians and Serbians have come to the conclusions that the flag, coat of arms, and anthem are unconstitutional. Then I made a good point about the fact that there are no more appeal processes left (this was the third (and final) ruling). For some illogical reason User:Nlu (who said to contact another admin, no offense to him, he insisted) has stated that Wikipedia has to follow THE GENERAL LIKING OF USERS!!! This type of comment is what ruined my chances of adminship! Wikipedia IS BASED ON FACTS, not general liking. Even if some Serbs are against the ruling, as we can see with the anonymous users who vandalize, they do not have the power to change the ruling itself. I mean we have to be rational. Serbians have stated that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR CREATION OF A NEW LANGUAGE (i.e. MONTENEGRIN). Ok fine, then WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO FOLLOW general liking as he stated. Even though a lot of Serbs are against the CC's decision, they have to accept what is fact and the truth. I have written a lot of points on the talk page, which he says are NOT enough. The users who had different viewpoints at the beginning had changed and acknowledge my research and explanation. BY THE END WE HAD A CONCENSUS! No one was against it except for an anonymous user who did not discuss his problems. According to User:Nlu his revert without an explanation was convincing... Anyways, I am asking for your help. Please do not simply disregard this or give me a link to a "mediation" wiki site. I cannot deal with this with an admin that i do not know.
I really respect you and your edits, this is why I have come to you. None of this is intended against you or anyone else. Thanks a lot and greetings from Chicago, Vseferović 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you tell me *which* page it is? Flag of Republika Srpska seems okay, for instance... —Nightstallion (?) 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought that I had stated the main issue. Sorry, here Republika Srpska. Thanks a lot
- P.S. (I understand that this is a delicate and rather difficult topic you are getting yourself in, this is why I greatly appreciate your actions). Thank you, Vseferović 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the proposed compromise? I think it's logical -- we do have flags for countries which do not have any official flags. —Nightstallion (?) 10:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. (I understand that this is a delicate and rather difficult topic you are getting yourself in, this is why I greatly appreciate your actions). Thank you, Vseferović 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this election deserve its own article? The president of Nauru is effectively just a Prime Minister (he is an MP) and is voted for by MPs in the way a parliament generally confirms a prime minister/government. Number 57 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be some trouble here with Fys. Any suggestions on how to deal with him/her? Record suggests he/she doesn't play well with others! Number 57 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I work based on logic and fact. Try an argument based on logic and fact (eg "it's logical to refer to Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as different entities, because it is a fact that their political systems were entirely different"). I would also take you more seriously if you'd actually added a single Rhodesian or Zimbabwean election result to Wikipedia. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- See template talk page. —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Moves
Why did you move Winter storms of 2006-07 and Central Florida Tornado of February 2007? In the latter case, I've reverted you. There is a discussion at the talk page about the title, and the old title was the standard format for naming tornado outbreaks. – Chacor 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the standard naming, then I think it's wrong: "tornado" definitely shouldn't be capitalised... The first I changed to conform to the current events naming conventions: "year(s) event", not "event of year(s)". —Nightstallion (?) 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the capitalisation of "tornado" aside, that would've been standard naming (although as you can see I've proposed a shorter alternative). Understood on the first one, although might've been better asking the WP:METEO people... – Chacor 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, if that's the case, I'm fine with Central Florida tornado of February 2007. Regarding the winter storms, I tend to be bold. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the capitalisation of "tornado" aside, that would've been standard naming (although as you can see I've proposed a shorter alternative). Understood on the first one, although might've been better asking the WP:METEO people... – Chacor 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediation of single party state
Greetings. After speaking to a party of this case, I think it has pretty much faded into the background. For that reason, I will be closing the mediation soon unless you have any opposition to this. If so, please drop me a talk page note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #9
Number 9, February 4, 2007
The Hurricane Herald
Storm of the month
Other tropical cyclone activity
The only activity during January was in the Southern Hemisphere, with a total of 5 cyclones existing throughout the month.
- Dora, the second cyclone the Southwest Indian Ocean formed late in January well to the east of Réunion; and reached tropical cyclone strength at the start of February.
- The two storms in the South Pacific, Zita and Arthur followed very similar tracks to the east of the Dateline. The JTWC estimated that Zita reached its peak on January 23 and Arthur briefly had hurricane force winds two days later.
- Cyclone Isobel formed between Indonesia and Australia late in December and headed south, making landfall in Western Australia on January 3 as a minimal Tropical Cyclone.
New articles and improvements wanted
- Articles are wanted for each of the tropical cyclone breakpoints (see this list).
- An article is wanted for Tropical Storm Debbie (1965).
- The Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons articles need splitting into the 3 component basins.
- This sandbox for Typhoon Durian badly needs completion, please help.
- Large chunks of the project's imagery needs proper categorization.
- The number of stubs has markedly increased in the past few months, please improve them.
Member of the month
The January member of the month is Chacor, formerly known as NSLE. Chacor joined the project in November 2005, and has contributed to a wide variety of articles across the project. Recently he has generally focussed on the West Pacific and did most of the work on the first Good article in that basin: Typhoon Ewiniar (2006). He has also started the much needed process of splitting the Southern Hemisphere seasonal articles. Finally, Chacor is probably the user who maintains the quality of the most visible part of the project, the current activity.
Main Page content
- Hurricane Juan appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on January 29.
- Entries from 3 articles: 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, Hurricane Ignacio (2003) and Hurricane Bob (1979) appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during June.
New and improved articles
- The WikiProject has its first Featured topic on Retired Pacific hurricanes.
- New Featured articles: Hurricane Ismael, Hurricane Juan and the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware and Maryland and Washington D.C..
- New Wikipedia:Good articles: 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, Hurricane Iwa, Hurricane Alice, Hurricane Kenna and 1936 Atlantic hurricane season.
- New articles include: Hurricane Ignacio (2003), Hurricane Cindy (1963), Hurricane Isaac (2006) and Chris Landsea.
Storm article statistics
| Grade | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA
|
16 | 19 | 23 | 25 |
 A
|
7 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
 GA
|
48 | 57 | 74 | 75 |
| B | 83 | 78 | 71 | 76 |
| Start | 210 | 200 | 193 | 195 |
| Stub | 11 | 15 | 16 | 16 |
| Total | 375 | 375 | 379 | 389 |
| percentage Less than B |
58.9 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 54.2 |
A quick note: When you create a new article please list it in the appropriate section on the project's page and add a fact from the article to the Portal. Thanks.
Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007
|
Issue IX - February 2007 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||||||||
Delivered by grafikbot 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Greek wikisoure
User Nightstallion, welcome to Βικιθήκη, the Greek Wikipedia. Even if you do not read Modern Greek, we hope that this site is still useful for you.
In order to make navigating Βικιθήκη easier, it would be a good idea to change the language of the graphical interface:
- click on "οι προτιμήσεις μου" on the top of the user page;
- select your language from the "Γλώσσα" pulldown menu.
This site is currently the only Wikisource domain that contains texts in Ancient Greek. Fell free to contribute by uploading your own Greek texts from any period. Your comments in any of the major languages are also welcome.
Here are some other helpful links (in English):
We are looking forward to your useful contributions. Contiune the good work! Andreas (T) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
I look from the wings at the play you are staging While my guitar gently weeps As I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging Still my guitar gently weeps On the reverse of the page appears the lyrics to Hey Jude in the hand of Mal Evans.
|
Hottest issue or concern for this month is the perennial matter of Project articles losing their Good or Featured Article status. The main Project page now includes a status board that gives the current ratings of some of the more important articles. Let's make sure the core articles (The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr) reach or retain Good Article status, if not Featured Article. If you are aware of another major article whose status is at risk, add it to the board.
Since there has been no response in the matter of the use of lowercase for the initial letter of the when applied with Beatles from the opponents, it is likely that the case for using lowercase only will be adopted as Project policy by default. User:LessHeard vanU will draw up a recommendation and submit it to the Policy talkpage in a few days.
We are pleased to welcome the contributions of Alexcalamaro to this newsletter. Any editor can include an item of interest or news; this medium can be an excellent tool for getting a comment seen by a great number of project members. As it says below, this is your newsletter. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 011 – March 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
FRY
Could please see the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under the "politics" section? It's rather ugly; you could help (based on your previous experience). Thanks! --PaxEquilibrium 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty please? :) I broke the election table and can't seem to be able to fix it. --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like this? —Nightstallion (?) 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how to insert info; every time I make the table it shows as broken; could you insert it (I already placed the parties' names & seats). --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine now, doesn't it? —Nightstallion (?) 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how to insert info; every time I make the table it shows as broken; could you insert it (I already placed the parties' names & seats). --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Location Maps
Sorry to bother you, Nightstallion. I noticed you voted for option I.a. unfortunately shortly after someone had been tampering with the vote options. Your vote might well be what you intended, then all is well. But perhaps you were following what was the I.a. title without seeing there is another choice that also prefers "New style maps, EU highlighted, only for members". These are both proper relevant survey options
- I.a. for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available
but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated; - II.a. for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Turkey, and Cyprus), but maintaining older maps for other continents [*]
but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;
- [*] As noted in the presentation overview, votes for II.a., II.b., II.c. do not permanently forbid later usage of David Liuzzo style maps for other continents, but do forbid to automatically apply these as soon as some maps become available: their possible usage should depend on discussion(s) at the appropriate time(s).
"a." is relevant for the EU (both options in identical way); the difference between I.a and II.a is thus whether (future) similar style maps but for other continents I. may simply be put in articles as soon as these would become available for e.g. the Middle East or Africa, or II. these should first be discussed when these would become presented. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 11 Feb2007 14:51 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as I put it; I.a is in favour of new-style maps for all countries as soon as available, but with EU-highlighting only for EU member states, right? —Nightstallion (?) 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
New PSI
In the party's constitution, the party is called Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano (New Italian Socialist Party, reduced in New PSI or NPSI). So, why did you rollbacked my edit? Remember that Italian parties often put in their symobol a not official name. Examples? Lega Nord (officially named Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania), Communist Refoundation Party (this is the correct name of the party, but in the symbol you can read Rifondazione - Partito Communista - Sinistra Europea, Refoundation - Communist Party - European Left), the Italian Radicals (in the symbol only Radicali), Party of Italian Communists (in the symbol Per la Sinistra - Comunisti Italiani, For the Left - Italian Communists), the Federation of Greens (in the symbol Verdi per la Pace, Greens for Peace). Are you convinced? --Checco 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry then. —Nightstallion (?) 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Plattform Grünalternativer Jugendorganisationen
Hi!
Thanks for fixing this typo, but it is an old user page which I already transfered to the Federation of Young European Greens article. So I had to transfere your edit there top. - C mon 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Didn't realise that. —Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
NPVIC map
Nice job updating the map. You've done good work updating the article, too. Thanks. --Zz414 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gladly. I'm highly interested in when the
United States will change the rather outdated electoral college system. (No offence if you happen to be in favour of it, just my POV.) —Nightstallion (?) 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Neth. Antilles: date changed
Hey,
The date for end of the Netherlands Antilles (and the joining of Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Saba to the EU) has changed, mainly due to Curacao rejecting the agreement. A new agreement was signed this monday that pushed the date of the end of the Neth. Antilles to 2008-12-15 and gives over 1 Billion guilders to the islands. See [4]. This is the reason for changes to some EU articles I have made during the last day. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Euro topics}}
Forgive me, but this template is awful. It is far too big, and with far too many topics to be a proper navigational aid. The only relevant section of it to the title is the first, the general topics related to the Euro and Eurozone. There should be seperate navigational templates for the coins (which there was before people took it upon themselves to alter), and for the various other currencies. I for one object to the article about the pound sterling (not the "British Pound" as it is incorrectly labelled) being classed as a "Euro related topic". Hammersfan 15/02/07, 18.10 GMT
Saint Martin
Thanks! I was following the precedent of "Ireland" vs "Republic of Ireland;" "Cyprus" vs "Republic of Cyprus;" "China" vs "Republic of China" in naming the articles, though. The Tom 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, in this case it's not about a naming dispute, really. —Nightstallion (?) 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey
Thanks, I was really stupid. :)))
Could you take a look at National_Assembly_of_Serbia#Parliamentary_lists_and_parties. Do you have perhaps an idea for better sorting? --PaxEquilibrium 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as it is. Great work, BTW! —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Title issue
Hi. I moved Democratic League–Movement for the Labour Party to Democratic League/Movement for the Labour Party because the slash is used by the party itself on its website, and I explained this reasoning on the talk page and in my edit summary. You moved it back with the edit summary "fix". Could you explain why you think it should use the dash? I definitely think we should use the style that the party itself uses for its own name. Everyking 10:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Help
I'll leave at the talk page: I couldn't figure out how the table works....
By the way, what about one-seat parties and national minorities?
You could add Euronat to the article. --PaxEquilibrium 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- One-seat parties are treated like independents, *unless* the party is a member in one of the European parties. —Nightstallion (?) 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- All done. --PaxEquilibrium 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- All done. --PaxEquilibrium 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see you moved the Parapolitica redirect to Parapolitics, where it reasonably belongs. If it's all the same, I've put a disamb page there, as Parapolitica is becoming like a proper noun in reference to the 2006–2007 Colombian para-political scandal. A user who is searching for that scandal based on a news report will need a better redirect. I thought about putting a {{otheruses}} tag on Parapolitics, but thought that ended up being more confusing. Any ideas? Hwonder talk contribs 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's fine the way you solved it. —Nightstallion (?) 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please review Web 3.0 namespace protection
Are you able to review the protection of the Web 3.0 namespace? There has been further discussion on the topic and several requests for the article by external people looking for it on Wikipedia and dissapointed to find it blocked. There are now several verifiable sources providing substantive information on Web 3.0 and how it can be regarded as different from the Semantic web. There are also now published definitions and descriptions. I have also put this request to User:Coredesat. Peter Campbell 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon the article yesterday and was surprised to see it blocked and salted. Seems pretty extreme and a overly rigorous intrepreatation of WPs. I spent a bit of time with Google and came up with the references listed here:[5]. The term is relatively widely used and well understood.Numskll 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I protest your "protection" of this article. I have not committed any 3RR violations on that article, nor have I vandalized. You have overstepped your proper role here. More so, the fact that you are editing the article yourself, but have now used admin power to gain the upper hand in a content disagreement, is a violation of the proper admin protocols. I urge you to do the following:
- 1) Un-protect that page
- 2) Or, if you leave it protected, put a "protected" notice on the page
and
- 3) In either case, put a statement on the talk page there explaining your actions
Personally, I feel that you should also report yourself to WP:ANI because your actions here are definately out of bounds.
Each and every edit I have made there has been clearly backed up by a polite and true edit summary. You need to accept that not all editors always agree and you should not be using your extra admin power to bully.
Also, if you insist on "advocacy" editing (which is how I am seeing your actions) then at minimum, you need to be accurate.
Now that the (misleading) map has been labled "Status in 2007", then the text for the Yellow States should no longer say "introduced (24)" but rather it should say "introduced or re-introduced (24)".
This is more accurate because it makes clear that the reader should continue on to the table for the full details.
Alternatively, you could also add a 2nd map, which shows what happened in 2006.
Or, as another alternative, we could add another color for "Previously defeated & re-introduced". For this, we could use purple.
And, in the event a re-introduced (after defeat) state passes this Compact, then we should have another color. For that, we could use green?
The point is, regardless of how much merit you feel the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has as a potential new way to vote, we as editors are to take a rigorously neutral position.
It is my view that your actions at this article does not meet that standard.
I urge you to reconsider and relent.
As it stands now, that map misleads the readers in that it is not a clear view of what's actually transpired on this issue nationally to date.
By omitting the distinctions relating to where defeat has occured so far (this year or last), the map leave out data that helps inform as to what's actually happened on this issue so far.
Please contemplate what I am saying here. I'd prefer to avoid having to escalate this into a formal complaint against you.
64.74.153.189 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow
Hi, I need you once again on Talk:Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow#Page move (read that before everything else: Gurbanguly_Berdimuhammedow#_note-0). Everybody agrees it's the correct spelling of the guy, but it doesn't seem to be enough. He must be renamed because it seems his "w" is to difficult to be pronounced by some users. Can you intervene? Every argumented argument is wellcomed. Švitrigaila 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstani
Are you sure this is the correct demonym for the country? I know that Kyrgyz is used for the ethnic group, but I am pretty sure it is used for the country too, as is Afghan, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen, the only exception being Pakistan (though a certain US president was not aware of this!). Although the wiki and the CIA factbook claims otherwise, the BBC use Kyrgyz: [7], and given that they have a whole department dedicated to translation, pronounciation and spelling, I would be inclined to agree with them. Number 57 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know and have researched, the correct way to do it is to use "-stani" for all those countries, as there is quite a difference between and (ethnic) XXXmen and a (citizenship) XXXmenistani. —Nightstallion (?) 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a question. Do you know for sure that in Southern Sudan, 1 new pound = 1000 old pounds, or it is just a product of 10 x 100? What could happen is that when Southern Sudan continued using the dinar, dinar inflated slower (just for example), and the 1 dinar = 10 old pound link began to break. Perhaps 1 dinar = 5 old pounds after all this time?
By the way, do you mind changing a color on your talk page? After reading it for a minute, and lookin at something else gave me some strange feeling. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, it was just a logical conclusion, but yes, I might be wrong... Something to check, I'm sure there must be something in the South Sudan Tribune on this. Incidentally -- any news on the ISO 4217 code? —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question regarding SDG: the source was from ISO 4217 Amendment 136 issued 2007-02-23. Wael Ellithy 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am subscribed to the ISO 4217 email Amendment-Notifications. This, like other ISO publications, are not free. Wael Ellithy 14:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if/when any ISO 4217 Amendments will be published. However, usually after few weeks some official page will be updated, mainly http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/popstds/currencycodeslist.html As of this writing (2007-02-25), the above link claims that it was last modifed on 2006-11-21. Wael Ellithy 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970:
You recently protected[8] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1934:
You recently protected[9] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 06:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Montenegro
What was that??? --PaxEquilibrium 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- What was what? I tried to bring the template more in line with the others, and then you proceeded to complete all the results. (Thanks, BTW.) —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Logo vote
Hello! I was wondering when is the new logo for the Wiktionary going to be implemented. Moreover, are the logo votes considered official? Are the new logos recognized by Wikimedia? meta:User:SCriBu
- Good question; yes; yes. —Nightstallion (?) 16:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
SPM
you wrote this template will, of course, be interpreted as showing the official flag, and you don't really want to question that we want to represent the OFFICIAL flag?
- Who says it will of course be interpreted as showing the official flag? It will be interpreted as showing the flag. That is, the flag used as a vexillological representation of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. And that flag is the unofficial one. And yes, I do question that we want to represent the "official flag" (whatever that really even means--do you have a proper definition of "official flag"? SPM doesn't have an official flag--France does, and SPM is part of France, but the French flag is not "the official flag of SPM" exactly, now is it?). We want to represent the flag. Again, the flag is the one used. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- The only flag used on official occasions (state visits, parliamentary business, ...) in SPM is the flag of France. That's all we need to consider, in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me, do you consider reading Wikipedia to be an official occasion? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- In the sense of the question: Yes. —Nightstallion (?) 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me, do you consider reading Wikipedia to be an official occasion? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Serbian presidential election, 2007
This article was deleted as unsourced in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The given source stated that it was not known when the next Serbian presidential elections would be held. Feel free to repost if you can find a reliable source confirming such an election in 2007. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, it seems that is correct. Tadić's mandate does indeed run for quite some more time. —Nightstallion (?) 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Moves
I'm sorry that you're against the moves I proposed, but I won't try to convince you to change opinion. I give it up about it: en.Wiki is very good, it can go on even with these to dramatically (and ideologically inspired) wrong titles of article. --Checco 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Moves again
Would you mind telling me when you move one of the templates/Israeli politics pages I have created, as for some reason my watchlist doesn't tell me about moves (I only noticed because the number of pages on my watchlist went up) and I like to keep my links up to date! Thanks :) Number 57 17:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS, can you make the bottom half of your talkpage pink like the top half - black on red hurts my eyes :)
Suggestion
I want to add the names of Presidents and Vice-presidents of each of the parliamentary clubs over at National Assembly of Serbia, but I have no idea how to pull that off. Since you have much experience in tables, perhaps you could lend a hand? --PaxEquilibrium 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like this, possibly? Now you can easily add the leaders either in the cells of the clubs or in extra cells. —Nightstallion (?) 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks wonderful, however there's a problem: It's an election table; we cannot use it. I tried to remove the link at the top and messed up the whole template. I was thinking more of something like a standard Wikitable (like present on the Serbs of Croatia article). --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like this now? —Nightstallion (?) 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks wonderful, however there's a problem: It's an election table; we cannot use it. I tried to remove the link at the top and messed up the whole template. I was thinking more of something like a standard Wikitable (like present on the Serbs of Croatia article). --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now, that's absolutely brilliant! --PaxEquilibrium 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about putting a section with all 250 names of the MPs... should I (only a tenth of them have their own articles)? --PaxEquilibrium 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. Don't make it a section, make it a separate article; but apart from that, sure, why not! —Nightstallion (?) 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite my style... I always prefer large articles, by very tidied and easily readable (to utter perfection). Plus, who makes an article just for a list/template, non-used (if regarded as a template) elsewhere? --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. I'd still advocate having that as a separate article; almost all the articles we've got on parliamentary houses have separate articles for the lists of members, compare List of Canadian senators, MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 and 48th New Zealand Parliament. You could, of course, split the article into one about the National Assembly in general and one for its current session (whichever one it is); then you could include all the information about the current Assembly, including its members, in a single article. Actually, I think that this would be the best way to do it in this case... —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm gonna have to admit that that will have to wait. I don't think I can do that and won't have time for it. I guess the previous session will have to stay at Talk:National Assembly of Serbia for now (check it out, btw). P. S. One more thing (sorry to bother ya), should I place the party logos next to Presidents & Vice-Presidents of Parliamentary groups [e.g. Tomislav Nikolic (SRS)]. In almost all cases they belong to the dominating party (coalitions like DSS-NS, Minorities and Vojvodina's come from different). --PaxEquilibrium 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, fair enough. I inserted the column for you where I would put it. Keep up the good work! :) —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll switch it to the right (political parties have got logos, and not parliamentary groups). --PaxEquilibrium 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just switched 'em for you. —Nightstallion (?) 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll switch it to the right (political parties have got logos, and not parliamentary groups). --PaxEquilibrium 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, fair enough. I inserted the column for you where I would put it. Keep up the good work! :) —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, I'm gonna have to admit that that will have to wait. I don't think I can do that and won't have time for it. I guess the previous session will have to stay at Talk:National Assembly of Serbia for now (check it out, btw). P. S. One more thing (sorry to bother ya), should I place the party logos next to Presidents & Vice-Presidents of Parliamentary groups [e.g. Tomislav Nikolic (SRS)]. In almost all cases they belong to the dominating party (coalitions like DSS-NS, Minorities and Vojvodina's come from different). --PaxEquilibrium 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. I'd still advocate having that as a separate article; almost all the articles we've got on parliamentary houses have separate articles for the lists of members, compare List of Canadian senators, MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 and 48th New Zealand Parliament. You could, of course, split the article into one about the National Assembly in general and one for its current session (whichever one it is); then you could include all the information about the current Assembly, including its members, in a single article. Actually, I think that this would be the best way to do it in this case... —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite my style... I always prefer large articles, by very tidied and easily readable (to utter perfection). Plus, who makes an article just for a list/template, non-used (if regarded as a template) elsewhere? --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. Don't make it a section, make it a separate article; but apart from that, sure, why not! —Nightstallion (?) 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about putting a section with all 250 names of the MPs... should I (only a tenth of them have their own articles)? --PaxEquilibrium 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How do I create smaller text? I want to make all "Presidents" and "Vice-Presidents" significantly smaller than the names of the parliamentary clubs. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Use <small> and </small>. —Nightstallion (?) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thanks! --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Use <small> and </small>. —Nightstallion (?) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How do I create smaller text? I want to make all "Presidents" and "Vice-Presidents" significantly smaller than the names of the parliamentary clubs. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal question
I never asked you about your opinion on the most recent election. What do you think? --PaxEquilibrium 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad that the DS is the largest non-Radical party now and that the LDP alliance made it into parliament -- for the simple reason that the LDP seems to be the only party right now which is willing to accept that maybe Serbia will have to let Kosovo go. I'd have preferred it if the Radicals weren't the largest party or if Milosević's Socialists had finally been scorched from the face of the earth (or at least from parliament), but well, you can't have everything at once. I'm rather glad the Preševo Valley Albanians finally participated, though – they will have to learn to live with living in Serbia, whatever happens to Kosovo. What are your thoughts? —Nightstallion (?) 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a tragedy that the Serbian Radicals got almost a hundred thousand more votes and a greater share of the total turnout that before, which would mean that their strength is slowly, but surely, growing. But a relief is that thanks to d'Hondt's method their influence is AFAIK lessened, as they have a seat less. However, the Serb Radicals view this as a victory non-the-less because over the years, two of their members defected from their club/party, so they now (re)gained one. The SRS have in the past always attracted the social losers and the poor class of the social ladder, and Serbia as an uneducated and very poor country as it is, it's expectable that they receive(d) most votes. However, before the most recent election the Serbian Radical Party changed its attitudes to a more democratic way. Now they pretend they are bigger democrats than the others and support all national minorities of Serbia except the Albanians (their strength in Vojvodina lies in the Slovak, Ruthenian, Romanian and partially Hungarian minorities who devoutly support them). Their new policy brought them a sizable number of intellectuals (before most SRS MPs had elementary, at most middle-level education) and people from the higher levels on the social ladder of Serbia's social life; but at the same time they lost their previous masses of peasants, pensioners, the unemployed and blatant nationalists that supported them. This is the reason that I believe that they thought to win over 50% of the votes like they promised in the campaign. They "betrayed" their old supporters, without even noticing it. Now they hope that the new government will not be formed, because only they will gain from a new election, directly calling for it - and that is unlikely to happen, considering that the rest of the assembly has together united against them (yes, the whole rest of 'em). Hope this wasn't too long for ya to read. ;) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, certainly not -- I LOVE long political analyses. ;) So you don't think DS and DSS will screw up and fail to agree on a government by the deadline? What will they do about Kosovo? It doesn't seem as if there's a majority in parliament which would accept its independence, even if G17+ and DS were to join LDP in accepting it... —Nightstallion (?) 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Negotiations are already underway and DS, DSS-NS and G17+ have already announced that they sign a coalition government on 7 March (with several places specially reserved for the minorities) [the only major obstacle is that both DSS and DS want the Premier seat]. The only problem is the most recent suggestion of President Boris Tadic to draw a Srebrenica Genocide declaration act. The act is supported by DS (the initiator) as well as G17+, while LDP already wrote the act and is presenting it to the national assembly. The only problem is that SRS & SPS are (traditionally) against it, and they were just joined by the DSS-NS which gave them a parliamentary majority to blockade the Srebrenica massacre resolution. That worsens the relations between DS and DSS greatly. --PaxEquilibrium 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I was under the impression that all the parties wanted to avoid being in government when Kosovo might become independent, so that they won't be blamed for it...? —Nightstallion (?) 00:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the radicals, the socialists and the populists will never hear anything but Kosovo within Serbia; while the democrats and the group seventeen will most definitely try to keep Kosovo. Only the liberals and the vojvodinians (the minorities' opinions are divided) want an independent Kosovo. The general viewpoint in Serbia was that Kosovo cannot be kept and that it will become independent, but these last few encouraging successes in that goal are slowly changing, so that the general viewpoint in the Republic of Serbia is divided, but leaning towards keeping Kosovo. That should not wonder you.
- But that's another subject; I explain the Democrats' gigantic success (they were the only winners of the election) a result of the fact that they were opposition and that they gave the President, arguably a massive political achievement. Besides, they're the only trully (and historically) a democratic option. Besides; one major political party entirely vanished from the scene (SPO) and that contributed greatly to strengthening of the democratic part of the opposition. The pathetic "victory" of Koshtunitza's "People's Bloc" of DSS & NS (due to its massive campaign and the magnitude of its organization an easy victory was expected) can be easily explained by the fact that his government is a failure. It failed to keep the State Union with Montenegro, the international appeal of Serbia could not have sunk lower (when referring to relations with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; not to mention the Ratko Mladic scandal), it's losing Kosovo (although now right before the elections in managed to improve its status on this one) and fully rehabilitated the "national pride" of Serbia (which is mostly a good and useful thing, but most definitely not now in Serbia's case). The good side is that Kostunica's minority regime created out of Serbia an economic tiger on the Balkans, with the near potential of competing for a Balkan regional power (the Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina already fully depends on Serbia, rather than on its own state [BH]) and that he faced all "evil" Serbian tycoons, fully restructuring and rejuvenating Serbia's inner infrastructure; but this and numerous other (with large money goes a huge amount of corruption) minor public scandals have caused this event.
- I really cannot believe that he demands without dispute to remain Prime Minister. --PaxEquilibrium 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. So what do you think will happen with Kosovo and with the government (who will be PM?)? I suspect Russia might be convinced to simply abstain in the Security Council, but even if that happens...? —Nightstallion (?) 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are most definitely two options for Kosovo: either it will be in the same situation like North Cyprus is for the past two decades, or it will follow (less possible) Ireland's footprints in 1917-1922. The Russian politicians have guaranteed that they will veto any option not accepted by both sides (i.e. will not allow an imposed solution, but only compromise between the two sides). I can't guess for the next Premier, but I think Koshtunica will remain. I think that also one of the major defeats of moral & ethics is that New Serbia is now (thanks to DSS's pathetic generosity) stronger than ever. Its leader Velimir Ilić, a hard-working man as he is, is the stereotype of vulgarity and primitivism. The man is frequent in harassing (read: physically assaulting) cops (sic!) that tend to fine him tickets for various public outbursts, as well as reporters during interviews; not to mention threating to kill all members of a TV station by throwing them out of the window and constantly attracting bad-faith sexual connotations to various political critics-writers and his "argh!!! communist enemies!!!".
- As for G17, well, the party went through a great change as many its founding father (among them its leader) left and the party is slowly becoming a personal party of Mladjan Dinkic, so its large weakening was expectable.
- I though you would be overjoyed with how the Socialist Party of Serbia passed. It lost much support (just as it did lose a lot of support at the previous election); Milosevic's death gave them a heavy blow. The only bad thing is that one of the "old league" corrupted folks is the acting President of the People's Assembly (they should elect a new one as soon as possible). Nevertheless, I must be thankful (as horrible as it sounds) to Serbia's socialists for supporting this government in resignation. If it weren't for their support to Kostunica's aims in 2004, the SRS would've been overjoyed (Serbia faced the very same problems as it faces now).
- As for the other matters - I am glad that the liberal/civic/social-democratic/christian-democratic coalition of Ceda managed to surpass the census and enter parliament (although at the same time, heavily disappointed because LSV entered on its list). I'm greatly glad that the minorities are (finally) in the republican Parliament again. And in the very end, I'm very sad that SPO didn't manage to enter the parliament (the lack of an extra democrat-bloc party led to this confusion at the hard task of forming a government - understand me, the more parties in the democratic bloc, the better). I'm also very glad that the Hungarian Union and the criminals of the Serbian Strength Movement failed to enter; and as for the Retired Persons & the Social-Democrats I haven't got a particular opinion.
- And that's my truly wholesome opinion. :) By the way, political parties in Serbia are split onto those belonging to the so-called "'Irredentist" or "Revisionist" Bloc (SRS & SPS) and the "Democrat Bloc" (practically everyone else, although many would dispute that a bunch of the parties could be regarded as such - for example, the ultra-xenophobic United Serbia that greatly surpasses the Serbs' Radical Party). Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I highly doubt the situation will be the same as with the TRNC -- for one thing, all the Western European states and the United States are going to recognise Kosovo's independence, so it'll be somewhere in between Ireland and TRNC, I believe. Apart from that, I'd tend to agree with you. —Nightstallion (?) 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not all - the Kingdom of Spain vigorously opposes independence of Kosovo. Be it as it would, we will finally know the future status of Kosovo after 10 March, so just wait a couple of days and pray that it will be a good solution. --PaxEquilibrium 15:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any "good" solutions left. An independent Kosovo would be the morally right thing to do, but it would greatly anger Serbia and could pose risks to the eventual reunification of Moldova and Georgia; anything less than independence will simply not be accepted by the Kosovars, and I can't really blame them for it. We'll see. (BTW, though: Even if Spain rejects an independent Kosovo because it fears separatist sentiment within its borders, I think they could be convinced if the special and non-exemplary nature of the Kosovo decision were to be highlighted; even if they remain opposed, a large majority of the Western world will be highly likely to recognise Kosovo.) —Nightstallion (?) 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not all Kosovars will take only independence. Non-Albanians (Serbs and [other] national minorities), who form more than 10% of the territory's population mostly oppose Kosovan independence. Have on mind that in an independent Kosovo civil war between Albanians and (at least some) non-Albanians is bound to erupt (taking to granted that tens of thousands of Serbs don't leave for Serbia in yet another exodus and that North Kosovo secedes from the rest of it and remains in Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the minority would prefer to stay with Serbia, but I don't think civil war will erupt. The secession of North Kosovo is also unlikely in my opinion, but we'll just have to wait and see -- we live in EXTREMELY interesting times, and you know how the Chinese curse goes... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, more than half a million (or over 700,000; some even speculate figures as high as 800,000 or one million) Albanians and about 200,000-250,000 non-Albanians (some say even more than 300,000) were displaced in the fighting that happened in 1996-1999 and before (or in more particular, '98-'99). From 1989 to 1999 9,000-10,000 Albanians and 1,000-2,000 non-Albanians were killed. From 1999 to the present hundreds of non-Albanians were killed and thousands have been forced out. What makes you think anything will be change? Civil disorder will erupt for sure except if two: 1. We have a large exodus of about a hundred thousand Serbs and others from Kosovo to Serbia (as announced by the people down there) or 2. North Kosovo declares secession and 60,000 Serbs living south of the river of Ibar cross the river and settle in NK. --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh, yeah, you may be right on that. Well, we'll see. I still hope for the best... —Nightstallion (?) 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, more than half a million (or over 700,000; some even speculate figures as high as 800,000 or one million) Albanians and about 200,000-250,000 non-Albanians (some say even more than 300,000) were displaced in the fighting that happened in 1996-1999 and before (or in more particular, '98-'99). From 1989 to 1999 9,000-10,000 Albanians and 1,000-2,000 non-Albanians were killed. From 1999 to the present hundreds of non-Albanians were killed and thousands have been forced out. What makes you think anything will be change? Civil disorder will erupt for sure except if two: 1. We have a large exodus of about a hundred thousand Serbs and others from Kosovo to Serbia (as announced by the people down there) or 2. North Kosovo declares secession and 60,000 Serbs living south of the river of Ibar cross the river and settle in NK. --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the minority would prefer to stay with Serbia, but I don't think civil war will erupt. The secession of North Kosovo is also unlikely in my opinion, but we'll just have to wait and see -- we live in EXTREMELY interesting times, and you know how the Chinese curse goes... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not all Kosovars will take only independence. Non-Albanians (Serbs and [other] national minorities), who form more than 10% of the territory's population mostly oppose Kosovan independence. Have on mind that in an independent Kosovo civil war between Albanians and (at least some) non-Albanians is bound to erupt (taking to granted that tens of thousands of Serbs don't leave for Serbia in yet another exodus and that North Kosovo secedes from the rest of it and remains in Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any "good" solutions left. An independent Kosovo would be the morally right thing to do, but it would greatly anger Serbia and could pose risks to the eventual reunification of Moldova and Georgia; anything less than independence will simply not be accepted by the Kosovars, and I can't really blame them for it. We'll see. (BTW, though: Even if Spain rejects an independent Kosovo because it fears separatist sentiment within its borders, I think they could be convinced if the special and non-exemplary nature of the Kosovo decision were to be highlighted; even if they remain opposed, a large majority of the Western world will be highly likely to recognise Kosovo.) —Nightstallion (?) 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you had Serbian citizenship & documents, you would've voted for (if you do vote anyway)..? --PaxEquilibrium 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know nearly enough about Serbian politics, I'm afraid (though I do try to take in as much information as possible), but I suppose I would have likely voted for the Liberal Democrats; I might also have considered the DP and G17+. —Nightstallion (?) 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you apparently know enough to make good choices. :) I too would've voted for LDP-GSS-SDU, but the problem is that LSV is on their list too, which immediately turned me away from it. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Could you tell me what's the turn-off about the LSV? I know next to nothing about them. —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The party is ultra-regionalist/autonomist/separatist. Its leader Nenad Canak is known amongst the common people as "polite Seselj". The League wants an Autonomous Province of Vojvodina that is fully independent from Belgrade, only being de facto within Serbia (and of course, on the international scale), but it (still) allegedly keeps its true intentions, and those of an independent Vojvodina. It shares a rather unnatural sentiment towards all Serbians not living in Vojvodina (that's one of the reasons one it supports an independent Kosovo). Vojvodina is full of refugees from Croatia ans Kosovo, LSV refused to supply them (when/where it's in power) basis for survival and wanted to exp... hmm.. "relocate" all of the refugees south of the border of Vojvodina, "explaining" the cause of that request in 2: 1. How all the refugees vote for Serbia's Radicals and 2. How Vojvodina is not in a position to help them. Aside from that, Canak expressed that he was horrified by the fact that Serbia was found not guilty in the Bosnian genocide case (an opinion not even shared by its 3 [former] coalition partners). And in the end, the four (LDP, GSS, SDU & LSV) sign a coalition that was "never to brake up until Serbia became a free state", and look who immediately left the coalition = Ceda's coalition won 15 seats and LSV even before the Constitutive Assembly was formed broke off its 4 MPs (in other words, he just used Cedomir Jovanovic to get into the Parliament, knowing that LSV would never pass the census). LSV amasses support through ultra-regionalist rhetoric, in the style of SRS's propaganda.
- By the way - the Liberal Democratic Party claims to win in Serbia in a decade or so - I don't think that that's possible, considering the party's views on gay marriages, legalizing marijuana & prostitution and endorsing atheism (aside from being totally anti-traditionalist); Serbia is a far too conservative country and very rarely prone to changes for such an occasion. --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that kind of progressive stance would make me even more likely to vote for it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely. You and not the ultra-conservative population of Serbia that doesn't like <large>any</large> change whatsoever. --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, afraid so. —Nightstallion (?) 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute... did you mean that one about LSV too? --PaxEquilibrium 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, certainly not. I might be inclined to support Vojvodinan separatism, but that would depend on the circumstances; the rest of what the party says and does sounds horrible to me. —Nightstallion (?) 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely. You and not the ultra-conservative population of Serbia that doesn't like <large>any</large> change whatsoever. --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that kind of progressive stance would make me even more likely to vote for it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Could you tell me what's the turn-off about the LSV? I know next to nothing about them. —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you apparently know enough to make good choices. :) I too would've voted for LDP-GSS-SDU, but the problem is that LSV is on their list too, which immediately turned me away from it. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know nearly enough about Serbian politics, I'm afraid (though I do try to take in as much information as possible), but I suppose I would have likely voted for the Liberal Democrats; I might also have considered the DP and G17+. —Nightstallion (?) 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not all - the Kingdom of Spain vigorously opposes independence of Kosovo. Be it as it would, we will finally know the future status of Kosovo after 10 March, so just wait a couple of days and pray that it will be a good solution. --PaxEquilibrium 15:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I highly doubt the situation will be the same as with the TRNC -- for one thing, all the Western European states and the United States are going to recognise Kosovo's independence, so it'll be somewhere in between Ireland and TRNC, I believe. Apart from that, I'd tend to agree with you. —Nightstallion (?) 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. So what do you think will happen with Kosovo and with the government (who will be PM?)? I suspect Russia might be convinced to simply abstain in the Security Council, but even if that happens...? —Nightstallion (?) 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I was under the impression that all the parties wanted to avoid being in government when Kosovo might become independent, so that they won't be blamed for it...? —Nightstallion (?) 00:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Negotiations are already underway and DS, DSS-NS and G17+ have already announced that they sign a coalition government on 7 March (with several places specially reserved for the minorities) [the only major obstacle is that both DSS and DS want the Premier seat]. The only problem is the most recent suggestion of President Boris Tadic to draw a Srebrenica Genocide declaration act. The act is supported by DS (the initiator) as well as G17+, while LDP already wrote the act and is presenting it to the national assembly. The only problem is that SRS & SPS are (traditionally) against it, and they were just joined by the DSS-NS which gave them a parliamentary majority to blockade the Srebrenica massacre resolution. That worsens the relations between DS and DSS greatly. --PaxEquilibrium 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, certainly not -- I LOVE long political analyses. ;) So you don't think DS and DSS will screw up and fail to agree on a government by the deadline? What will they do about Kosovo? It doesn't seem as if there's a majority in parliament which would accept its independence, even if G17+ and DS were to join LDP in accepting it... —Nightstallion (?) 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a tragedy that the Serbian Radicals got almost a hundred thousand more votes and a greater share of the total turnout that before, which would mean that their strength is slowly, but surely, growing. But a relief is that thanks to d'Hondt's method their influence is AFAIK lessened, as they have a seat less. However, the Serb Radicals view this as a victory non-the-less because over the years, two of their members defected from their club/party, so they now (re)gained one. The SRS have in the past always attracted the social losers and the poor class of the social ladder, and Serbia as an uneducated and very poor country as it is, it's expectable that they receive(d) most votes. However, before the most recent election the Serbian Radical Party changed its attitudes to a more democratic way. Now they pretend they are bigger democrats than the others and support all national minorities of Serbia except the Albanians (their strength in Vojvodina lies in the Slovak, Ruthenian, Romanian and partially Hungarian minorities who devoutly support them). Their new policy brought them a sizable number of intellectuals (before most SRS MPs had elementary, at most middle-level education) and people from the higher levels on the social ladder of Serbia's social life; but at the same time they lost their previous masses of peasants, pensioners, the unemployed and blatant nationalists that supported them. This is the reason that I believe that they thought to win over 50% of the votes like they promised in the campaign. They "betrayed" their old supporters, without even noticing it. Now they hope that the new government will not be formed, because only they will gain from a new election, directly calling for it - and that is unlikely to happen, considering that the rest of the assembly has together united against them (yes, the whole rest of 'em). Hope this wasn't too long for ya to read. ;) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Montenegro
While we're already discussing Serbia, what's your opinion on Montenegro (at least we'll have a hundred times less to talk about ;). --PaxEquilibrium 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it was only a logical development that it became independent. Why they still haven't managed to agree on a constitution is... well, strange, somehow, but then again, I haven't been able to find many news reports on what the issues exactly are. Whether Montenegrin is a language or not... Well, I think it's as much a language as Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian, so what the heck. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see it quite logical. After all, all polls said that the Montenegrin independence referendum will fail, and besides, the pro-independence bloc won by a meager just over two thousand votes, while more than sixty-five thousand stayed at home, making it highly controversial. It was, apart from it, full of huge scandals like vote-buying (from the pro-independence ruling coalition) and even intimidating to vote in favor of an option (from both sides). Besides that, the government was the pro-independence side itself, and it utilized that to its advantage to un-proportionally present itself during the campaign (although I think that none of these scandals will have affected the result on a broader level). As for the new Constitution, Montenegro will have it at Fall this year. The main problems are traditional Balkanization problems: who will be constituent peoples: whether retaining a free civic-state, or creating it into a "state of Montenegrins and Serbs that live in it" or the "Montenegrin nation-state"; official language (Serbian or Montenegrin, or perhaps something else [a mixture?]) as well as the status of the Church in constitution, and the Serbs (if they are not proclaimed a constituent nation). A lot of problems as you see... --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I meant "logical" in the sense of "it was the last non-independent Yugoslavian republic", but yes, there were some discrepancies... But not as many as with the Serbian constitutional referendum, right? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think so. The whole campaign and the referendum in Montenegro faced numerous problems, of broad scale (whereas in Serbia there were only tiny problems, numerous as they were, completely irrelevant to the outcome). Perhaps the only controversy lies in the fact that (perhaps) the government forged several thousand votes to help adopt the new Constitution (but yet again, perhaps). Besides, independence and breaking a country is much bigger than adopting a constitution (the old Milosevic's Constitution from 1990 was heavily outdated), and so is the "foulness" of the manipulation.
- But to prevent me from blabbering (again, like in Serbia's case) and that I'm a some sort of an expert in Montenegrin politics, you should ask me a question or two if you're interested in something. I'm a personal sympathizer of the Movement for Changes (a brother-project of Group 17 Plus in Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the main problem in Montenegro's delicate political position is that unlike Serbia, it did not have a Bulldozer revolution and that Miloseciv-style old legacy miraculously remains up to this very day.
- Yeah, that may be true; it also benefits from the fact that it has neither got a separatist issue nor any war crime perpetrators to stop its path towards the European Union... —Nightstallion (?) 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they only do not have issues of Kosovo's magnitude. All minorities [taking to granted if Serbs are a national minority] except for the Croats (forming almost 50% of the population) are at odds with the regime. The Albanians at the east are always in opposition, and a tiny number of them has even self-proclaimed their own state: Frontier (Albanian: Kraja) which wants to leave Montenegro and join Albania. The Bosniacs and other Muslims of the Montenegrin Sanjak also fiercely oppose and want more links to Serbia, rather than their own country (MNE). And the huge Serb portion of the population is a huge obstacle in Government's way. As for war crime perpetrators, Croatia is just now filing the "Croatia vs Montenegro" case; mostly because of the Siege of Dubrovnik, the raids in Konavle and the very fact that one the highest-ranking Montenegrin generals maintained an internment camp near the town of Tivat, in which over 350 Croats were executed during the early 1990s. The connections included numerous governmental officials - those being in power in Podgorica even today. --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did know about the large percentage of national minorities, but I was under the (incorrect) impression that except for the Serbs, all the others were content with living in Montenegro... Well, learned something new again. —Nightstallion (?) 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Numbering about 350,000-400,000, the non-Montenegrins form 57%-60% of the little republic's population. :) The only argument that gives Montenegro "ethnic stability" is the fact that neither the Montenegrins nor the Serbs recognize each other's existence as a nation, an unholy "compromise" creating a 465,000-475,000 numbering "Orthodox Slavic" 70%-75% majority. You see why is Montenegro interesting? :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did know about the large percentage of national minorities, but I was under the (incorrect) impression that except for the Serbs, all the others were content with living in Montenegro... Well, learned something new again. —Nightstallion (?) 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they only do not have issues of Kosovo's magnitude. All minorities [taking to granted if Serbs are a national minority] except for the Croats (forming almost 50% of the population) are at odds with the regime. The Albanians at the east are always in opposition, and a tiny number of them has even self-proclaimed their own state: Frontier (Albanian: Kraja) which wants to leave Montenegro and join Albania. The Bosniacs and other Muslims of the Montenegrin Sanjak also fiercely oppose and want more links to Serbia, rather than their own country (MNE). And the huge Serb portion of the population is a huge obstacle in Government's way. As for war crime perpetrators, Croatia is just now filing the "Croatia vs Montenegro" case; mostly because of the Siege of Dubrovnik, the raids in Konavle and the very fact that one the highest-ranking Montenegrin generals maintained an internment camp near the town of Tivat, in which over 350 Croats were executed during the early 1990s. The connections included numerous governmental officials - those being in power in Podgorica even today. --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that may be true; it also benefits from the fact that it has neither got a separatist issue nor any war crime perpetrators to stop its path towards the European Union... —Nightstallion (?) 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you could've voted at the most recent election, you would've voted for...? --PaxEquilibrium 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Likely the Movement for Changes, though I have to say I know even less about Montenegrin politics than about Serbian politics. (Which, again, does not mean that I'm not interested or that I don't follow events there; it's just very difficult to find good political analyses on Balkan politics in English or German.) —Nightstallion (?) 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, from now on, you can simply ask me. :) --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly will do so. :) Thanks a lot! You're also welcome to tell me anything interesting that might be happening which does not find its way into the international media... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the Podgorica civic assembly has just proclaimed Croatian President Stjepan Mesic Podgorica's honorary citizen as an act of good will. Aside from that, a scandal has just been (re)opened regarding the President of the Assembly Ranko Krivokapic. It is about him fighting in the 1990s war against seceding Croatia in 1991-1992 and the controversial arguments about "fighting the evil separatists". When asked about this, he said "I never fought in any war, and if I did I didn't do it out of my pure will". Aside from that, there's nothing new except the controversy regarding the new Constitution which I already informed you about. --PaxEquilibrium 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is one or two more a thing, though - there was organization for a (failed) assassination attempt of the Serb Republic's Premier Milorad Dodik which came from the circles of the Montenegrin government. You probably also heard that Milo Djukanovic retired - interestingly enough, he placed a man dying of a rare type of cancer as his successor... and the President is allegedly his puppet already... get it? --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly will do so. :) Thanks a lot! You're also welcome to tell me anything interesting that might be happening which does not find its way into the international media... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, from now on, you can simply ask me. :) --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Likely the Movement for Changes, though I have to say I know even less about Montenegrin politics than about Serbian politics. (Which, again, does not mean that I'm not interested or that I don't follow events there; it's just very difficult to find good political analyses on Balkan politics in English or German.) —Nightstallion (?) 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the main problem in Montenegro's delicate political position is that unlike Serbia, it did not have a Bulldozer revolution and that Miloseciv-style old legacy miraculously remains up to this very day.
- I meant "logical" in the sense of "it was the last non-independent Yugoslavian republic", but yes, there were some discrepancies... But not as many as with the Serbian constitutional referendum, right? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see it quite logical. After all, all polls said that the Montenegrin independence referendum will fail, and besides, the pro-independence bloc won by a meager just over two thousand votes, while more than sixty-five thousand stayed at home, making it highly controversial. It was, apart from it, full of huge scandals like vote-buying (from the pro-independence ruling coalition) and even intimidating to vote in favor of an option (from both sides). Besides that, the government was the pro-independence side itself, and it utilized that to its advantage to un-proportionally present itself during the campaign (although I think that none of these scandals will have affected the result on a broader level). As for the new Constitution, Montenegro will have it at Fall this year. The main problems are traditional Balkanization problems: who will be constituent peoples: whether retaining a free civic-state, or creating it into a "state of Montenegrins and Serbs that live in it" or the "Montenegrin nation-state"; official language (Serbian or Montenegrin, or perhaps something else [a mixture?]) as well as the status of the Church in constitution, and the Serbs (if they are not proclaimed a constituent nation). A lot of problems as you see... --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just remembered the greatest controversy of the Montenegrin independence referendum: montenegrins living in Serbia due to a Law glitch were not allowed to vote. But the "true" montenegrin diaspora living outside S&M was. Wouldn't you yourself call that injustice? --PaxEquilibrium 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speakers
See Speaker (politics). I'm starting a full-scale list. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Color
Do you mind if you change the color of your talk page? I don't know about other but it really disturbs my eyes after reading for a minute. Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to, but one of the newsletters above broke my formatting. I archive every 100 topics, so we won't have to live with this much longer. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- This edit is the reason. There is a unmatching </div> tag. It shouldn't be here, and it shoulnd't be in the archive. So I took the liberty of removing it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had been looking for that </div>, but couldn't find it. —Nightstallion (?) 10:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- This edit is the reason. There is a unmatching </div> tag. It shouldn't be here, and it shoulnd't be in the archive. So I took the liberty of removing it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
|
Issue XII - February 2007 | |
|
The third project coordinator elections have now concluded. Seven coordinators have been selected to serve for the next six months:
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! Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
Delivered by grafikbot 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Electoral Calendar
Your policy of restricting the electoral calendar to 'national elections' in inconsistent.
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Abkhazia, Hong Kong, Quebec, Mayotte, the British Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Pitcairn Island are not independent nations and yet all appear in the calendar.
I believe the list should be restricted to national elections and elections in autonomous territories, including the states which make up federal nations, including the provinces of Canada, and states of Australia. Awnisbet1 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quebec, Scotland, Wales and NI shouldn't be there; all others should be. The criterion for inclusion is "is de facto independent OR has an ISO 3166 code". I didn't invent it, I just continue to uphold it. —Nightstallion (?) 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its sad to see some of these removed from the electoral calendar, even though your right that they don't fit the criteria. Perhaps another page could be created for a full list of elections at any level? (I notice the British Labour party has a "leadership contest" note at the bottom at the moment, even though that doesn't technically fit the criteria either) That way the main electoral calendar can be kept away from revert wars, and another page can hold a list of elections at any level, whether they be regional, municipal, by-elections, party leadership elections, etc? Mikebloke 10:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I would definitely not mind to amend the criteria to read "de facto independent, has an ISO code or the election has an article on Wikipedia". —Nightstallion (?) 11:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its sad to see some of these removed from the electoral calendar, even though your right that they don't fit the criteria. Perhaps another page could be created for a full list of elections at any level? (I notice the British Labour party has a "leadership contest" note at the bottom at the moment, even though that doesn't technically fit the criteria either) That way the main electoral calendar can be kept away from revert wars, and another page can hold a list of elections at any level, whether they be regional, municipal, by-elections, party leadership elections, etc? Mikebloke 10:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Marking edits like your most recent one on Saint-Pierre and Miquelon as minor when they are contentious is not good practice. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, not intentional. See talk page for discussion. —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)