User talk:Nightstallion/ξ

Opt-outs in the European Union

On 18 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Opt-outs in the European Union, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to comment here again to refresh the arguments for the EU entries in lists? : [1], [2], [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear 21 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Your message here

Thank you for that, it was kind of you. Unfortunately I can't contribute as much as I like, but I certainly hope to get the 2004/2007 election pages up to the same standard as the 1999 page, and hopefully the 1994 page also. I note above that you have compiled a list of all the groups: I'll see if I can get further details such as creation/dissolution dates, chairs, names en anglais, abbreviations (one cannot google something if the name is unknown!), and so on, which should help. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A list of members per date would be *VERY* good, but I'm not sure if something like that even exists... I suppose somewhere, there *HAVE* to be records, but I wouldn't know where and how to get them... —Nightstallion 19:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

MNE poll

• DPS - 33%
• SNP - 14%
• SNS - 10%
• PZP - 7%

Here (minor parties included into major ones). --PaxEquilibrium 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW for amendments to the Constitution there will need to be a minimal 70% turnout with 90% voting for! :D This is really amusing. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard from a friend of mine who's got a few contacts in diplomatic circles that Italy is currently trying to set wheels into motion to get Milo arrested by Interpol, finally. —Nightstallion 09:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How reliable is the source? --PaxEquilibrium 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW over 400 citizens have been deleted from citizenship records. They are told to hand over their documents or will be prosecuted within one week. I should point out that there is absolutely no law to regulate this - this is a basic violation of civic rights.

I wonder you had no comment on the potential new referendum issue. :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New referendum? Hm? —Nightstallion 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For amendments to the Constitution there will need to be 70% turnout and 90% YES minimum. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's... interesting. Horrible, actually... —Nightstallion 07:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian election

Peterle 27.44% and Gaspari 25.63%. They'll meet in the second circle. --PaxEquilibrium 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have preferred Türk, but meh, Gaspari is better than Peterle. —Nightstallion 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and he and his family are for Gaspari. --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I've read that Türk is in the second round, though -- and that the final result will only be known after ballots from abroad are counted... Well, either Gaspari or Türk would be good. :) —Nightstallion 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... that was preliminary results... it appears that final results switched Gaspari's and Turk's seats. I can't imagine how Gaspari feels now. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, I suppose, seeing as how it's now very much possible for Türk to beat Peterle. :) —Nightstallion 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad news from Solomon Islands

Introducing of a New (Republican) Constitution deferred at least on a full year on Solomon Islands [4] [5] CrazyRepublican 10:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh? Where did you get from that it would be republican? —Nightstallion 07:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See: User talk:Nightstallion/μ; Point 84 from 10:27 20.08.2007 (UTC). Source on Russian. On the whole I remember the times when took place negotiations aruond future independence between British and Solomon Islander's delegations. Ulufaalu was strong supporter of Republican status. There was a real possibility of granting to Solomon Islands of dominion status only on one year with further automatic transferring to Republic (As well as Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda).CrazyRepublican 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten that. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Article deletion

Reform Socialist Party was proposed for deletion. --Checco 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

opt outs

Nice to see more articles going for GA. Just thought I'd drop a few comments as I don't have time to sort this myself. I just think it is missing a bit on the "why?" for GA. I mean a bit more background behind how they came about should help - and also on the horse trading over the Reform Treaty. Also I'm quite sure there could be more on implications, on Schengen there was something I heard in Committee a while back at Westminster (should be in Hansard but I don't know where, will try to look later if you can't find it) where the head of police I think was saying that because the UK isn't in Schengen it can't get into the database which is harming crime fighting significantly. He actually said it would be in the UK's national interests to relinquish border control in that respect. Might be able to find something on google, it was only about two months back I think but more elaboration on those lines might help if there is something. Hope some of that helps at least, sorry I can get stuck into it properly right now. Good luck with the GA. - J Logan ^t: 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to find more on that! —Nightstallion 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you could help me find that bit about Schengen at the Commons, that would be great. :) —Nightstallion 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional reform

Here you have the official statement of the two MPs who are overseeing constitutional reform, Sesa Amici (PD) and Italo Bocchino (AN) and here all the proposed legislation on the matter. This is very huge, but it's the most official source we can find. I will read at least some parts of the statement when I have time. If you read it too and you don't understand something, just ask me! --Checco 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of text... I'd be *VERY* grateful if you could briefly summarise the changes proposed for me, and if you could tell me when it will be voted on. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It could take some days... obviously the text is more specific, but there's nothing more than what I already described to you (for now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checco (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! I'm sure you'll keep an eye on it and update the respective articles when it's adopted? ;) —Nightstallion 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to know that the reform has no chances of success, so there will be probably no article about it in Wikipedia. Below you have some things I learned today.

Under my calculations the Senate will have 181 members from the Regions and some 6 or 9 elected by the Italians abroad. Every region will have a number of senators elected by the regional council and a few by local governments (provinces and municipalities). Regions with more than 7 million of peoples would get 14 senators (2 of which elected by local governments), these with a population between 5 and 7 million 12 (2), these between 3 and 5 million 11 (2), these between 1 and 3 million 7 (2), these with less of 1 million 5 (1), Trentino and Alto Adige 3 (2) each, Aosta Valley 2 (1) and Molise 2 (1).

That is bad news for me, especially because I am from Veneto: this distribution of seats is so unfair that I will do everything I can to oppose the reform. Think only about one fact: Veneto and Lombardy have 23.7% of Italian population and would get 25 senators (13.8% of the total!), while the so-called Red zone (Liguria, Emilia-Rom., Tuscany, Marche and Umbria) have the 19.9% of the population and would get 46 senators (25.4% of the total!).

The new composition of the Senate seems to be designed in order to build a permanent majority for the centre-left (which is strong in medium-sized and small regions by population) in the Senate and prevent any claim of autonomy of northern regions (which will be in permanent minority). That is gerrymandering (and I don't know if the centre-right is aware of this) and definitely shadows all the good things in the reform. The worse thing is that the Senate would become a bulk of un-elected conservatives who can block any further reform in Italy. --Checco 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That does sound rather strange. —Nightstallion 07:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think? --Checco 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against gerrymandering, that's what I meant. Degressive proportionality in principle is fine, but it does appear to be a bit lopsided in this case... Is more than the usual majority needed for this reform to pass? When will it be voted on? —Nightstallion 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional amendaments require 2/3 majority in both houses, which are supposed to vote it twice each. I don't know when exactly the first vote (out of four) will be scheduled and I notice that political agenda is very crowded these days, as the budget for 2008 needs to be voted by Christmas. Moreover, the majority seems to be blocked these day quarelling on almost everything. Corruption allegations and senators threatening to stop supporting the government do not help. --Checco 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too likely that they will pass, then... —Nightstallion 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, but... indeed there is a but. If government falls, there are either two options: the fist is a snap election (what the centre-right, but UDC, is strongly lobbying for), the second is a transitional government (in Italy we say "institutional government") run by an independent or bipartisan figure with two major goals, constitutional and electoral reform. We'll see. --Checco 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the government fall over such an issue as this? —Nightstallion 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but it can fall because of defections in the Senate and of clashes over the budget for 2008. In any case, in the government and in the majority there are clashes on almost everything these days and also prominent members of it speak openly of early elections. --Checco 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not good, IMO... —Nightstallion 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is not good is that the government is not governing and that the Senate is deadlocked. It is only trying to survive. Undoubtely the idea of reforming the Constitution is bold (even if I won't support it, if there are no changes about the composition of the new Senate). Anyway, I have the date you wanted: the reform will be discussed in the Chamber of Deputies starting on 6 November. Today there was some preliminary debate on the reform, but Forza Italia and the other parties of the centre-right filibustered it so that the majority decided to pospone the debate to 6 November. The President of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Luciano Violante (PD) declared today that they will succed in reforming the Constitution. I'm not so convinced about it as he is. --Checco 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also not so sure, and I'm worried that the government might fall early... —Nightstallion 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the stability of the system I would like the government lasting util 2011, but for the good of Italy I think that a new government with a strong popular mandate would be even better. As mamy editorialists observe these days, early elections are better that stagnation, deadlock and economic decline. --Checco 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but -- when did Italy last have a government which was not in some kind of deadlock every second month? ;) —Nightstallion 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, indeed it is the costitution which is bad. Anyway, every government is differnt from one another. I criticize very much Berlusconi for the missed reforms during his previous mandate, but at least his government lasted 5 years and tried to do important reforms, including that of the constitution, which the centre-left staunchly (and irresponsibly) opposed. The problem is that (I don't know if you're aware of this) the current majority is united only by the hatred against Berlusconi and unfortunately not on a set of coherent political proposals. This is the reason why so many people in the majority are falling out each other and some leading figures (as Rutelli and Veltroni) hope in the future to govern along with Lega Nord and UDC instead of coninuing the uneasy alliance with the far-left. --Checco 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, opposing the constitutional reform in *that* version was necessary -- I heard here in Austria that almost all constitutional law experts in Italy were agreed that it was a horribly badly written piecemeal constitution which contradicted itself in several places and left many things unclear...

I wouldn't mind enlarging the centre-left with the UDC (or rather, a new merged Christian Democrat party comprised of all the small ones)... But I'd personally prefer to do without the Lega. —Nightstallion 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The LN is much more moderate than people usually think, especially outside Italy. Anyway, I support bipolarism and, as I am liberal-centrist (as you know), I would strongly like that a reform-minded party as LN to remain part of the centre-right. Moderates in the centre-left think on it differently as the LN would ensure a reformist path and a strong success in the North.

About the previous reform (which was very better than this), I can only say that most constitutionalists are either left-wingers or hard-conservatives, and that the most respected constitutionalists in Italy (Barbera, who is a member of DS, Fusaro and Panebianco) supported the measure. The reality is that what the centre-right does in Italy is always considered bad only because it was done by it (also Rutelli apologized for this in April). Moreover that reform is very similar (probably better, as I explained some days ago) to the currently proposed one: so why did the centre-left oppose it? Politics, only politics. --Checco 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

shrugs I can only say what I've heard here in Austria -- that the new constitution read as if it were drafted by five drunk LN deputies in a skiing hut on the top of a mountain over a long weekend, with lots of alcohol. (I'm quoting literally here from some newspaper, can't remember which one, which in turn quoted constitutional scholars from Italy.) shrugs Frankly, I think *any* kind of reform which increases stability in Italy's politics is *GREAT*... ;) BTW, any plan on when the electoral reform will be voted on? —Nightstallion 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The five drunk LN deputies in a skiing hut on the top of a mountain over a long weekend were actually Umberto Bossi (LN), Giulio Tremonti (FI, minister and expert on federalism), Andrea Pastore (FI, a constitutionalist from Abruzzo), Domenico Nania (AN, a constitutionalist from Sicily) and Francesco D'Onofrio (UDC, a constitutionalist from Sicily too)! Anyway, that reform is the past and the centre-left is struggling now because of its mistakes: that's very sad both for them and for Italy. With the reform they opposed stability and federalism will be achieved. I would like a US-like reform, but it was pretty good by Italian standards, especially if compared with the current one.

On electoral reform, things seem more complicate than ever. Rutelli (PD), D'Alema (PD), Bertinotti (PRC) and Casini (UDC) support the German system, which is anyway unconstitutional. Veltroni (PD), Prodi (PD) and Fini (PD) oppose it, while (covertly in the case of Veltroni and Prodi) support the referendum or a fist-past-the-post system. Berluscooni (FI) and the LN want only to arrive to an early election. Electoral reform will be probably discussed starting from November, whether in the Senate or in the Chamber it is not clear yet. --Checco 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary! Would you be kind enough to simply let me know when they start discussing it?

Well, I hope there'll be *some* kind of electoral and constitutional reform in Italy, and *soon*... —Nightstallion 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But what do you think about an electoral system similar to the German one in Italy? The reason why both Berlusconi and Veltroni oppose it is that Italy would return to the era of a government a year. Indeed, without coalitions or a system that favors the formation of coalitions before or during the vote, Italy would be more instable than it is now. And the treshold risks to be very low (say 2-3%) so that small political parties (most of them are in the centre-left) will survive. Moreover, even if the treshold is 5%, small parties will form electoral pacts in order to uphold it. What is the electoral system better for Italy, in your opinion? --Checco 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the German system might work, with a few changes: Set the threshold to 5% for parties and to 8% (or 10% or whatever) for coalitions, that should ensure stability once and for all. I very much like diversity and dislike two-party systems, so I'm obviously not in favour of any kind of FPTP, but I'm open to all kinds of mixed systems like MPP, parallel voting or STV -- those systems combine the good points of both proportional and FPTP voting systems. —Nightstallion 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Berlusconi would definitely agree with you. When the centre-right changed the electoral law the treshold were initially 4% for parties and 8% for parties not in coalition. I don't know what the centre-left will finally propose because it is highly divided on this. In my opinion, even if I would prefer a FPTP system (like that of Britain, not of France), I think that the best option would be a mixed system, 75% FPTP (with coalitions and primaries for the coalition candidates in the single-seat constituencies) and 25% PR (with at least 5% treshold and with the 3-seat clause of Germany). In any case, be aware that a FPTP system in Italy won't create a two-party system, apart from FI (eventually united with AN and UDC) and PD, also other parties would enter in Parliament (defenitely the League, maybe UDC in Sicily if it runs alone).

Anyway, in Italy there is a lot of talk about the German system, the Franch one (remember that PD is almost united in favour of semi-presidentialism), a mixed system and... the Spanish one! I consider all these options good in some ways, but, as a federalist, what for me is essential is the return to single-seat constituencies, as Veltroni and Fini hope. We'll see. --Checco 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I realized now that, when you talk about a 8% treshold for coalitions, you didn't intend that coalitions are formed before the vote. Anyway this is something that Berlusconi, Veltroni, Fini, Bossi and Prodi oppose and it is very difficult to have a reform without the support of FI, AN, LN and the most part of PD. Impossible, I would say. --Checco 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant "coalition" as in "Rose in the Fist", in this case. —Nightstallion 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia

I can't find heads or tails about the news from Bosnia. What's going on? The Serbs threatened to block the country on Republic's level because OHR imposed some changes that go beyond his mandate...do you know anything about this? --PaxEquilibrium 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Only what you've just summarised... I still haven't found any candidates for the RS presidential election, either. —Nightstallion 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked. The OHR is furious because the three sides can't seem to agree on anything so he's abolishing the trio system. His edicts created a new order in Bosnia and Herzegovina that bases itself on simple majority, rather than trio-equality. This way he has vested full and absolute power of the country in Bosniacs, rendering Serbs and Croats completely meaningless (I hear also there'll be no veto power). --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious. What will happen now? —Nightstallion 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, all sources (media, from TV across Radio to Internet) are always so suspiciously quite on BH, while you could find when a Montenegrin MP gets up in the morning. It's very suspiciously quite for Bosnia - books are even low. I myself don't really know very much about it. --PaxEquilibrium 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange... —Nightstallion 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - I can understand German btw (to an extent). :)

Yeah I guess too much voice is raised in RS about this - but aren't more than half of the 42 MPs ethnic Bosniacs? --PaxEquilibrium 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, as far as I can see from the last election in 2006, there are 18 Bosniaks, 12 Serbs and 11 Croats in parliament, more or less. —Nightstallion 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OBN (Herzegovinian) Public News just stated 22 of 42 are ethnic Bosniacs. --PaxEquilibrium 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Still, they wouldn't be handed "all the power" -- if all Serbs or all Croats in the presidency are opposed to something, it can't happen. —Nightstallion 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Lajcak's reforms removed that - now only a single nation is necessary to validate something. --PaxEquilibrium 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the sources I've read, for instance this source... —Nightstallion 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the change was from "at least two from every group have to be in favour" to "at least one from every group has to be in favour, and an overall majority has to be in favour". —Nightstallion 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you know that I don't know a lot about BH - but the Public News says that so far two of three members of the Presidency had to be in favor, and that now just one is sufficient. There are 22 Deputies from the Federation, which hold majority over 20 from RS (I stand corrected).

It appears (according to the Serbs) that Miroslav Lajcak is intending to impose some form of power over RS - his main goal to disable the possibility of Serbs blocking BH's recognition of Kosovo's independence (since practically he abolished the veto). The Venetian Commission and Committee for Southeast Europe criticize Lajcak's aims as undemocratic and in general damaging BH. --PaxEquilibrium 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he *has* to force them to cooperate somehow... —Nightstallion 13:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but this way. The current path is slowly returning BH to the 1990s...which is completely contrary to reconciliation. --PaxEquilibrium 20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Vojislav Kostunica declared that the anti-Serb campaign is in progress. He said that Miroslav Lajcak's reforms prove this. He said that certain Western circles want to make Kosovo independent and abolish the Republic of Srbska at the same time. He demanded Boris Tadic to protest officially (only President can do it) and after several days of silence, Tadic has lodged a protest begging Lajcak to review his acts one more time. --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that once again, the thing which Serbian politicians do best is to be convinced that everyone in the world, except Russia, is working against them at every point... Seriously, Serbia appears to be extremely paranoid to me... —Nightstallion 13:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it takes a lot for an average Serb (peasant, uneducated, unknown of the world - majority) to think that if one option A is not an option and in another case option B isn't possible, and that the Serbs find themselves at both cases as the "losers", to believe this? --PaxEquilibrium 23:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it should possibly occur to the average Serb that as the losers of a war, and until very recently a very aggressive undemocratic regime, a country sometimes has to stand up for the mistakes it made a decade ago...? But yeah, I know how simple the public mind can be. (We've got the Kronen Zeitung here in Austria -- trust me, as an intellectual Austrian, I know how this goes... sighs) —Nightstallion 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

..and that's the erroneous concept of victor's justice, to which I myself oppose. --PaxEquilibrium 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support victor's justice, either, but in this case, it's a different concept -- it's logical that if a state goes to war against a part of it settled predominantly by an ethnic minority, that the ethnic minority thereafter has some kind of moral right to leave the state; the same can't be said for BiH, were it wasn't the Croats and Bosniaks who started to attack the Serbs, AFAIK. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) —Nightstallion 11:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that is all true - but why many Serbs today are furious is revisionism of deals. In this case those are: The Dayton Accords and the Kumanovo Treaty. If you can see, in 2000 a tiny minority voted for the Radicals. If you observe the earlies democratic presidential elections you might see that Miroljub Labus of G17 Plus (!) won most votes continually, and that Vojislav Seselj continually won a tiny minority of votes. However in the parliament in 2003 SRS suddenly became the largest party - and in 2004 Boris Tadic needed a second circle to beat the Radical candidate...and this has occurred after the voices to revise the two treaties that maintain the basis of peace in post-war former Yugoslavia. And I shall again return to simple Serb - both of the treaties are being revised, in both cases - at the damage of the Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Eek. I correct myself - I just checked the website. It's 24/41 Bosniacs. --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Interesting. Do you think it'll get better as Serbia moves closer to the EU? What will the likely result be if Kosovo declares itself independent and is recognised by the EU? A spike in support for Radicals, or for both SRS and DS as all supporters of one of the two camps (nationalists and democrats) concentrate their votes on the principal party of their faction?

Are you sure? Strange... Still, in a summary I read at B92, it also stated that at least a third of each ethnicity had to be in favour for a vote to pass; I think that's fair. —Nightstallion 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There are massive protests in RS. Premier Milorad Dodik held a speech in front of a huge crowd in Banja Luka. The National Assembly of the Republic of Srbska is on an irregular session discussion its decision. Nationalism is on the verge again. While you couldn't notice it before, many Serb leaders again use the term "Muslim", which is pejorative for Bosniaks, de-nationalizing them (again). Croatian President said that the Serbs are doing the same they did in the 1990s and reminds them how it was finished (there are no more Serbs in Croatia practically). After Serbian Premier stated support of RS, the Croat member of the Collective BH Presidency threatened to beat up Kostunica (;). As funny as the last part is, the whole image is horrifying for the West Balkans. I sure hope Lajcak can handle this...

BTW you mentioned "correct me if I'm wrong" about the war. Actually it was a bit controversial. In 1992 a referendum for independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was organized. The Serbian political leaders called for boycott all Serbs and anyone else who is for common Yugoslavia, they explained that the referendum was illegal as a reason. And the referendum failed. However, the administration composed out of only two of four BH peoples brought the decision to declare independence of BH, even though both the European community (e.g. Badminter Commission) alarmed that it shouldn't leave Yugoslavia and the failed referendum. This fused the power of SDS so that it became practically the sole Serb party in B&H. They stated that the will of Serbs and other pro-Yugoslavs is being ignored and that the organizers of this "unconstitutional maneuvre" also "can't respect their own rules". As a result, the four Serb autonomous regions conducted a referendum which AFAIK had more legal basis than this other one, and after success declared independence of the "Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina", deciding to stay in a smaller Yugoslavia (that would, in effect, be Greater Serbia). What spurred further hatred was that the Bosnian-Herzegovinian leadership (made of Bosnian Muslims and Croats - no Serb or Yugoslav) presented to foreign powers an alternate & false referendum result, making it look like it succeeded - which further enraged the Serbs, and ultimately, when Germany controversially recognized BH as an independent country and forced most of the UN to do the same, gave birth to the belief that much of the West is "Serbophobic" and that things have to be taken "into hands". I.e., that goals need to be succeeded through use of force.

The Croats following inner-organization of the Serbs created their own "Herzeg-Bosnia" entity. The Belgrade-based plan influenced mostly by Slobodan Milosevic to martially cease and control every single inch of BH territory with Yugoslavian armed forces was abandoned with the recognition of independence and international pressures of withdrawal from BH (as well as Croatia) to Serbia and Montenegro. However, most of the weapons were left in Serb hands. The three political parties (SDA, SDS and HDZ) mustered arms and weapons of their personal own with amazing speed, sometimes in the most bizarre of cases - with the Croats buying weapons from the Serbs, or the Muslims receiving arms even from Al Qaeda. In effect, BH was not a country - but three worlds each ruled by a large nationalist-driven party. Read Peace_plans_offered_before_and_during_the_Bosnian_War#Carrington-Cutileiro. A peace conference was immediately prepared. All three national leaders (Alija Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadzic and Mate Boban) signed an insurance that they will form a common administrative body and keep the country together, preventing any violence, with international supervision. As you can see from that map, it was based on decentralization and equal power-sharing. However, Alija Izetbegovic broke the deal and ordered the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (present only on the "green territory", mostly populated by Bosnian Muslims) to secure the other territories as an attempt to establish full national sovereignty. The Bosnian government observed the Serb and Croat lands as "rebel territories". The reasons for this are still unknown - what is sure is that Alija Izetbegovic and the program of SDA were for a unitary & presidential Bosnian country and that he wanted to remain the sole President, and not just a member of a Presidency (which, ironically, turned out to be in the end). It is known that he spoke to the US ambassador, who was known for fiercely opposing the peace plan, supporting a centralized state as well. It is speculated by some people (note: just a theory) that it wasn't in American interests to evade the Bosnian war.

I should note that you should be aware of the things that followed afterwards, as well that the SRS frequently claim "They wanted it - they exactly got it", but that this is how it happened at the very start in 1992. In Serbia and Croatia it is greatly considered that Alija Izetbegovic began the actual civil war precisely because of this. Sorry for making such a long post and hope you read it. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the information... I agree, I hope Lajcak knows what to do. He seems like a rather sensible kind of person, though. —Nightstallion 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I still remember the whole bizarre controversy about him soundly refusing a bribe from Milo Djukanovic during the independence referendum in 2006 (which he oversaw for the EU). :) He is not very popular btw because DPS considers he is some sort of an agent of Italy aimed against Montenegro and "pro-Serb" (well they sure can't say that now ;) for (as they say) "inventing the bribing incident" and for imposing the "undemocratic 55% threshold.

Wow, did you really read all that? :) I was shocked (a bit) how long the text was. --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Serbian Poll

Strategic Marketing conducted a detailed poll (I've updated the necessary articles). About 50% of the electorate is willing to vote (rising...):

• SRS - 33%
• DS - 28%
• DSS - 13%
• LDP - 7%
• SPS - 5%
• G17+ - 5%
• others - 9%

We can see that LDP has stabilized around this percentage as its permanent electorate (just like other parties have their own permanent electorates, look at SRS). No can decipher G17, it keeps tragically falling and a bit rising...who knows it's future. About 9% supports minor parties that can't pass the current census.

Oh and btw LDP mostly takes G17's electorate, it seems to me.

And as for political leaders:

• Boris Tadic - 24%
• Tomislav Nikolic - 18%
• Vojislav Kostunica - 4%
• Velimir Ilic - 4%
• Mladjan Dinkic - 1%

...which is a little disappointing - all other political leaders fall below a single percent...and you can guess what that means. --PaxEquilibrium 11:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, 46% considers the elections should be held by the end of this year - while only 27% wants to delay them to the next one. --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what you refer to is that this means that more than 50% don't know whom to vote for...? The polls don't look *too* bad to me. —Nightstallion 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no - that's very high in Serbia. I was referring that Cedomir Jovanovic's run for president might actually be bad for LDP's rating... --PaxEquilibrium 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That's not good, then... —Nightstallion 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - falls down under category "insignificant political leaders", not accumulating one hundredth of the politically determined support. Also just count those percentages - it's obvious you know who STILL is supported more than you know whom. --PaxEquilibrium 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh? I didn't quite get that... —Nightstallion 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously less than a single percent of determined people see Cedomir Jovanovic as a leader. As for the second, compare SRS+DSS+SPS with DS+G17+LDP. --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, yeah, you're right... —Nightstallion 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkish-Kurdish tensions

Hi,

I thought you could take a look at the article 21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK attack (it's discussion and edit history). The article has some problems.

Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know..

..that Montenegro has changed its name with the new Constitution?
..that the Flag is similar in ideology to the Communist flag - a Red Star was added onto the tricolor as an act of implementing of the Revolutionary ideology into the fabric of Montenegro itself - this Flag is a Red Banner with the emblem of the Democratic Party of Socialists, which plans thus to "implant" itself into Montenegrin statehood the same way?
..that on the 2006 parliamentary election, most who voted for DPS-SDP were Montenegrins, and most who voted for SL, SNP-NS-DSS and PzP are (individually) mostly Serbs, while those who voted for the Liberals are mostly Bosniacs?
..that every single police station, every Ministry, the Parliament (as well as most local parliaments) and the President's office all hold a portrait of Milo Djukanovic (altogether some 100 or so) and that there is no where at the same time any sort of depiction of Filip Vujanovic or Zeljko Sturanovic? :))) --PaxEquilibrium 08:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change? Flag? Huh? Could you explain that in more detail?

And the other bits of info are... interesting... —Nightstallion 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No longer "Republic of Montenegro", but just "Montenegro" like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania (hence all are changed now - "President of Montenegro", "Assembly of Montenegro", "Government of Montenegro", etc.).

In the 1940s onto the red-blue-white tricolor a Communist Red Star was added - it's meant to implant the anti-fascist fight and Communism/Socialism into the very fabric of Montenegro as a republic. In 2004 DPS implanted itself into the flag in a similar way (of course, it denies that...). --PaxEquilibrium 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! —Nightstallion 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

EU demands immediate mass removal of portraits of Milo Djukanovic. DPS states that "he's a national hero and that thus that is not possible - that it will stand there as long as Montenegro is an independent country, which it shall remain for over 200 years". --PaxEquilibrium 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then they'll have to wait 200 years to enter the EU, it seems. ;) —Nightstallion 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They semi-complied. Portraits will be removed from the police stations, slowly. Milo Djukanovic said that for greater Montenegrin interests the Montenegrin people has to succumb to some foreign demands, to which it currently cannot stand up - comparing it to the 2002 Treaty that reintegrated Montenegro into a common state with Serbia. He added that he would die for Montenegro on a battlefield. --PaxEquilibrium 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My, what pathos... Still, at least he does what he's asked to do. —Nightstallion 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, I've got it - the Symbols will not be changed. That was just a political trick to acquire parliamentary supermajority for the Constitution. DPS, HGI, DUA, BS, AA and PZP signed a Constitutional Contract that agreed that they all would support the Constitution, and support two important things:

• Two new municipalities will be separated from Podgorica, which correspond ethnic Albanian majority in the settlements in the east of the municipality,
• All three crosses will be removed from the Coat of Arms (and thus, the flag) for religious neutrality.

However, if you notice - SDP didn't sign this agreement. SDP CG is a "clerical" Christian party (aligning towards the "sovereignist" and slightly nationalist line) that dislikes Albanians and, Muslims in generals. It is the sole political party that supports (indirectly) controversial Montenegrin Orthodox Church, IMHO. This is the very reason why the Albanian parties abstained in the vote - because SDP didn't agree to sign the agreement. Today DPS-SDP uses this abstaining as a reason not to create Albanian-majority municipalities. However the Bosniac Party did give the crucial vote necessary to surpass the majority.

The Bosniac Party thus called the Bosniacs and all Muslims in general in Montenegro not to respect the current symbols and this "treachery" of Svetozar Marovic (the father of this Constitution). They say that should not go as far as the Serbs, boycotting it and that they recognize it because they have to - but that the Bosniac people will never forget the tricky way it was adopted. They also criticize the Albanian minority political leaders for being so neutral, asking them to get more activated in opposition against Milo. The DPS MPs say there is no need to bring the subject to the Parliament because SDP said it will never accept the change of symbols, and that thus there is no broader support (note: in 2004 these symbols were adopted by simple majority). This way DPS also evaded the critic of Serbs - they said that it's far too difficult to change the current flag, to explain why a tricolor is unacceptable - however that would've raised controversies if they changed it this way, which Serbs would use as a striking proof of "Anti-Serbdom".

What do you make of this? --PaxEquilibrium 11:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very sneaky. And quite ugly. —Nightstallion 15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there was never any intention to actually fulfill the two demands - and that SDP's accidental "missing" of the contract's signing is actually on purpose, just another political game of Mil... well, Svetozar Marovic in this case. :) Bizarrely, the Constitution adopted several days ago doesn't have the required support now. --PaxEquilibrium 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, of course... —Nightstallion 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Danish election has been called.

The Danish election was called today. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for telling me! —Nightstallion 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Croatian election

Croatian_parliamentary_election,_2007#Poll

The HTV's propaganda promoting HDZ and HSP and undermining SDP has been largely successful, the Croatian Democratic Union might actually succeed in keeping its power. --PaxEquilibrium 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Argh! —Nightstallion 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

HDZ's preelectoral campaign concentrates on SDP. They say "Drogs or No!". They present legalization of Drugs, destruction of Church (anti-religious), legalization of prostitution as SDP's main aims (on several occasions you can see them calling 'em "gay party"). They present that Croatia has two choices: this "Western Evil" or HDZ. --PaxEquilibrium 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I've seen the same done here as well. And it works...? —Nightstallion 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I expect the Serbian politicians to discover in the 2010s, when there'll be a duel between SRS & LDP... --PaxEquilibrium 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Which, I hope, will lead to an increase in turnout from young people who might support the LDP. ;) —Nightstallion 16:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's any young people left then...which I doubt. --PaxEquilibrium 11:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are they emigrating a lot? Isn't there voting from abroad in Serbia? —Nightstallion 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

During the 1990s, 'over 400,000 Serbians below 18 (note: this is underestimate, not overestimate) permanently emigrated. Emigrations are still constant from the late 1980s to the present. The myth about Serbs dying out because of sins actually comes from this: The young leave and the old wait to die (which is not far away from the truth). Serbia is the oldest nation in Europe. The elder people mostly support SRS and SPS (for obvious reasons).

Voting abroad from whom? :) --PaxEquilibrium 13:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's a lot of emigration... I meant if it's possible for Serbians who live, for instance, in Austria, to vote by postal ballot or something like that. —Nightstallion 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's illegal in SERB (just like in MNE)... only those with temporary residence outside can vote. On the last election there was slightly more than 30,000 of them. Around a thousand of them voted...I support this actually, it's very democratic - compare it to Croatia where HDZ won in 1990 and continually won thanks to the emigration, by large the massive Ustasha emigration since WWII. HDZ doesn't (today) - nor did - enjoy majority support from Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, but still -- the emigrants in Poland largely voted for the progressive, anti-Kaczynski forces, and it would be the very same in Serbia. Too bad, though -- a good friend of mine who has Serbian citizenship and lives in Austria would have loved to vote. —Nightstallion 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is, perhaps, one of the remains of Slobodan Milosevic. While most of the emigration would've supported the pro-democratic parties, he managed to control domestic electorate. In addition to that - a thing that most people in the world forget - is that Milosevic conducted (indirect) cleansing of those who oppose him, causing hundreds of thousands to flee from FRY, unable to vote there, of course (which is the cause of this emigration, of which Serbia and Montenegro still have not recovered). Remember that day in 1991 when heavily armed tanks ran across the streets of Belgrade chasing its citizens and when guns were used against protesters. An American of Serbian origins, Milan Panić, was Milosevic's greatest contester. If not for vote-balloting and state propaganda, he would've beat Milosevic for President in 1990 and none of this would've happened... --PaxEquilibrium 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

nods So, no chance of that law being changed to allow voting from abroad? —Nightstallion 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. 0 (important) people support it. When the National Assembly adopted a resolution to allow ethnic Serbs and others who wanted it to receive Serbian citizenship, LDP and LSV accused it for undemocratically following the principle of Croatia - that the diaspora could vote. To this the parliamentary majority responded that those people will never ever have voting rights as long as they do not live in Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Too bad -- my friend's vote would certainly have been for LDP or DS. :) —Nightstallion 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as soon as I finish one or two things remaining - I'm packing and leaving for Canada, Spain or Germany... --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that... —Nightstallion 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

At newest poll SDP leads again... --PaxEquilibrium 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good... —Nightstallion 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The Pope's emissary to Zagreb has yesterday denied corruption charges and officially claimed that the Papacy wants HDZ in place, because it's the only truly Catholic Christian party and that Benedict's personal will is HDZ's victory. Letters from the Vatican were read in all major Churches during service in support of HDZ, however these were peaceful and not aggressive like that one incident. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A question: Why does Angela Merkel (as an individual) support HDZ so much? She is in Zagreb and on all propaganda spots, we can see her far more than even Ivo Sanader? :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- perhaps some personal connection? —Nightstallion 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Socialist Party logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Socialist Party logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Ireland common travel area

Can you look again at your edits relating to Ireland joining Schengen particularly on the EU opt outs page? Even after the dissolution of the CTA it's highly unlikely that Ireland would implement Schengen as it would mean border controls at the border with Northern Ireland, something which would be politically controversial. See discussion here [6] Valenciano 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, through this protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, Ireland more or less has to join Schengen as soon as it does not compromise the CTA -- and if the CTA disappears, nothing is compromised by Ireland's joining Schengen. I'm sure they'll think of something regarding NI. —Nightstallion 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see anything in that protocol that says anything about Ireland joining Schengen. Furthermore the following debate in the Irish parliament makes clear that the current government will not join Schengen. [7]

• Enda Kenny (leader of the opposition) "Does the Taoiseach consider that Ireland should again examine the possibility of opting into the Schengen Agreement in view of the proposal which will take effect in due course? Will he discuss with Prime Minister Brown the question of opting into the Schengen Agreement and the fact that Britain opted out previously and Ireland had to follow because of the existence of the common travel area? If Great Britain intends to have an electronic border around the British Isles, Scotland, England and Wales, what does that mean in terms of entry to Northern Ireland from Great Britain?"
• The Prime Minister: "On the question of whether this is the end of the common travel area and should we join Schengen, the answer is “no”."

On that basis I'm reverting your edits. Valenciano 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The protocol states, however, that as soon as the CTA ends, Ireland will join Schengen -- it states this in Legalese, though ("Ireland will only continue this opt-out as long as it would hurt the CTA not to have this opt-out", and so on). If your PM tries to claim that the CTA will exist even after that, that might work in a sneaky legal kind of way. —Nightstallion 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Serbian presidential election

I hope that the Government (DS & DSS) doesn't reach a compromise. :) --PaxEquilibrium 11:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :) —Nightstallion 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I made a typo - review it. --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, even better! :) —Nightstallion 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW this with the election of Mayor of Belgrade is very bad - they want that MPs from 10 municipal parliaments of the 10 urban municipalities of Belgrade gather around and vote for Mayor! Not to mention that MPs from (the 7) sub-urban municipalities from Belgrade are completely excluded from this. --PaxEquilibrium 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very "democratic" of DSS. —Nightstallion 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is proposed by DS. :) --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs That doesn't make it any better. —Nightstallion 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And the seven sub-urban municipal presidents all say that they won't mind this...but they all are from the Democratic Party too. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quelle surprise. —Nightstallion 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

United Future

I see you reverted recent edits to the article United Future New Zealand. Was there something specific in those edits which made you believe that they lowered the quality of the article? While to some extent they were promoting the party - in the section on "Policy" - this did not seem unreasonable to me, and those changes I've checked appear to be correct - for example, that Denise Krum is now the President.-gadfium 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, an omnibus revert may have been a bit much, but most of the changes seemed to be incorrect or badly formatted (changing the title to UnitedFuture, bolding the entire lede, ...). —Nightstallion 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some doubt as to whether the correct name is now United Future or UnitedFuture - the party website is inconsistent. The bolding of the lede looks like a mistake. I've restored most of the anon's edits, but left the name as United Future and fixed formatting where I noticed problems.-gadfium 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecologists

What you think about the deletion of Ecologists for the Olive Tree? --Checco 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Was it really non-notable? If it is notable, then we should simply recreate the content as part of the PD article (with sources). —Nightstallion 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now named "Ecologist Democrats" and it is a faction within the PD, with more than 100 members in the Constutuent Assembly and many MPs. Regarding other deletions, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian religious minority politicians. I worked hard on it, but (big mistake) I didn't put references. If you think that it is a useful article, let me know, so that I will work on it to find all the references needed. --Checco 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd put the info in the PD article (and source it...), and I'd like to keep the other article, too... —Nightstallion 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How many votes are needed to delete an article? And in this case? --Checco 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically 0, as it's left to the closing admin to decide whether the article should be deleted based on the arguments presented... —Nightstallion 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I inserted a lot of references and I think that both the arguments on lack of refs and about notability are no more applicable to the article. Can you check my work and continue to help me in the discussion? Thank you very much, even if your answer is no. --Checco 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! —Nightstallion 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vojvodina, Kosovo & Montenegro

Ah, it's LSV ("Vojvodina Club" is the deputy club of LSV). It's not really new and not quite neutrally said (firstly Vojvodina never ever wanted independence from Serbia - that's just the minor LSV's policy). Second of all this "only a more radical than Milosevic's Constitution" expanded/returned Vojvodina's autonomy (or better legalized the change from 2002).

However he is right about one thing - Belgrade's policies are pushing Vojvodina into separatism. --PaxEquilibrium 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

nods Will be interesting to see how this develops in the future... —Nightstallion 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[regarding Kosovo] Yeah, I've read that IMHO. That might actually be the reason for this persistence on 9 December as the election date, don't you think? Also today the main subject in Serbian media is the division of Kosovo, as the most probably outcome some time in the first half of 2008. --PaxEquilibrium 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt the same -- it's rather obvious, really: with that election date, there won't be any major election until 2010 (local elections don't really hurt the pro-European forces, even if they should lose them), giving the population some time to cool down from losing Kosovo. Are you sure that Kosovo will be divided, though? I'm not certain that that's either a good idea or actually possible -- UNMIK and later EU troops will certainly protect the de iure northern border of Kosovo, and if Northern Kosovo became part of Serbia, there would be no good reason why the Presevo Valley should not become part of Kosovo -- or the Albanian regions of Macedonia, or numerous other border changes in former Yugoslavia... —Nightstallion 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that's my opinion - but that's currently on table as the main subject about Kosovo in Serbia.

When the UN took over in 1999 they in some places completely altered municipalities and districts in Kosovo, changing the borders and forming new ones, abolishing some...which were not looked brightly upon as the only Slavic Muslim (Goran) municipality at the very south became an ethnic Albanian one. Border changes were already introduced in the first place (at least internally). --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

nods Yeah, but that's different... The knock-on effect of causing other international border changes is not an issue with internal border changes. —Nightstallion 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about conversion of internal into international borders? --PaxEquilibrium 12:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True, that's controversial enough and might lead to renewed calls for Republika Srpska's independence, but at least it won't lead to calls for secession of Albanian territories in Macedonia... I think so, at least. —Nightstallion 13:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way - there is little chance that after Kosovo DSS will withdraw from the government over relations with countries that recognize and independent Kosovo, but we must understand that it is a possibility that it along with SRS and SPS voting out the government. --PaxEquilibrium 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

nods That's what I'm afraid of, yeah. Still, that might actually be a good thing -- if Tadic refuses to call early elections, can he force SRS-DSS-SPS to govern together until 2011? That might make people see how absolutely ridiculous SRS politics are... —Nightstallion 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the Speaker schedules these first elections. And do you not think the three will vote out Oliver Dulic as well?

BTW DS demands parliamentary Vojvodina election on 9 December too... --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh... that's not good, then. Well, as I've said, we'll see. Even if SRS should win big due to Kosovan independence, I hope people would see after four years that they're absolute nutcases... Will Dulic call the Vojvodina election at the same time as the presidential election? What about local elections? And I thought there were a number of laws that needed to be passed before elections could be held? —Nightstallion 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The SPS managed to stay in power (when they undemocratically conquered it) for fourteen years'! And I hope that won't happen - in that case everyone will talk about Serbia and then again (OK, I'll say it) "Serbophobia" will be strengthened far greatly.

DS wants Vojvodina elections, because if there's an opposition in rule in Vojvodina - Vojvodina would de facto be independent practically. --PaxEquilibrium 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but I believe Serbs could be intelligent enough to realise that the "Serbophobia" is not different from the Polophobia when the Kaczynskis were in power... —Nightstallion 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not quite get what you mean with opposition in power in Vojvodina...? —Nightstallion 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Polish leaders didn't conduct evil.

If ruling party A is in power and opposition party B locally in Vojvodina, Vojvodina would find itself in a stalemate with absolutely no progress as the B would constantly block A and at the same time couldn't do much without it. --PaxEquilibrium 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough -- the Kaczynskis only conduct stupidity. ;)

Ah, I see. And what would the likely consequence be? Support for increased autonomy? —Nightstallion 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It would be against SRS's very own policy of existence of Vojvodina, so hence more controversy. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

grins Will be interesting to see... —Nightstallion 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[regarding Montenegro] The DUA ethnic Albanian Minister for Minorities Fuad Nimani, with support from DSCG Mehtem Bardli demand the return of the Law for Minorities, abolished just now by the Constitutional Court (still under direct control of Milo Djukanovic this old one) as per being "unconstitutional" - this was another way to play the minority Albanian/Bosniac support. According to it, ethnic groups that form less than 5% of the population need to have one guaranteed seat in the parliament, and non-Montenegrins (i.e. those not belonging to the majority group) three guaranteed seats. This would enable Croat and Roma minorities to participate for their own representative in elections, while Bosniacs and Albanians would have three seats guaranteed, next to those they conventionally win. Controversies only arise with the cases of controversial peoples in Montenegro - Muslims and Serbs, i.e. should they receive 1 (in the first case) and 3 (next to those they win, in the second case) seats. What d'you bid on this? --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously three. Sounds like a sensible proposal -- which means it should have no chance of being passed by Milo, I'm afraid ...? —Nightstallion 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well like I said - three for those over 5% (Bosniacs and Albanians) and one for those below 5% (Roms and Croats). I actually asked you what about the controversial situation of Serbs and Muslims. DPS fiercely opposes guaranteed seats/no census for minorities, they barely accepted to have a rerun for ethnic Albanian minority representatives after none of them entered the parliament, after the Albanians raised voice. But the Courts are no longer so dependent on him. I reckon there isn't much he could do - a simple majority is needed, so the votes of SDP won't matter if some of the opposition support. --PaxEquilibrium 12:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I just said -- they should get their three seats, obviously. I'd like to see such a change pulled through, it would reduce the dependency of politics on DPS... —Nightstallion 13:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's below 5% Muslims...but most people consider that Bosniaks and Muslims are factually a single people, so they say that the three seats should be guaranteed for both Muslims and Bosniacs at the same time. And for the other matter...Montenegrins and Serbs as one people - and the Serbs comprise a third of the population - hardly for a minority that needs guaranteed seats... --PaxEquilibrium 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, that would work, then, in the Muslim/Bosniak case. I'd still say that if you want to make such a law, it should be all-inclusive, and thus it by definition needs to include seats for the Serb "minority". —Nightstallion 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

...but which would give the Serbs enough votes to vote out Milo Djukanovic's forces... --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

..which means it's not gonna happen - unless the number of seats is irrationally increased, so that that 3/1 are made completely irrelevant. --PaxEquilibrium 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true enough. —Nightstallion 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: News

It's hard to even say what's going on in Somalia. The whole situation is extremely confused. Basically the government is falling apart and those who are in a position of any power whatsoever are scrambling to either keep it or consolidate it. Basically the government and Ethiopian military are losing, their chief power base in Puntland is fragmenting, and the alliance between the Harti Abgaal and the Majerteen clans, which has been the only thing keeping this government from completely imploding, is falling apart too. Interesting times ahead, that's for sure. --Ingoman 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound too good... And what will happen then? —Nightstallion 10:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Change. Death. More of the same really. Ethiopia has just surged another huge battallion into Mogadishu to combat the newest upswing of the insurgency. Things have been bad for a long time now, since April. If this government survives until Christmas I'll be surprized. --Ingoman 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs Won't things ever get better there? —Nightstallion 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the actors involved aren't interested in making things better, because both sides are committed to the complete and total destruction of the other. Virtually everyone in Mogadishu and south and central Somalia supports the insurgency, while Ethiopia, northern Somalia, America, and the warlords support the government. Both of these power bases have an nigh-endless pool of manpower and resources, but the insurgents are gradually gaining the upper hand. --Ingoman 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

sighs So no chance of improvement in the next few decades, it seems. —Nightstallion 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well things certainly look bad right now, that's true. Somalia's troubles for 15 years had to do with clan politics. In the beginning it was an epic battle between the Hawiye and Darod tribes, and within Darod between the Harti clan and Sade clan and within Hawiye between the Habir Gidir clan and Abgaal clan. This complicated battle is what tore Somalia apart. The CURRENT war however is a continuation of that struggle, but added in is another struggle between Somali Islamist nationalism and the pro-western Transitional Government which is an Ethiopian client state. This conflict cuts across clan lines, and has basically set everyone in Somalia against everyone else. Added to this is yet another regional conflict between the seperatist Somaliland and autonamist Puntland. War everywhere. Basically every facet of society and politics and religion at the moment is a source of conflict, division and fighting. --Ingoman 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather hopeless right now... —Nightstallion 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Democratic Union logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Democratic Union logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Republican news

Thanks for that NS! --Lholden 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Poland

Great news btw. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. :) —Nightstallion 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And about EFA...I don't like the emergence of such a political movement, with its radical form.

BTW Did you hear about Mladjan Dinkic? I think this is enough to brake all the corruption myths... --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EFA? Huh? Do you mean the European Free Alliance? I actually support them, personally, as I'm in support of devolution... What about Dinkic? —Nightstallion 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it radical & nationalistic?

All the global (economy-related?) newspapers wrote about the event. He was in Washington last week, nominated for World's best Economic Minister for 2006. --PaxEquilibrium 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's only regionalist/pro-independence, and not nationalist in the sense of PiS in Poland or DSS/SRS in Serbia; from my view, there's a difference between intra-country nationalism (i.e., striving for independence) and country-nationalism (SRS, PiS, ...).

Mh, must hav missed that somehow. Interesting. :) —Nightstallion 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah...I have that wrong impression because of LSV. In Serbia the political party itself is OK, but some of its members (like President, who fought in Croatia in the Yugoslav People's Army and for Slobodan Milosevic by the way) are really extremist, because they have low moral and ethic value - yesterday they supported a Greater Serbia and today this (much like DPS in Montenegro)...I've already told you Nenad Canak is considered "Seselj in clothing". Also the discrimination of refugees I mentioned before isn't really nice. But if it weren't for those, I think you would've liked that party. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yeah, if they are strongly pro-autonomy... ;) I'd be most certainly a LDP/DS voter currently in Serbia, I think. —Nightstallion 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they support autonomy, but they are pro-federalists. They support devolving the Republic of Serbia into an SFRY-style confederation, in which Vojvodina would be as a highest-autonomy unit, a "Republic of Vojvodina" in its current borders. --PaxEquilibrium 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting and like something I'd support. ;) —Nightstallion 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo-Metohija will be another entity (with less autonomy than Vojvodina) and Central Serbia would devolve into four regions with similar autonomy more or less. Belgrade would be a unique city, where the Two-Dome Parliament holds sessions. Similar to the Banates and order during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Less autonomy than Vojvodina? Very interesting. chuckles —Nightstallion 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well their argument is that Vojvodina is more important than others, and that for its protection, it should receive the highest level of autonomy of all entities - whatever the autonomy is. Also the LSV would like constitutional/legal rights for self-determination for at least Vojvodina of those entities, and they themselves ultimately support (and would in cases of e.g. a referendum) some form of a loose "State Union" with Serbia (designed like S-M). --PaxEquilibrium 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, another thing I think I would support... ;) —Nightstallion 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, any region would have the right of independence.

I can't really get you. I'm not sure whether you're a nationalist-libertarian or regionalist liberal. ;))) For one thing, I am 100% for the latter (regionalization is EU's current main subject!) and completely opposing the first.

To tell you the truth openly, I actually see little difference between EFA and SRS or SPS. To me, what EFA is proposing is Greater Serbia and indirectly war, killings, ethnic cleansing etc...and the end of anything related to the European Union. The reason might probably be because I am a victim of war, but that's how I get it. I despise truly pure nation-states (this of course doesn't include USA, Australia or the co.). For instance what LSV proposes is based around economy, much more than (ultra?) regionalism. A United Europe with multi-ethnic regions, rather than states, based on perfect and balanced economy, is my final dream. Creation of that what EFA wants I see as a return to the 19th century and the Age of Romantic Nationalism... --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A green democratic socialist social liberal regionalist independentist anti-nationalist europhile would probably describe me quite well. ;) I could very well agree with your vision of a final dream for Europe... —Nightstallion 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kosovo...yes, that will probably be the ultimate outcome. Also you will find this interesting: both the Serbian and Kosovar sides signed the point upon which they give up on unilateral decisions...I think that this going parallel with the 12-year freeze is not a coincidence. --PaxEquilibrium 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So you think a status freeze is the most likely outcome? Assuming the Kosovans are willing to wait twelve years for their status to be decided, do you think the Serbians will agree to a referendum on independence after that time period? —Nightstallion 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. --PaxEquilibrium 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Kosovans would accept waiting for twelve years and then not even having the *chance* to become independent... We'll see, I suppose. —Nightstallion 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting thing is that the Serb Radicals have interestingly voiced their support of this! ;) They just want the freeze-period to be lengthened for further five years. --PaxEquilibrium 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They would support an independence referendum after seventeen years? —Nightstallion 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, today they'd sign that first-grade solution. --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. And they would honour that agreement in seventeen years' time? —Nightstallion 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. That's the whole point. In 15 or 20 years completely different political parties and people will be in power, things would change (they hope they would be in power and dismiss the treaty because they didn't sign it) greatly and perhaps the world, and even the Albanians would look differently. They would probably support it and then say it was only a temporary resolution to unlock locked Kosovo, and that the final status would yet have to be resolved by compromise. In effect, they would be doing exactly the same thing as the other side - support revising of the deal in the end. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that *if* the Kosovans accept such a deal, then they will only do so if they get it in writing and bindingly that there will be a referendum and that complete independence will be an option... we'll see, I suppose. —Nightstallion 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a such an internationally-sanctioned deal currently en force; in writing by Belgrade and the Albanian leadership, according to which the level of autonomy is to be negotiated (not independence). --PaxEquilibrium 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not explicitly state that the status to be negotiated is autonomy, AFAIK... It just states there can be no return to the pre-1999 status... —Nightstallion 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have to correct you on this one... Let me quote the 1244 Resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1999, which is a component fragment of the Kumanovo peace treaty that stopped hostilities between the two sides as wall as a part of the Constitutional Charter of Kosovo.

In the preamble, we can read the following. That first word is bold because it refers to the previous UNSCRs (1160 from 31 March 1998, 1199 from 23 September, 1203 from 24 October 1998 and 1239 from 14 May 1999) that all appealed for negotiations for the Yugoslav/Serb side to return more autonomy to Kosovo and the Kosovar Albanian side abandons independence calls for merging into a greater Albanian state.

"Again confirming the appeal of previous resolutions for wide autonomy and essential self-government for Kosovo"

Article 10, referring to the authorities of the United Nations Secretary-General, states: "The Secretary-General is mandated to with assistance from authorized international organizations establish civil international presence in Kosovo, so as to secure a provisional management in Kosovo, through which the people of Kosovo will enjoy essential autonomy within the FR Yugoslavia [Serbia] and which will secure a transitional administration through which it will establish and supervise the development of the temporary democratic institutions of self-management, so as to secure the conditions for a peaceful and normal life of all residents of Kosovo."

Article 11 defines the authorities of this civil presence in Kosovo (future UNMIK). It's point 1 states: "supporting establishment, until the final solution, the essential autonomy and self-governance for Kosovo.." It also calls it upon to pay heed to the Annex nm. II. Let me quote point 5 from the annex: "Establishment of a provisional administration for Kosovo as a part of international civil presence by which the people of Kosovo will be able to enjoy crucial autonomy within FR Yugoslavia for which the decision shall be brought by the UN Security Council. The temporary bodies have to secure normal management, and through that to establish and supervise the development of the temporary democratic self-governance institutions in order to secure the conditions for a peaceful and normal life of all residents of Kosovo" The 11th article's point 2 states that the governance of the international civil bodies and local administration is autonomous. --PaxEquilibrium 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. —Nightstallion 11:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No regarding this, I wanted to ask you for personal opinion. In 1999 former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari was the main designer of the peace plans and the resolution, which planned the settling of a form of autonomy for Kosovo some time in the future. He became the chief international mediator for the (failed) 2005-2007 negotiations. During them, he proposed a plan for an independent Kosovo rather and openly sided with the Kosovar side, saying several highly controversial statements for which the Serbs have grown to excessively dislike him. Then we see Olli Rehn in 2001 traveling to Belgrade and supporting the first democratic government and fall of Slobodan Milosevic, presenting the viewpoint of Europe - FR Yugoslavia in EU (Serbia and Montenegro commonly) and then confirming that Kosovo is seen as a distinctly highly autonomous entity within such a state. He also called for some remaining Albanian political leaders to stop agitating and give up as well on desires of an independent Kosovo. This year, he stated in Belgrade that Kosovo will never ever again be a part of Serbia.

Of course, I never believe the stupid superstitious conspiracy theories or anything else - but what answer can be given if a 1998-presence political analysis is conducted? --PaxEquilibrium 12:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A seriously good question to which I have no answer; I can only suspect that they changed their minds for some good reason, but I do not know for which reason. —Nightstallion 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina and to an extent even Croatia (all surrounding states) it is common belief that US pressure was the reason. --PaxEquilibrium 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that was the only reason. —Nightstallion 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too...however that doesn't decrease the amount of desire I have for answers. ;) It only increases it, AFAIK. --PaxEquilibrium 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, yes. —Nightstallion 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian Radicals

I expanded the article on Italian Radicals. There are also interesting news. If you feel that it needs any sort of imporvement, help me in doing that or just inform me. --Checco 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If Rose in the Fist is defunct, shouldn't that article be updated to reflect that? —Nightstallion 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rose in the Fist is defuct, but it formally survives as a loose partnership (as it always has been) and as a parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies. Nothing has officially changed since 2005, but since shortly after the 2006 election it has been clear that RnP has no future, won't ever become a party and that both Radicals and Socialists were heading to different directions and political alliances. --Checco 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. —Nightstallion 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is very interesting is that Radicals seem to be returning back to their libertarianism of the '90s. They will hold their party convention in my homecity (as in 2006), but unfortunately I won't be in Padova during the days of the convention. --Checco 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Will they still support the Union? —Nightstallion 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for now but they're growing critical of it. Remember that they tried to join the Democratic Party but they were refused. Now, they can either join the PD later (especially if Veltroni is seriuos about his pledge of enlarging it and of working on an American-styled party organization, without members) or the centre-right (even if that would mean that they were wrong when Della Vedova decided not to join the RnP and when Capezzone started dissenting from the government and voting against it). --Checco 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer for them to join the PD... —Nightstallion 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With their extreme libertarianism? We'll see. I'm sure that you wouldn't like them, anyway, but from my point of a moderate and libertarian PD would be very cool, even if very unlikely. --Checco 17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism includes a maximum of civil liberties, including same-sex marriage and so on -- so I'd at least support them in many endeavours. —Nightstallion 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When I use the term "libertarian" I refer to American libertarianism. --Checco 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Even US libertarianism includes support for civil liberties, AFAIK. —Nightstallion 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but prominent libertarians as Ron Paul oppose abortion and gay-marriage. Anyway the Italian Radicals are very unconfortable in the centre-left, at least in the centre-right they would be able to pursue their political agenda. The problem of the Italian centre-left is neither liberal on the economy nor about civil liberties and moral issues. How is it in Austria? --Checco 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In my eyes, Ron Paul is not libertarian -- he's economically ultra-liberal, true enough. The centre-left would be liberal about social issues, if it weren't for the too-large coalition ranging from communists to christian democrats (which you seem to so much in favour of); if they wouldn't have to worry about the christian democrats so much, the centre-left could happily introduce same-sex marriage just like in Spain. ;) In Austria, there are no liberals. Well, yeah, the Wirtschaftsbund part of the ÖVP is economically liberal, of course, and the Greens are quite socially liberal, but there's no liberal party to speak of. The Liberal Forum is all but dead. —Nightstallion 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm liberal, but, that's true, I have a conservative streak on abortion and gay-marriage. For the rest I'm totally liberal. I feel uneasy with the cristiano-sociali of the PD: they tend to be too compromising and no reform-loving. They are so leftist that I wouldn't call them christian-democrats. --Checco 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then call them social christians, if you want -- they're still far too christian for me. ;) I'm ultra-liberal on all civil liberties issues, less so on economic issues, but I still consider myself a liberal. —Nightstallion 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find interesting that they are jokely called "catto-comuisti" (Catholic-Communists): even for me they are very unattactive! --Checco 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DieChristenLogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:DieChristenLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Uniting the liberals

Just to inform you, during the weekend the PRI organized a conference named "Toward the European Liberal Democratic Constituent Assembly", aimed at uniting all the Italian liberals in a united liberal party. The leaders of PLI, RL, Decide!, Liberal Democrats, along with liberal editorialists and thinkers attended the meeting, which was concluded by the speech of Silvio Berlusconi. I don't know how many chances there are of a new united liberal party, but I will pay attention to the process. Anyway, for now, I don't write anything in Wikipedia because there is nothing sure about it. --Checco 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Any date for when the next congress will take place, or a website or something like that? —Nightstallion 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What congress? Unfortunately there is no congress on the schedule. Anyway also PLI (partner of PRI in the Republicans, Liberals and Reformers federation) will host a conference on the subject on the second weekend of November. --Checco 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The electoral strenght of PRI and PLI is so negligible that newspapers usually don't write about them. I don't know how many chances there are about an enlargement of the loose federation to other liberal parties. The RL seem too tied with FI to leave it, Capezzone and his Decide! are hading to FI too, while Radicals for now remain part of the centre-left. The LibDems of Dini will join FI (in my opinion), if they are to leave the centre-left. As Della Vedova (leader of RL and MP for FI) pointed out during the convention, there is few space for an autonomus liberal force, FI has already attracted most liberal voters and has a big liberal faction within it. --Checco 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

nods Too bad. —Nightstallion 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because you don't like FI and you don't understand why so many liberals joined it? --Checco 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell -- yes. And because I prefer left-liberals to right-liberals, too. —Nightstallion 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo referendum in 1998

By the way, did you know that there was a referendum in FRY after the Racak incident, on whether an international mediation would be introduced before the war actually started. Although most Serbians said yes, an unbelievable suspicious majority said NO, of whom most were ethnic Albanians. This was used by Milosevic to argue that 1) FRY's people refused mediation, it can't be done without being enforced and 2) the Kosovo Albanians themselves do not want mediation. In addition to that, it was used internally as a justification propaganda - that the Albanians want violence and not peace. --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Worthy of an article to be written, certainly...? ;) —Nightstallion 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really...stubs get deleted eventually. --PaxEquilibrium 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Okay. —Nightstallion 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

I copied the framework of your talk page form my talk page. No problem for you? --Checco 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If the answer is no, can I ask your help? I have some problems with right-border of the framework. Can you fix it for me? Thank you. --Checco 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- and it looks fine to me, what's the issue? —Nightstallion 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not the right-border. --Checco 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and there is a question for you above. --Checco 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me... —Nightstallion 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I can't see the blue right-border. Is it a problem of resolution? --Checco 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, or a browser issue. What's your system configuration? —Nightstallion 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. This is not my computer, when I come home I will see if the problem persists. --Checco 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just let me know if I can help. —Nightstallion 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed with my home computer it's ok. Can you help my to fix the framework in my user page? I would like to have only a thin border on the bottom... Thank you. --Checco 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I solved the problem by myself. Sorry. --Checco 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks just like before to me, but if it works for you too now, great. :) —Nightstallion 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Annulled seats

You posted this link on the template talk a while ago, and it has the deputies elected from each constituency. Unfortunately, I noticed a problem while looking at that list: there are actually two separate constituencies in Bouenza respectively called Nkayi and Kayes, and the sources I found for the annulled seats contradict on which one it is (I had assumed they were just different ways of spelling the same place). Everyking 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I remember finding that one. Mh, so I suppose we'll have to wait for a source which tells us the names of the annulled MPs... I'll remove the Yamba, Kibangou and Mbomo MPs at least, then. —Nightstallion 23:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

May not have been set yet. I'll see if I can find it, though. Everyking 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merry HELLOWEEN!!!

Merry HELLOWEEN!!! What news from Barbados? CrazyRepublican 09:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

None yet that I know of... —Nightstallion 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin parties sister to Serbian

The PZP is a sister-project of G17+. It was traditional for all (opposition) political organizations to tie with Serbia. Since Montenegrin independence the link is mostly historical.

DSS mostly supported the SNP-led alliance. Its sister-party was SrNS CG. However as we all know Kostunica, and ever since the referendum he completely forgot about them, braking all links...and now the Serbs choose wrong parties. As you know, the SRS is in league with them directly in MNE. SNS has recently became a sister-party of a different one - believe it or not - of NS! And the minor DSJ has become sister-party with SPS! --PaxEquilibrium 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... —Nightstallion 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian crackdown!

The Premier of B&H Nikola Spiric has just resigned and dismissed (as per the Constitution - parallel with the President of the Cabinet) the Cabinet of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina! --PaxEquilibrium 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I read about it. What happens now? —Nightstallion 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cabinet is only technical which means that its authorities have been minimalized, to the point that it has only the very basic authorities for statehood.

They have to agree on a new government within a period of time, or schedule a pre-term parliamentary election. --PaxEquilibrium 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Until when do they have, and is it likely they'll manage that? —Nightstallion 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual Constitution seems to bear no mention...it could go on and on...until Lajcak withdraws his proposals. --PaxEquilibrium 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Which I doubt he'll do -- now he can not retract them in a face-saving way, even if he wanted to. —Nightstallion 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the parties will (in some time) reach a compromise to schedule a pre-term election. --PaxEquilibrium 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW check out Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've added the current compisition - any aesthetic advice? --PaxEquilibrium 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Would that then mean that they'd tacitly accept the changes? It's not as if they can do anything...

Looks good to me. —Nightstallion 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. I expect that it'll be a repetition of 1990, and that three (SDA, SNSD and HDZ) "ethnic parties" will win most votes from the three peoples. If you ask for the long run, there'll probably be some sort of an international commission like in 1991, when the future of BH will be decided. --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With what likely result? Abolition of the ethnic entities and division into multi-ethnic districts, as has been proposed? —Nightstallion 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Two options: Cantonization of the whole country into "Federal Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (or something like that) or division into three unitary RS-style entities. --PaxEquilibrium 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's option 1, then there is a lot more chance ethnic FBih-style cantons will be adopted (with even more local autonomy), rather than multi-ethnic. --PaxEquilibrium 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, I think I'd prefer option one. —Nightstallion 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also an option is - however minimal - partition of BH. I myself don't expect it to be the result...but everyone in BH waits 10 December 2007 with both great anticipation and fear..the future of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian state will depend on it, this status quo will be prolonged until that date. --PaxEquilibrium 18:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But om the outcome of unilateral independence of Kosovo and its recognition - there will be nothing that will be able keep the three peoples together - and if the international community attempts to enforce it in an attempt to keep them, they will only help extremists get to power...those that are willing to fight another war. --PaxEquilibrium 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just hope Miroslav Lajcak could lead the thing into an ultimately peaceful and contributive epilogue...and not to be remembered as the man who pushed Bosnia off the edge into the abyss... --PaxEquilibrium 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope he knows what he's doing, as well. I suspect he sees the whole thing as a calculated risk, possibly to try to get the Bosnian Serbs' attention *before* the whole Kosovo issue blows over... We can only wait and hope... —Nightstallion 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

It should be noted that Croats also oppose this. To add further to their frustration, their legitimate representatives are present only on local level in the Federation, and not in the state. Their national representatives (e.g. Bosnian President Zeljko Komsic) are regularly elected by Bosniacs. --PaxEquilibrium 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. And why do they oppose it? Isn't *anyone* in Bosnia in favour of having a common state instead of two which happen to share a name? —Nightstallion 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The Croats and Serbs want their own individual entities. While the Serbs go extreme to the point that most Serbs see BH as some sort of a temporary state and see the future outside of it, most Croats see the same, but not all of them support partition - most of them would support a three-entity republic. As for a common state, only Bosniacs support this - and most of them support a plain unitary state (e.g. like Croatia), but the main reason for that is because Bosniaks are in (relative) majority in the country.

Trust me, this all actually doesn't have anything to do with logic, but solely & exclusively woth nationalism. --PaxEquilibrium 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can only wait and hope for the best. —Nightstallion 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and that's because Bosniaks hold most power with Lajcak's reforms. And the Collective Presidency is composed by two pro-Bosniacs and one pro-Serb - no Croat there. Zeljko Komsic is mostly despised by most Croats and he declares a "Bosnian". --PaxEquilibrium 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He declares himself a Bosnian according to his Wikipedia article, but he does not hold Croatian citizenship as well; I see nothing wrong with that, basically, and 41% of Croats wanted him, so it's the 59%'s bad luck if they split their vote for other candidates, if you ask me... —Nightstallion 15:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with that - but 41% Croats did not want him. Most of the people who voted for him are ethnic Bosniaks. I am thankful extremely that an SDP dude was elected, rather than the HDZ one - but fact is he's not a legitimate representer of Croats. You see there is a glitch - people are elected across entities. So for the election of the Croat representer, Bosniaks elected him - rather than Croats. --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

DSS claims there is no parliamentary majority. The National Assembly has stopped functioning. They will apparently stall it, hoping to defeat DS in a Kosovo political crisis that would probably follow.

By the way - if you want to know who is the sole true master of Serbia - see Miroslav Miskovic. --PaxEquilibrium 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So, DSS hopes for early elections after the Kosovo issue flares up? What can they get out of it? The best they can manage is to become the SRS' minority partner in government -- if the SRS even needs them to govern... —Nightstallion 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DSS has Christian Democrat, National Conservative,... members. It's going through an identity crisis. Its strong leader constantly keeps switching opinions, because he wants to insure DSS a future in (any) Serbia, which is as we all know, unknown... --PaxEquilibrium 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

nods Indeed... —Nightstallion 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mayor of Novi Sad

Perhaps...that still has to be definitely confirmed. AFAIK I was posting this to you but I lost the text. :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW she is the only completely rational SRS member I've met. She allegedly intends to create her own party - one much more closer to DSS than SRS itself. --PaxEquilibrium 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a party far away from either SRS or DSS, thank you very much... ;) —Nightstallion 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So you'd say no to any improvement? --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point there, I should take what improvement I can get. ;) —Nightstallion 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

She is the only Radical that doesn't wear the Badge of Salvation of Vojislav Seselj (everyone does - up to the small kids), she doesn't take part in Radical protests or campaigns (e.g. the Ratko Mladic street incident) and she is constantly fighting with Tomislav Nikolic as well as most SRS deputies in Novi Sad. One miraculous thing, during the display in Novi Sad of Seselj's 100th book, she recommended it to be read by every citizen of Novi Sad and said she'll read herself, because sadly she never got to read any of his books. Interestingly, she kept refusing to comment after that day. My only reasonably assumption is that she was shocked when she read what was there. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

grins Sounds as if she is more sensible than Kostunica... ;) —Nightstallion 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbian political parties

The two are further growing and swallowing the minor ones.

• SRS - 34%
• DS - 31%
• DSS - 11%
• LDP - 6%
• G17 - 5%
• SPS - 4%

And here are the presidential candidates for the 1st round:

• Boris Tadic - 35%
• Tomislav Nikolic - 31%
• Vojislav Kostunica - 5%
• Mladjan Dinkic - 3%
• Cedomir Jovanovic - 2%

And here's the 2nd round:

• Boris Tadic - 52%
• Tomislav Nikolic - 48%

Strategic Marketing said that there is a 3.2% -/+ statistical error.

The election itself will most probably, if you ask me, be held on 20 January 2008 and the second round on 3 February 2008.

By the way - in Kosovo itself, just recently there was a foiled attempt by a paramilitary group taht stole Serbian uniforms to act an intrusion of Serbian forces in Kosovo and present it to the international community. The KFOR arrested these people. In addition to that, their companions of ANA are strengthening in northwestern Macedonia. --PaxEquilibrium 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So Tadic would win, but only barely -- and SRS+DSS+SPS have a majority in parliament? Argh. While DS+LDP+G17 do not... Why do you think the election will be held later? —Nightstallion 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh no, there's no parliamentary election soon. And to secure victory, Boris obviously needs Kostunica's support. Also haven't you noticed DS still rises faster than SRS and that G17 and SPS have switched back places as well as that DSS crumbles?

Because Tadic has again subsided to Kostunica's proposal. --PaxEquilibrium 13:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant in a hypothetical early election due to the Kosovo issue... But you've got a point, viewed like that the changes are quite positive.

sighs And why that? —Nightstallion 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well hypothetically, who knows how much they could alter then.

Beats me. Haven't you noticed that Kostunica always managed to convince Boris? After long and political arguing, Kostunica always wins in the end, no matter what. --PaxEquilibrium 14:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's all part of Tadic's master plan to have the democratic part of the DSS merge into the DS. ;) —Nightstallion 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese renminbi

First, thanks for your efforts on this page's title. Unfortunately, User:HongQiGong has now messed up the history of Chinese renminbi to prevent further moves. Can you suggest how we can proceed? I guess it'll need a vote, which will mean rounding up the "troops" as there appear to be a few recalcitrants to be overcome.
Dove1950 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Factions of PD

Finally I had the time to work on the Democratic Party factions. Some are missing, because they are loose groups without an organization. I preferred to write articles only about factions which have a website and some literature about them. I wrote also about the Liberal-Popular Union faction of Forza Italia. The news in that article could be interesting for you as this faction was founded basically for pushing the party to form the Freedom Party. --Checco 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! —Nightstallion 10:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Writers Guild

I reversed some of your changes on the Writers Guild of America, west article. While you accurately corrected the punctuation, the WGAw intentionally uses incorrect punctuation for their name with "west". This was a friendly correction and I didn't want to start a flame war so let me know if you have any questions in the discussion tab of that aricle. Thanks, DirectRevelation 03:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

That's fine; I updated the article name to fit the correct capitalisation. —Nightstallion 10:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't change back the actual article name, did I? Thanks. 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectRevelation (talk • contribs)

MNE

It seems to me that Filip Vujanovic will remain. For his neutral attitudes he is adored in most of Montenegro, so he is the candidate of all potential ones that has the greatest chance to win. --PaxEquilibrium 12:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

nods And when will we get rid of Milo? Only when Europol finally gets him, right? —Nightstallion 12:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In 40 years when some young EU prosecutor no one has ever heard of dedicates his life to the research of his (by then bygone) dark past, deciding to get celebrated. Sparkles of international but second-grade controversies would follow, with questions whether an 80-year old should be just left to die...etcetera. It will culminate with several interests books, possible a bestseller and then of course a big movie hit. --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, both Italy and the Netherlands are very keen on getting him arrested by Europol, and not just in forty years' time... —Nightstallion 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All demagogues have conducted terrible things. They went on further towards the paths of Castro and Stalin. Slobodan Milosevic was preparing to formally abolish democracy. While Milo Djukanovic was the only one of former Yugoslavian leaders that made a remarkable event of refusal to become Prime Minister, so noble yet so insignificant as he remains the President of the sole party that controls the state, with absolutist authorities according to the program (in DPS program, President can unilaterally change the Statue and Program of the party, all DPS members directly answer to him no matter what [hence the courts problem] and he has the power to evict anyone he wants except the Vice-Presidents - the only remaining thing is to actually write "Milo Djukanovic" instead of "President", but he already introduced his name into the party's program attributing Montenegrin independence solely to him). --PaxEquilibrium 12:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Milo is far smarter than anyone we saw before. He's, AFAIK, a master-mind genius. He actually learns the errors of the others and his predecessors.

I stated that because as time passes his crimes are getting older and more irrelevant, less interesting. The people forgets, in Montenegro due to heavy state control more than usually. In Serbia everyone apparently forgets that Vojislav Kostunica was yelling in 1992 at the Siege of Sarajevo about how good the new Serbian borders are being drawn, and in 1997 that the Hague Tribunal is the last thing on DSS's list as well as his opinions about Slobodan Milosevic and several other people...just like people have already forgotten that he brought Tomislav Nikolic to the seat of the National Assembly. --PaxEquilibrium 13:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, even if people forget in Montenegro due to propaganda -- Europol's prosecutors certainly won't forget, and I've got much hope that they'll get him some time soon. —Nightstallion 13:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About time you get this...

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		For your continuous and most commendable work regarding European issues, I hereby award you this barnstar. Best regards, Húsönd 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DSS

Some speculate that the existence of DSS is to "snatch" votes from the so-called patriotic bloc and then form a government with the so-called democrat bloc, a "gray zone" with its goal being exclusively that. --PaxEquilibrium 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, then they do a pretty good job -- they're certainly fooling me into believing they are too nationalist for my liking... And since when is the nationalist bloc patriotic? ;) —Nightstallion 15:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

..popular name.. --PaxEquilibrium 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, that was meant in a tongue-in-cheek way. —Nightstallion 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is about at least 30% truth in that, and undeniably he wants that to give him the leverage (blackmail), one of the reasons why Kostunica is Prime Minister right now. Pretty clever... --PaxEquilibrium 21:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think will happen if Kosovo declares itself independent in December? I expect that North Kosovo will de facto secede and align with Serbia, but apart from that... Will the governing coalition remain? Early elections? What will Tadic do if Kostunica becomes extremely nationalist in order to gain sympathy? —Nightstallion 21:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

North Kosovo already is more in Serbia than in Kosovo. 40% of Serbian citizens believe the governing coalition will fall because of Kosovo. As for me, I don't expect a radical outcome in 10 December 2007, so I bid it won't simply happen. But more than a month's time is away and things could still change - for instance one day we're sure they'll declare independence, and on the other suddenly all (including the Kosovo Albanians) stand back from unilateral movements.

By the way, what did Wolfgang I. mean when he said for the Kosovo national television that the age of strictly national borders is disappearing when he talked that the two sides are too concentrated on nationalism. Did he mean that about the Kosovar Albanian team? --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant both sides, but definitely the Kosovan side *as well*... I sincerely hope there'll be some kind of amenable outcome to this (either unilateral independence which is accepted by Serbia or some kind of imposed compromise solution which both sides will accept for now), so that Serbia and Kosovo can finally concentrate on much needed political and economic reforms... —Nightstallion 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbia still has the problem of the stable situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina that could jeopardize the stability greatly. It too will have to be resolved (regardless what way), for Serbia to stabilize itself finally. And I am also greatly fearing that questions are just now being opened in Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of questions? Yeah, I agree, the BiH situation will also have to be clarified. At least Albania and Croatia have mostly only internal problems... Macedonia still has its name dispute to work on in addition to internal reforms. —Nightstallion 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatia still has the problem with the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is affected almost as much as Serbia. It's worried as it is the most jeopardized of the three peoples and the international problem of hundreds of thousands of Croats regularly voting and bringing HDZ (which doesn't have that much support in Croatia itself) is a problem. In Croatia, all Croatian citizens across the globe can vote. --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, yeah, that's an issue, too. —Nightstallion 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship, remember? --PaxEquilibrium 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Well, we'll see... What do you think will be the likely outcome? —Nightstallion 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin citizenship is, because of the glitch, treated as domestic in Serbia (all privileges obtained). Three hundred thousand Serbians are on this list. In addition to that, thousands of Montenegrins themselves from Montenegro are educating in schools and going for medical care in Serbia. As much as this hospitality is very nice, Serbia can barely (well, can't) sustain itself and I don't think that this is quite fair.

So far only several thousand Montenegrin inhabitants have taken Serbian citizenship. The Constitutional Law that proclaimed the new Constitution prolonged the situation, saying that all can keep one year after the Constitution is adopted, or until the bilateral agreement with Serbia. Since it's very hard that the two countries, whose relations are a bit worse right now, will come up to a treaty - it's possible the same problem reemerges in a year. If everything than plays out, MNE is going to become a country with the largest percentage of foreigners in the world.

Another issue is the Montenegrin registration tables on cars in Serbia (of Montenegrin citizens living permanently in Serbia). Their status is still unsolved. --PaxEquilibrium 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As if the two didn't have enough other problems currently. —Nightstallion 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is the Serbian question in Montenegro the Serb List opens. --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye... —Nightstallion 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...and also, Croatia and Serbia will have to pass by their traditional hostilities (very strong, especially in Croatia) if stability would be sealed. --PaxEquilibrium 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that is usually not a problem at all. France and Germany suddenly were best buddies after having gone to war numerous times, tensions between Hungary and Slovakia are becoming less and less since they both are in the EU, ... It just works out after a while. :) —Nightstallion 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Just every single time it finally works out, the nations go to war again (it usually takes half a century, WWI, WWII, Yugoslav wars). There is no telling history won't repeat itself, again (yeah, yeah, I know, despite the new world we're in). :( --PaxEquilibrium 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly hope there won't be another war in Europe now that the EU is here to keep peace -- but well, we didn't expect the Yugoslavian Wars of the nineties, either... —Nightstallion 11:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We didn't expect the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s... --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Milosevic did, though... —Nightstallion 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Fallen Love

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fallen Love, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fallen Love is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fallen Love, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin language

A 27-year old Croatian Moslem student has just earned a PhD at the University of Zagreb Philological Faculty in Montenegrin language and literature, on the thesis "Speech of Podgorica Muslims". Parliamentary Speaker Ranko Krivokapic has congratulated him for becoming the first ever Montenegrin-language professor and invited him to come to Montenegro to work on standardization of the language. The Serbs are outraged and furious by the absurdness of the situation. --PaxEquilibrium 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs If they want to make Montenegrin a language, be my guest -- languages by definition come into being when some strong enough force tries to shape and standardise local dialects. Nothing wrong with that, in my view, as long as the other languages spoken by people in Montenegro are also accepted as official. What do you think? —Nightstallion 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against that, but perhaps you should reread this to the up. I think I'll share a similar opinion, the situation is absurd.

If there is no such language and he has yet to contribute its standardization, what did he learn? :)

The "Montenegrin language and Literature" can be studied at the University of Zagreb since 1993, I believe. --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, you can also study Austrian language and literature at some foreign universities, I expect, as some kind of special branch of German studies, so that makes sense; of course the politicians are trying to garner press attention wherever they can, whether it makes sense or not. —Nightstallion 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure...but a Croatian Bosniac who has nothing to do with Montenegro and has finished probably some sort of a Croatian language (original proponents of the Montenegrin language under support of Franjo Tudjman were supporters of croaticization, as opposed to the eternal serbianization) is going to be the father of the language instead of Vojislav Nikčević (who died recently in Belgrade)...doesn't really fit it, does it? --PaxEquilibrium 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also there is another problem, the Roma language is absent in the Constitution, it's not recognized at all. --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, yeah, true enough. On both points, you're quite right. —Nightstallion 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbia

Signing tomorrow the SAA. Although I think it's far too early, it'll probably help ease the tensions a bit. --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, not quite -- they'll *initial* the treaty, not sign it. That's a difference. Initialling it is an important step -- to acknowledge Serbia's work in trying to find the remaining four criminals -- but signing it is the *next* step. —Nightstallion 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Serbia they differ signing and then ratifying.

Yeah, that's what I meant but I still think it's too early. --PaxEquilibrium 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, no, ratifying is one step *after* signing it. If Serbian media state that the treaty will be "signed" -- B92 certainly doesn't, for instance, B92 says "initialled" --, then they are misrepresenting the facts. The steps for an SAA are:

• negotiating
• initialling (by the Commission)
• signing (by the Council)
• ratifying (by the European Parliament, the national parliaments of all EU member states and the national parliament of the SAA state)

... as I think *you* already know, anyway; but I'm afraid some journalists don't know that. ;) —Nightstallion 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

;) OK. Thanks. I still think it's early though. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree -- but the EU had to give Serbia some kind of goodwill sign, and initialling is legally pretty much irrelevant. They made it clear that it won't be signed until Serbia delivers the last four criminals. —Nightstallion 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite fully gonna happen though. --PaxEquilibrium 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then no SAA. Why? —Nightstallion 10:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Serbia is in position to contribute to the catch of anyone other than Ratko Mladic...perhaps Stojan Zupljanin too. --PaxEquilibrium 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose del Ponte will know that, too. —Nightstallion 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

She already knows that - she never ever mentions Goran Hadzic and she herself stated that Radovan Karadzic has vanished into thin air, as well as that CIA is obstructing her in the search for Karadzic. --PaxEquilibrium 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, right. —Nightstallion 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW she's leaving soon. --PaxEquilibrium 11:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I know. —Nightstallion 11:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Montenegrin parliamentary election template, 2006

Because all coalition members are already mentioned in the lists' names themselves, except with the case of the Serb List which isn't a coalition. --PaxEquilibrium 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, the Serb List members should be mentioned in the template then... What is the Serb List, if not a coalition? —Nightstallion 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An alliance with members far beyond those mentioned, and some of those mentioned aren't even parties. It has its own statute, Andrija Mandic is its Chairman and seats in the Parliament do not belong to any single member like with other lists, but to the Serb List as a collective. --PaxEquilibrium 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

... all that should be made clear in the article. To the reader who doesn't know all that, the article on the Serb List seems to say they are just a coalition of parties like all the others... —Nightstallion 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nota bene: "Alliance" as a term is basically equivalent to "coalition", so that alone doesn't differentiate the facts. We should probably classify it as an "alliance constituting a political movement of its own type" or something like that -- only in better terms and in not-so-broken English... —Nightstallion 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tired of writing articles and as I said I'm retiring, so why don't you give it a go? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just correct any factual mistakes I make, good? :) —Nightstallion 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, Bozidar Djelic is realizing successfully in Bar, Montenegro his plans for some sort of a Western Balkan union...first meetings' done. --PaxEquilibrium 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just political cooperation on their way to EU membership, or what? Like the Nordic Council? —Nightstallion 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that I believe. Too bad for now only Serbia and Montenegro are lenient to cooperation, I'd like to see also BH, but because of the crisis it's delayed. The next meeting was supposed to be in Belgrade, where Presidency Chairman Zeljko Komsic was supposed to come, but after he threatened to beat up Vojislav Kostunica and the official demand for apology from Boris Tadic, as well as his refusal to apologize and that he stands by his statements, this'll not happen. --PaxEquilibrium 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems so, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ITS logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ITS logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Liberal Democrats logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Liberal Democrats logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:La Destra logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:La Destra logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Serbian poll

Actually, that's the same as that last one. --PaxEquilibrium 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. —Nightstallion 10:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatian accession to EU

The most recent report was publish. Croatia remains to finish with the judicial reforms, continue dealing with still troublesome corruption and handle the discrimination of the Serb and Roma minorities. Serbs are reported to not being hired for jobs on the basis of ethnicity, the return of the refugees since the war is still very slow and the status of tenancy rights is still unresolved. --PaxEquilibrium 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 10:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thein Sein

Hi, there's an unprotection request for Thein Sein. You protected the page on October 17th, from all non-admin edits. Do you believe that the protection is still necessary, or could it now be removed? TSO1D 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. —Nightstallion 10:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nauru Referendum

Hi, I am Maximiliano Herrera, the editor of Electoral calendar. Got some news about Nauru. Yes, the referendum will be held and several changes in the constitution will be submitted.

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/tokpisin/news/s2076573.htm

This article in pidgin has been translated in the userpage of Wantok. It says referendum will be held in early 2008 and not anymore in late 2007. So that, please creat a a page called Nauru Constitutional Referendum 2008. Also, Guinea parliamentary election will almost surely be delayed as far as March 2008.(correct the calendar).

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.191.176 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! BTW, you might want to register and get an account -- or use it, as I think you are already registered. ;) —Nightstallion 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgian elections

Whoops - thanks for the heads up on that - when I started the article, the BBC article didn't say it was a presidential election! пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

The Kosovar leaders have suggested that negotiations should henceforth be held in places across Serbia and Kosovo. However the oppositions opposes it, calling it problematic.

What do you think about the most recent proposition of Belgrade (Hong Kong principle)? This time I can see only positive critics from world media, as well as the Trio.

The NATO has recently prevented an Albanian paramilitary group to stage a Serbian assault on Kosovo. The culprits are arrested; it was supposed to be aired to the public to spread tensions and trick the international community. --PaxEquilibrium 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounded like a good step towards a compromise. —Nightstallion 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And the Albanian proposal for negotiations? --PaxEquilibrium 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh? What do you refer to? —Nightstallion 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First sentence. --PaxEquilibrium 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, must have missed that. Mh, doesn't sound like a bad idea -- might make the critics see the whole issue (Kosovo will be a financial black hole for Serbia, Albanians would have a lot of political influence). —Nightstallion 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, what does that have to do with the negotiations...? --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It might encourage a more wholesome discussion about surrounding conditions like the one I mentioned...? —Nightstallion 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. the opposition..well, opposes (lol) it because they say it would seem as if Kosovo is an internal part of Serbia and an internal and not international issue. --PaxEquilibrium 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Even if the discussions were in Serbia *AND* Kosovo? Ah, well. —Nightstallion 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's officially a part of it... --PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But as the Kosovans don't hold that POV, they should be satisfied if it's in Serbia *and* Kosovo... ah well. —Nightstallion 13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian Christian Democratic Movement

A tag has been placed on Albanian Christian Democratic Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Springnuts 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion/Image:Europe belief in god.png

Hi Nightstallion, I have noticed your change to the map. I also think the old version had indeed higher readability. Do you still have an eye on it, and, how did you change it? Because your version has been reverted again... all the best Lear 21 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You simply have to go to the Wikimedia Commons and revert the image at commons:Image:Europe_belief_in_god.png. I've tried to present the situation at the image's talk page, you might want to chime in. —Nightstallion 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Template:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Hi Nightstallion, as per the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, please don't change — or remove — flag template variant selectors unless you are certain they are not used anywhere. When you removed the local variant from this template, it broke at least one instance where it was expected. Thanks, Andrwsc 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my bad. —Nightstallion 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like only four pages were affected, and I've fixed them, so not a tragic event in this case! Cheers, Andrwsc 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Tags

Hi Nightstallion.

Please do not remove the proposed speedy deletion tags from articles you have created. I am sure it was done in good faith, but some would consider it vandalism. Regards Springnuts 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough -- I just really didn't find the deletion proposal made any sense at all. Cheers! —Nightstallion 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

I have very bad feelings about Macedonia. In northwestern Macedonia there has recently been a conflict with Albanian armed insurgents. So far they have been presented as organized Macedonia-Kosovo criminals, but the government in Skopje has characterized them as terrorists. The Republic of Macedonia has so far been not keep on recognizing this, because it would distance them from their path towards EU and the NATO, critics say.

All of these units across Kosovo, Macedonia and the Presevo Valley have recently formed all together a group called "Liberation Forces of Albanian territories", whose main goal is to seceded these Albanian-populated territories, as well as those with considerable Albanian minorities or historical presence of Albanians in the past, and join them to Albania. They claim the Macedonian government is a Serbian puppet regime.

The Alliance of the Future of Kosovo's campaign includes a fiercely nationalist rhetoric, in their campaign they declared that they stand for an unconditional immediate declaration of an independent and Albanian Kosovo, which will include "Eastern Kosovo" (referring to Presevo, Medvedja and Bujanovac); they also stress that discrimination of Albanians in Macedonia must come to an end, and expressing worry about Albanians in Montenegro and Greece. The most controversial was the statement of several individuals that a referendum should be conducted in Kosovo, Albanian-populated settlements in southern Serbia and in northwestern Macedonia. They also stated that the ICTY is an anti-Albanian court. The Albanian insurgents in Macedonia that called themselves "Political Council of the Kosovar Liberation Army" are in direct connection with this, trying to strengthen their forces.

If the Assembly of Kosovo unilaterally declares independence on 11 December this year or so, I won't speculate what could occur in Macedonia, especially if Macedonia doesn't recognize it (might even see a repetition of 2001). --PaxEquilibrium 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if RoM does recognise Kosovan independence, the Albanians in RoM might be mollified... But yeah, the Balkans as a whole are increasingly worrying me. —Nightstallion 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Montenegrin analysts speculate that when a conflict is raised in the neighbouring countries, it finally grasps Montenegro. It was and is the most peaceful of all the ex Yugoslavian states, but what is slightly disgusting is that they are actually counting on it, because it would reunited Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean if a conflict breaks out, Montenegrins and Serbians in Montenegro will finally work together as they realise they live in one of the two most peaceful former Yugoslavian republics? —Nightstallion 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but discovering a common enemy (which was 99% in the history the case for unifications). --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. sighs —Nightstallion 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW "Serbians" is a bit wrong term, because they really don't have to do (anymore) anything with Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Serbo-Montenegrins, then? —Nightstallion 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Albanian Christian Democratic Movement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Albanian Christian Democratic Movement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Christian Democratic Movement. Thank you. Springnuts 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

MNE

The Movement for Changes has initiated a request to sign a resolution of support of Serbian territorial sovereignty and guaranty that MNE shall not recognize Kosovo if it declares independence unilaterally, originally proposed by the People's Party but the main difference in that it was originally planned never to recognize independence of Kosovo in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. What will Milo do? —Nightstallion 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He has stated that he's neutral but has received a huge hit to his reputation when he received Agim Ceku as a private guest last year (the public opinion is against Kosovo independence and generally considers Ceku a notorious war criminal). DPS in term opposes independence, but because of the international situation, the Prime Minister Zeljko Sturanovic has stated that MNE is completely neutral on the issue. The somewhat pro-Serbian President Filip Vujanovic on the other hand has stated that an independent Kosovo would be the worst thing the Balkans could have after the 1990s. The SDP (Speaker Ranko Krivokapic), for obvious reasons to you, openly strongly opposes independence of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire opposition strongly opposes independence of Kosovo, except the Bosniak and Liberal parties, which are neutral (but the Bosniak leaning towards independence and the Liberal leaning towards no independence). --PaxEquilibrium 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, I'm a bit frustrated that the Constitutional Law mandated an "early" election in 2009. Does that really deserve to be called early? Milo did that because that's the only way to progressively work to sustain popularity (I am convinced they would not have won if there was an election right after the Constitution's adoption), but than again Nebojsa Medojevic needed that to repair his drowning popularity (one of the attempts being this very resolution). --PaxEquilibrium 23:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Filip has just proposed Milo Djukanovic for candidate and has said that he will do everything to convince him to accept the act, a "logical end" (?) to his career. He also said that should he sadly refuse, he would gladly run instead. --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise. —Nightstallion 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatian election

Sadly, I failed to really get to register, but I support HNS most surely. --PaxEquilibrium 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

nods I haven't really thought about whom I would vote for. Why did you not register for the election? sighs One vote less for the democrats... —Nightstallion 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said this registration is really crippling for us living abroad. Today the deadline expired and I found about it late, as well as the whole process of registration (which is pain in the ass, requiring to go to several institutions that work only until 13:00 & only on working days, which are, well working)... --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad... —Nightstallion 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

More news: the Roman Catholic clergy in Croatia have officially invited the people to not vote for anyone who is in any way against the Homeland War or supports contraception, and has criticized the "atheist forces", calling all Catholic Christians not to vote for "satanist party" SDP. --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I never liked the Catholic Church much, but I wouldn't have thought they'd dare influence politics *that* much nowadays... —Nightstallion 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I just quoted the precise words of the Zagreb Archbishop (Cardinal) and the Bishop of Varazdin. President Stjepan Mesic has sent harsh critics to the Church.

Ah, now it's clear. Premier Ivo Sanader has sent about a million euros to the Roman Catholic Church just during this electoral campaign. They have also launched the "For Christianity!" progrem to restore Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Catholic institutions right this week...figures. --PaxEquilibrium 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. sighs —Nightstallion 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Most parties oppose intrusion of Serb capital into Croatia, even in the case of say 5% of some Austrian company is owned by an ethnic Serb. The only ones who stood up against this are HSU (Retired persons) and HNS (Liberal Democrats). This is scandalous. --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

sighs Really, sometimes I'd like to go to sleep and wake up fifty years hence, when everything should be better... —Nightstallion 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The called upon the European Union, Germany in particular, saying that they do not accept Russian capital. So why should this be any worse? Is that true?

P.S. Wouldn't do any good. The Balkans AFAIK go to war every 50 years, so you'd just wake up in the middle of another one. --PaxEquilibrium 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Some EU countries have some restrictions which state that if a country imposes restrictions on foreign ownership of companies in specific sectors -- as Russia does in the energy sector -- they will impose parallel restrictions; as soon as Russia lifts the restrictions limiting foreign ownership of Gazprom, in particular, the restrictions in Germany, for instance, would also be void. But I didn't expect the Croatian nationalists to actually understand a concept as complicated as that. ;) —Nightstallion 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, though I sincerely hope there won't be another war in Europe while I live. —Nightstallion 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in Serbia all major goods that aren't owned by the tycoons (who AFAIK are all from Montenegro or Croatia ;), are all owned either fully or partially by major Croatian investors, and whereas no (or close to no) Serbian product can be found in Croatia, whereas any can be bought in Serbia...actually, I really don't get this. Even SDP HR is neutral on this question, they claim that capital has no ethnic origin, but that its far too early, far too sensitive yet to open up for the Serbian funds, that it would stir up divisions between Croats and Serbs.

BTW the latest - and last - poll: 46%:41% for HDZ:SDP. --PaxEquilibrium 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh, not good. —Nightstallion 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment?

Did you follow this discussion [8]. If not, don´t start it´s a lengthy reading. If yes, Maybe you want to comment this [9]. Lear 21 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And maybe here [10] Lear 21 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

The Serb Orthodox Church in Rascia-Prizren has called the Serbian Orthodox faithful to boycott the elections. The Serbian Ministry for Kosovo-Metohija has also did yesterday called all who support Serbia's territorial integrity in Kosovo to boycott the elections... --PaxEquilibrium 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder why they think *that* will help. —Nightstallion 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Kosovar journalists have been allowed to investigate the Albanian National Army in a secret exclusive interview with their leader. Patrols controlling the cross-points to Serbia were noticed, all around North Kosovo. The leader claimed that he leads a squadron of 50 men, but their whole force numbers over 12,000 men. Recruitment of 20 new men were recorded in a secret camp somewhere in North Kosovo. He called for all Albanians to boycott the forthcoming elections, alluding that all who vote for the "traitors" will find themselves at the tip of their swords. --PaxEquilibrium 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

sighs Sometimes I wonder whether we shouldn't simply put a big fence around the Balkans and wait two decades to see whether it gets better after that... —Nightstallion 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd see a large utopian medowland with some 100,000 residents. --PaxEquilibrium 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

chuckles Of what ethnicity? ;) —Nightstallion 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they'd understand that... --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

chuckles again —Nightstallion 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

BTW, unrelated to Kosovo - but brilliant news for Slovenia, Turk won, and by a strong majority of votes. This says about the desire of the Slovenian electorate to distance from the slightly nationalist and conservative ruling policy and return to...well, copying Poland? --PaxEquilibrium 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep! :) :) :) —Nightstallion 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When and why?

When you will expell Samoa from monarchy map? Why not all countries including subnational monarchies (from table) are not shown on this map? CrazyRepublican 10:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which map are you referring to? —Nightstallion 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you referred to Image:World Monarchies.png, I just corrected it (PRC, Indonesia and SA coloured pink, Samoa no longer green). —Nightstallion 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! I hadn't the access to Internet near a day.CrazyRepublican 10:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! —Nightstallion 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Danish elections

Here are the preliminary results: (Danmarks Radio, 23:40. 100% counted in Denmark proper.)

• Venstre: 46 seats (-6)
• DPP: 25 seats (+1)
• Conservatives: 18 seats (no change)
• New Alliance: 5 seats (new)

• Social Democrats: 45 seats (-2)
• Social Liberals: 9 seats (-8)
• Socialist People's Party: 23 (+12)
• Red-Greens: 4 seats (-2)
• Christian Democrats: 0 seats

V+DPP+Cons. received 89 seats. It takes 90 to form a majority. The Faroes and Greenland haven't been counted yet, but preliminary results from the Faroes (21% counted) state that the two Faroese seats will split with 1 for each side.

Social Democrats+Social Libs.+SPP+R-G: 81 seats

Greenland will in all likelihood elect two socialists, so provided that the Faroes elects at least 1 right-wing member, the current VK administration will continue. In 2005, the Faroes elected 1 member either way. Naser Khader's New Alliance took a severe beating and commentators are already arguing that his financial supporters will run away now since it looks unlikely that he will get any definitive say in anything. Fogh has called for cooperation with the opposition. Khader has this evening argued - yet again - that his task is to keep the DPP out of influence, which doesn't hide that he made a poor show during his "victory speech". The Red-Greens scraped over the 2% threshold with a mere 2.2%. Until 80% of the votes were counted, it looked like they would lose their seats. The Centre Democrats and the Christian Democrats are dead now. The Christian Democrats gambled that they could win a "district seat" ("kredsmandat") in the West Jutland district and thus ensure at least 1 member of parliament. Everything indicates that they failed in this respect, and they even took a loan with the party HQ as security. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So that means four more years of Rasmussen, but a rather instable government? —Nightstallion 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Four more years indeed but speaking from my point-of-view, the VKO majority is a stable situation. Those that wanted to jump ship have already done so, and Kjærsgaard has stated that the DPP will not try to bring down a Fogh-led administration. Provided that the Faroese votes split like projected, the 2nd seat will be for the Republicans. Nominally socialists, but they can cooperate with right-wing administrations as well. Or as somebody said: they can be bought by the highest bidder. And Khader can kiss his hopes for a tax reform goodbye. Kjærsgaard has just rejected it. Actually, I'd like a tax reform, but Khader blew it by his stern demand that Fogh - provided that the VKO coalition lost its 90th seat - should resign and then ask the Queen for permission to open negotiations to form a new government. Amateur. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Danmarks Radio just announced that one of the Faroese seats goes to Sambandspartiet. By tradition, any MP for Sambandspartiet automatically joins Venstre's group since the two parties consider each other to be sister parties. At the moment, anything indicates that Khader's new party will get a tough existance. He gambled that he would be in a position to blackmail Fogh, but this looks unlikely now. In all likelihood, Fogh will simply announce to the Queen tomorrow that no majority exists against him, consequently, the cabinet will simply continue. Thus, he will *not* resign and consequently not open negotiations with Khader. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, will the election result influence the independence movements of the Faroe Islands or Greenland in any way? Any news on the referenda? —Nightstallion 23:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Faroese politics are always as mystery. Regarding Greenland, one of my friends and his girlfriend just returned from a month's stay in Nuuk. They told me that they didn't hear any agitation at all for independence. They concluded that it was something that Kuupik Kleist and Lars-Emil Johansen whipped up when they were in Copenhagen. It looks that many Greenlanders are more interested in why their social fabric is crumbling to pieces. A documentary aired on Danish tv reported massive alkoholism (no news there) and that every third Greenlandic girl had been sexually abused. The number is lower for boys but still higher than in Denmark. When I read the Danish-language blog entries at Sermitsiaq (www.Sermitsiaq.gl) regarding this issue, the debate was the most poisonous I've ever seen. Or in other words, next to all posts blamed their own government squarely for the social problems, many posts saying "when will you stop blaming Denmark for our own problems and start solving them. Lars-Emil, your party has been in power for 20 years, and you haven't solved a thing." Posts like that coupled with accusations of corruption and nepotism, you get the idea. According to my friends' impressions: the average Greenlander would like independence - as a matter of principle - but they consider it to be completely unrealistic at the moment. One of Greenland's problems is that local mayors have to be ethnic Greenlanders. *Many* mayors are completely incompetent which means that all power rests in the hands of the (Danish) head of their municipal administration. Seems that the Faroese newspaper Dimmalætting reports that some districts in the Faroes haven't counted their votes yet (Klaksvik). DR estimates that 1 of the two seats will be fore either Sambandspartiet or Folkeflokken (the Conservatives). Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! —Nightstallion 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Slobodan Milosevic

Did you know that someone broke into his tomb several months ago, opened his coffin and stabbed a stake through his heart? :D --PaxEquilibrium 11:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, just to make sure. ;) No, hadn't heard of that yet... —Nightstallion 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. AFAIK he is his (very distant) relative, a young journalist by the name of Milovan Milosevic. He immediately after that called the police with his cell phone. Due to the hilariousness of the message he's sending and no charges, he was released. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

nods Great. :) —Nightstallion 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Statute of Vojvodina

Milosevic's Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina from 1991 is due to be replaced. The new one is going to proclaim "Serbian and Croatian" official, instead of "Serbo-Croatian" (next to Hungarian, Romanian, Rusyn and Slovak) and is going to concentrate on the rights of minorities. It will be defined as a "civic entity" with "all nations constitutive". It will also be proclaimed a Province of the independent Republic of Serbia, excluding a reference to Yugoslavia. The precise level of autonomy will be defined, which remains still an open question for negotiations, as SRS demands it close to nothing, while LSV wants some form of a near-republic. Another issue on which most Vojvodinians are divided are the symbols: the flag and coat-of-arms, whether they should be legalized and if so, amended.

You could note it on your notes for constitutional reform...do you note entities? --PaxEquilibrium 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, will do in this case. Until when will it be reformed? —Nightstallion 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No deadline. But they're starting the work on it right now.

LSV demands it to be called Constitution again, but most parties think this would be problematic, due to the fact that there can be only one constitution for a whole country. --PaxEquilibrium 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, not true -- in federal countries, it's normal for every federal state to have its own constitution. Besides, even clubs and parties have constitutions, so the name is not really a problem. —Nightstallion 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't change change the fact that opponents claim this. ;) Remember that I in 75% of the cases just pass to you information, not my observations. Also Vojvodina isn't quite a federal state - it's just a province, just like the City of Belgrade is autonomous. --PaxEquilibrium 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. So, what's the likely outcome? And what changes have been proposed to the flag and CoA? —Nightstallion 09:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The same as the 2002 Omnibus Law and none. --PaxEquilibrium 12:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I.e., likely just a reconfirmation of the present autonomy? —Nightstallion 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

confirmation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Vojvodina legally in limbo right now under the new constitution? wonders —Nightstallion 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no. The Omnibus Law defines its autonomy in full precise, and the Constitution only defines that its autonomy will henceforth be established by proper laws - which is the Omnibus Law. But to finally close the deal, a new Statute will have to be brought. This of course will also mean that the autonomy of Vojvodina would be sealed, which the autonomists (LSV) won't like. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The current statute drafted by the Socialist Party of Serbia in 1991 gives AP Vojvodina very little autonomy more than, say, the City of Belgrade has. In effect that's why Serbia cannot be observed otherwise than a unitary state. It also makes some odd clauses by which Belgrade could in some cases take direct control over any Vojvodina's institution (misused very rarely so far, and only by Velimir Ilic ;). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So the LSV would prefer some kind of open-ended deal which leaves the possibility for increasing autonomy in the future. —Nightstallion 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The LSV and SVM have submitted a draft of the new Statute. It will be the foundation for a new statute. DS has stated that in no negotiations will it take part before new provincial elections, as per the Statute that vests only in newly-elected parliaments the power to change the Statute. The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina will be a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional European region of the Republic of Serbia, with the following constitutive peoples: Serbs, Hungarians, Croats, Slovaks, Montenegrins, Romanians, Bunyevs, Rusyns and Roms; but smaller communities will have guaranteed rights as well. Official languages will be the Serbian and Cyrillic script and Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, Romanian and Rusyn and their scripts. Banat, Backa and Baranja will be the three entities comprising it, but further decentralization on more districts will have to be conducted. The Parliament of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina will be composed out of 120 MPs that are elected on the basis of national equality of all the peoples. The Council of Nations special body parallel to the parliament will be elected. The Assembly will have the power to enact Laws, that if in accordance to the Statute, will have legal power for Vojvodina. Property of AP Vojvodina will be specifically defined, separate from that of Serbia's. Vojvodina will be encouraged to participate in European integrations as a European region. The Government of Vojvodina will be its executive body. The President of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina will be elected by two-thirds of the parliament and will be the supreme representer of the province. The statute draft in its form is not contradicting the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Anything controversial about it? —Nightstallion 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Just that many people think it's too much. Also I forgot to mention that it will legalize the Flag and Coat of Arms. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs I think it's fine. —Nightstallion 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well one point why many disagree is interesting: Why call provincial government? It's just a name and there's no difference. Always has it been (and is) "Executive Council" and they argue that only Serbia's national executive body should be called "Government" to symbolically represent sovereignty. They think that the only desire to argue about the name is separatism/regional-nationalism. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs It's called "government" in Scotland, too, and noone's hurt by that... ;) —Nightstallion 22:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

..and Scotland is factually a nation within a country, possibly on the path towards independence.

Also the actual need for a President is argued. They don't see where it lies. They argue the need for President is to represent a sovereign nation, which Vojvodina isn't. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Still, I see no problem with it -- autonomous regions in France, for instance, also have presidents and governments. —Nightstallion 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In former Yugoslavia the situation is different. Yugoslavian republics got Executive Councils, and then in 1974 governments. In 1990 the republics got Presidents. The PISG in Kosovo has a Government and a President. It is directly connoted with separatism. In BH the proponents of a secular and united Bosnia and Herzegovina support renaming "governments" to "executive councils", because of the same reason. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see... —Nightstallion 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was expecting you'd say "Who on earth are Bunyevs?". :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can google, too... ;) —Nightstallion 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD

Just list them on the nomination page and I will get to them before the month is over. However, do you want your lists to be considered against each other in the same month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to formatting your nomination. You may edit it as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

MNE

The SDP-initiated resolution is about to be brought into parliament. It is supposed for formally/legally abolish the decisions of the 1918 Podgorica Assembly. The public sees this problematic. --PaxEquilibrium 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What decisions tdid that Assembly make? —Nightstallion 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deposing of the ruling dynasty in favor of the Serbian, declaring union with Serbia and informing the related bodies of the decision. --PaxEquilibrium 23:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. No surprise then that Milo wants to revoke that... ;) —Nightstallion 09:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet in '92 he waved with the original document of that decision in Podgorica, spat at the liberals, Ustashas and all kinds of traitors, in front of a massive meeting filled with Serbian nationalist rhetoric during the referendum to keep Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting transformation... —Nightstallion 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote you some of his words:

“ It's time to once and for all establish the firmest border possible with Croatia, but it will be a border a lot more just and realistic than the existing one that was drawn-up by Bolshevik map makers. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1991

“ ..and Chess I hate because of the Chessboard ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1991

“ Milosevic is something best that could happen to Yugoslavia at this moment, when vampirized fascist forces in Croatia and Slovenia are trying to destroy everything created from 1945 till today. I am proud to be in these historical moments shoulder to him in the defense of the foundations of the Revolution. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1992

“ We have already thinned the AVNOJ borders of Montenegro and Herzegovina, that is eastern Bosnia and Montenegro. Enough has the Serbian people been a slave to brotherhood and unity, AVNOJist, Tito's Yugoslavia, and even the dreams of Aleksandar Karađorđević to fix Yugoslavia. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1992

“ Every intelligent Montenegrin and every honest man in this country with contempt mentions the name of traitor Jevrem Brković, who out of personal vanity has betrayed his people and now gives anti-Yugoslavian speeches at Zagreb, while the Ustashi, again like in 1941, bleed their stones on defenseless Serb civilians. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1993

“ We are proud of our Serb origin and Montenegrin statehood, on the famous history of the Serbian People. That's why we believe in common future and prosperity. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1993

“ Regarding the fear from Serbia, it's trying to be politically manipulated by a number of people, successors to the Ustashoid policies of Sekula Drljević and Savić Marković Štedimlija, a policy of separation from the Serbian People. In their blinded hatred, they invent ethnogenetic theories how we come from Asia Minor, they tell that our script is Latin and faith Catholic... and all that with the intention to prove that we are not Serbs. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1993

“ Because of eternal fraternal links; common blood spilled in all wars, because of the eternal dream of all Montenegrins and Serbians, because of undoubtfully better common future, Montenegro open-heartedly decided to live in a common state with Serbia. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1993

Pick your (least) favorite. ;P --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. —Nightstallion 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't decide which one you like the most? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No -- could you? ;) —Nightstallion 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Have two more:

“ On Kosovo Yugoslavia is attacked. Kosovo is the heart of the Serbian-Montenegrin people that cannot fall as long as we are alive and the legend of our forefathers stands. We (DPS) have said countless times: KosMet has to be defended by any and every means possible. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1990

“ Montenegro isn't Slovenia. It is a component of Yugoslavia and it will be because that is it's wish. ” — Milo Djukanovic, 1999

..especially notice the latter year. That's when the pro-Milosevics accused him for separatist tendencies. He explained to the public and to ensure support campaigned in Montenegro that his intentions were never, aren't and will never be to separate from the brother people of Serbia, but merely against Slobodan Milosevic and his erroneous policies, and that after he's defeated the only obstacle between Montenegro and Serbia would disappear. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. ;) —Nightstallion 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note is that instead of boycotting FRY institutions, Milo could've simply entered them, and using the federal power blocked any decision of Milosevic's government. The new Milo-led coalition could've even voted out Slobodan Milosevic from President. :) However he chose to boycott. But after the Bulldozer revolution, he said that Milosevic is defeated and reentered the institutions, blocking all decisions of the DOS, on the grounds that he wants dissolution of FRY and an independent Montenegro...what does this tell you? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That he is one of the most shrewd and disgusting opportunists ever to have operated in a semi-democratic system? —Nightstallion 10:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just waiting to see what he'll do about the rapidly growing anti-NATO sentiment. NATO is already unpopular, and wherever Milo fails to alter the population's opinion, he adapts his own. A marvelous thing to note is that always the very same rhetoric appears, as with the statehood question. At first he said that he only opposed Milosevic, and you will find this hard to believe: but during the 2006 independence referendum, one of the prime campaign slogans was for independent Serbia. He called for everyone who at least a little cares about Serbia in Montenegro to vote for an independence, and during the meeting a Serbian national song (not Montenegrin) was played. :)))))

P.S. Milo Djukanovic is the owner of the richest company in the state (registered to his house ;). Several days ago he opened another, also registered to his house. Also it might be interesting for you to find out that the State Institution for Construction and Treasury is addressed to his house and that its President is his son, Aco Djukanovic. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, again. —Nightstallion 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

Please explain yourself. Cburnett (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry -- I didn't realise the coin was already out (and I misclicked rollback instead of undo). Time to go to bed, it seems. —Nightstallion 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then! :) Cburnett (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

30% turnout so far of the total 1.5 million.

Less than 5% Serbs voted. Since a single vote is sufficient for the only Serb list to enter the parliament, they (Serbian National Council of North Kosovo and Government of the Republic of Serbia, that is Ministry for Kosovo-Metohija) have failed to make a successful boycott, although have delegitimized the future Serb MPs. Also, if the boycott is as massive on local elections (last time they only boycotted parliamentary), this would mean that in the places with Serb majority Albanians will form self-government...and that could lead to horrible consequences.

Thaci's right-wing and nationalist opposition Democratic Party of Kosovo is leading, for the first time, over the moderate ruling Democratic League of Kosovo. This doesn't look good. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Very, very bad-looking. Hashim Thaci is going to probably lead Kosovo, and the Reformist ORA of Veton Surroi didn't even pass the census... the Serbs boycotted local elections greatly too, and they won't allow the elected (if any) Albanians to take over leadership. They have already established their own system in North Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

sighs Wonderful... —Nightstallion 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Serb-populated areas of Kosovo:

Leposavic: According to 2 of 32 counted voting stations, PDK is leading with 53%

Zvecan: According to 1 of 16, PDK leads with 31.4%

Zubin Potok: 3 of 18 counted, LDK leads with 39.6%

Strpce: 6 of 23, PDK leads with 44.6%

Mitrovica: 90 of 117, PDK leads with 37.2%

Novo Brdo: 3 of 6, PDK leads with 40.3%

And what now? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the moderate Kosovan Serb politicians rightfully criticised, boycotting the election was a *VERY* stupid idea. Maybe the Kosovan Albanians are smart enough to allow all municipalities which ask for it a rerun of the election so that the Serbs can participate. —Nightstallion 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Joachim Rucker (UNMIK head) was in Strpce today paying a visit to the local Serb authorities. He informed them that they will be in due time replaced by the minority Albanian leadership... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

North Kosovo will be a different issue, as the only way there is for NATO and UN peacekeeping forces to forcefully impose the newly-elected (in Leposavic 6 Albanians voted and elected). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the Serbians can be glad that the terms are only three years instead of the usual four or even five... —Nightstallion 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what will happen after 10 December 2007? These could be viewed as the last very elections in Kosovo, as well as temporary ones - if Kosovo becomes independent soon (say, within a year), elections will have to follow.

In Novo Brdo there are more Albanians than Serbs, so there will not be greater problems for the transfer of local management from Serb to Albanian hands. I just fear what would follow - so far the ethnic Albanian relative majority has been boycotting the local institutions and any officials. The Serbs now don't even have a choice at all.

For Štrpce I'm suspicious. Rucker has stated that the elected Albanian representatives will take power, and yet the municipality has an overwhelming Serb majority. How will this play out?

As for North Kosovo, the Serbian National Council has stated that it will not accept the elected representatives and claim they will not allow anyone invade their land north of the Ibar river. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Well, we'll see -- but technically the UN mission *has* to ensure the elected representatives come to power, whether the Serbs like it or not... —Nightstallion 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The UNMIK has dictatorial powers. It is above the PISG's Constitutional Framework. And the Serbs in North Kosovo are willing to hand over administration to "emergency" direct UNMIK officials as a compromise. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And, how likely is that? —Nightstallion 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably to occur after the confirmation of the final results, especially due to the facts that after declaration of independence North Kosovo might do the same and decide to remain in Serbia, as well as the preparations of the Kosovo Liberation Army's successor - the terrorist Albanian National Army - to assault North Kosovo, especially taking to granted that it signified KFOR as the enemy too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

nods So UNMIK would likely keep North Kosovo with Kosovo, whether they want or not. —Nightstallion 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact Group's one of 4 points: Kosovo must not be divided.

By the way, if the Serbs don't directly manage North Kosovo, that might ease tensions. The ANA is not to be trifled with - they are already at regular conflicts with the Macedonian authorities in northwest FYROM. In Kosovo they stand at thousands poorly trained heavily armed individuals, that are willing to fight not only the Serbs but Kosovo's protectors too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

nods So that may actually be for the best? Lots of good news today, it seems... BTW, where can I find the official results of the election? The OSCE website doesn't have them, the UNMIK site doesn't, ... rtklive has preliminary results, but they give no source, either... —Nightstallion 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No where yet. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops -- I hope you can supply Wikipedia with the official results then, once they are publicised somewhere? —Nightstallion 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The so-far preliminary results can already be seen on Wiki. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but no seats or minorities' representatives, for instance... —Nightstallion 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK: All 10 Serb seats will be in the hands of the Independent Liberal Party. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because they got ten votes? ;) —Nightstallion 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Who's better? Agim Ceku or Hashim Thaci? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is less nationalist... On the one hand, I think a chance in a democratic system is very important and the LDK has been dominant for quite some time, on the other hand, some media assert that Thaci is far more nationalist than Ceku, so... I don't know. —Nightstallion 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceku isn't LDK. He's non-partisan, joining Ramush Haradinaj only to serve as Prime Minister - a seat which he got honorary as leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army from 1998 to 2001. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

nods Fair enough, still... —Nightstallion 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, Belgrade has presented its last and final proposal - Öland form - and the original one. The greatest form of autonomy ever granted in the history of mankind. Since this is their final proposal, I think the whole Kosovo story is slowly closing to an end. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Öland, Åland -- rather an important difference, as Öland has not autonomy to speak of. ;) Yeah, it's obviously coming to an end -- last round from 26-28 Nov in Baden bei Wien (don't ask *me* why *there*, though); I can't really imagine what will be the outcome on 10 Dec, though... —Nightstallion 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. ;) I doubt the Kosovo-Albanian team is going to accept it though. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, indeed... —Nightstallion 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

UNMIK issues a proposal to the Novo Brdo authorities. They will recognize the election and transfer control to the Albanian parties, while several seats will be added to be split to the Serb parties in accordance to their current proportional presentation in the assembly, as well as they will be included in some levels of local micromanagement. The President of Novo Brdo municipality has stated that Novo Brdo will accept nothing but emergency direct administration of UNMIK over the municipality as a compromise.
P.S. Joachim Rucker and several other UNMIK members are under investigation by international bodies. It appears that they have accepted some of the local (Balkans) trades into their hearts (illegal construction in favor of attaining wealth and corruption). Lol --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! —Nightstallion 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Miskovic

Miroslav Mišković was negotiating with the US to trade an independent Kosovo in favor of allowing entrance to the US and stop of boycott, as well as a visa. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Not quite sure I understood that... —Nightstallion 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

He is offering to use his political influence to make the politicians recognize an independent Kosovo, in favor of USA allowing him entrance+visa. Because his name is mentioned by the ICTY, the US banned entrance both to him and his capital. The hard core attitudes of some Serbian politicians are brought in parallel with the refusal of the US ambassador to accept that plan. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting offer. Will the US take him up on it? —Nightstallion 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The ambassador has met with Miskovic, however the State Department has denied the existence of such acts and has officially informed that this is an LDP falsification. Miroslav is exchanging insults with Ceda, calling him to face-off each other at court. Ceda announced he will not call upon his political immunity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How likely is it that Miskovic' support would help Kosovan independence gain acceptance in Serbia? —Nightstallion 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it won't affect the public opinion much, but all major parliamentary in Serbia are financed by Miskovic except for LDP - which stands for an independent Kosovo since its existence. Why do you think Serbia had the "richest" parliamentary campaign in the world in 2007? Cool spots with 3D animations of immense costs, huge massive meetings and billions spent? ;) And LDP-GSS-SDU-LSV was preparing its campaign for more than a year, so it managed to match the others.

Then I really don't know why the US aren't taking him up on that offer -- it seems that might actually work. —Nightstallion 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you encouraging support of demagogic tycoons with potentially criminal records? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not, but I wouldn't put it past the US to do so -- they'll likely think "since he's controlling the Serbian parties anyway, we might as well make him control them the way we'd prefer it". Seriously, though, what's the likely reaction of DS and G17+ to Kosovan independence? LDP will accept it and SPS, DSS, SRS will be furious, I expect... —Nightstallion 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you know that G17+ is for independence of Kosovo, but DS is very unlikely to accept it. It will be based on influence, most on part from Miskovic I guess. In that case it would be willing to accept. Contrary to your opinion, the same is with DSS (whose financing is by a huge part from Miroslav Miskovic, as opposed to only some in DS's case). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Miskovic's empire has flew into the EU already - the last thing the US want is for it to take roots in America, especially with the possibility that he might influence the politics there, not unknown from rich investors. Also, I guess there is a possibility that the US ambassador is telling the truth and that the document is an LDP forgery. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

nods —Nightstallion 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Freedom People's Party

Today, after that more than 7 million of Italians (far more than those who took part to the Democratic Party primaries) signed a petition proposed by Forza Italia in order to ask fresh elections and after the harsh criticism by Fini and Casini against himself, Berlusconi announced the creation of a new party which will succeed to Forza Italia: the Freedom People's Party. Nothing is sure from now, but at this point I think that we should mantain the article on Forza Italia as it is titled and maybe in the future change its title. Morevover, as of today, I oppose the creation of a new article because it seems to me that this new party will be the successor of Forza Italia and nothing more, something different from the Freedom Party.

Another thing. The new party will be named "People's Party" (Partito del Popolo). On this respect I think that the more correct translation for the former Partito Popolare Italiano should be "Popular Party" istead of "People's Party". Partito Popolare and Partito del Popolo are two different concepts with someway different meanings. --Checco (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, "popolare" is almost always translated as "People's", so I wouldn't try to change that -- it will face STIFF opposition from other users, since the most common name unquestionably is "People's Party"... Compare also the Italian translation of the English name "European People's Party", and the translation into Spanish and French -- they all use "popular" instead of "people's", so they're apparently considered equivalent... —Nightstallion 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps National too? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh!?! --Checco (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, "national" is "nazionale" and certainly not equivalent to "popolare"/"del popolo"... —Nightstallion 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In MNE they translate the popular parties that way, possibly to blacken them in the eyes of the people. For example, the NSS is National Socialist Party. :))) SNP is "Socialist National Party" and SNS "Serbian Nationalist Party". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but... what's MNE? --Checco (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro; MNE is also the ISO 3166-1 code. —Nightstallion 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a Freedom Party, although Fini continues to support it, will never be founded. So an article about a party, once proposed but never founded, may be a little bit non-sense. Anyway, I think we should wait some days before deleting it. In the meantime, Berlusconi opened the door to reforms and will meet with Veltroni this week. You can love or hate him, but he is always at the centre of Italian political debate. Fini and Casini should be aware of this, before committing other mistakes as they do always. It's impossibile to "depose" a person with the geniality and the popular support like Berlusconi. I can't understand why they don't understand it. Anyway, we'll see... we'll see... --Checco (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me just quote some international newspapers -- most agree that if Berlusconi does not succeed in forcing early elections to be held within the first half of 2008, he stands little to no chance of becoming PM a third time due to lack of support from his (then former) allies... (Guardian, Der Standard and others share this opinion.) —Nightstallion 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but they will need to cope with Berlusconi if they want to survive or govern again. An opinion poll states that all the other parties will suffer big losses: only 50% of UDC voters are defenitely convinced about voting for it again, while for AN, LN and The Right the percentage is higher (respectively 70%, 80% and 75%). Berlusconi will come back in government but with a stronger force behind him, in my modest opinion. --Checco (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs We'll see -- Berlusconi's not exactly the youngest, either... —Nightstallion 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find it strange, but Berlusconi is widely perceived by voters as the youngest and the freshest of the three (Berlusconi, Fini, Casini), even because he is the more young in term of years in politics. In any case Forza Italia has a lot of young leaders, more that AN and UDC, which are full of old politicians (especially UDC). What's the meaning of "shrugs"? --Checco (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... "to shrug" is the verb for alzata di spalle, I believe. (If my dictionary is correct.) —Nightstallion 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your dictionary has to be very good. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. ;) —Nightstallion 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent template edit

Huh? Why did you remove all this interwiki? I looked at a few of these, and they were inter-language analogues. Please respond on my talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbia

Gruesome images, some 3-4 years old, were aired recently how in Serbian institutions the mentally ill and disabled (young) are being strained, abused, even sexually, conquered the world. The government denies.

Since I have made some statements about Milo, I think it's far to add some of the others. For example, Vojislav Kostunica in 1997: "The Hague Tribunal is the last thing on our (DSS) minds." --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Or 1992: "This is an example how the future borders of Serbia should look. I am encouraged by the moral and decisiveness of our fighters not to stand down". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised that Kostunica has a few screws loose in the democracy department... —Nightstallion 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing you might interested to know is the infamous image of him proudly holding an AK74 somewhere outside Prishtina in 1999, proudly taking a picture...it's on the net somewhere to be seen too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful... sighs —Nightstallion 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way - as a Liberal - I should notify you. Do not fall for names of political parties, the Liberal Democratic Party (Serbia 2005) (of Cedomir Jovanovic) is a Liberal party. The old Liberal Democratic Party in Serbia is a monarchist party, the Serbian Liberal Party is a nationalist conservative party and the Liberal Party of Montenegro is yet another fake liberal party, although with considerably "more liberal" than SLS for instance. The Liberals of Serbia are a group of neo-Communists that worked with Slobodan Milosevic and now have become pro-monarchist (!!!!!), another total fake. Keep this on your mind. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. ;) —Nightstallion 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Will the Serbian government be able to hold its promise to sign SAA by the end of January 2008? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the EU still stand by their original thought that all western Balkan countries can be accepted into the EU in "one package"? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it (Mladic, Karadzic, Kosovo), and certainly not -- the EU has stated quite often in recent times that they'll never make the mistake of having a large expansion all at once ever again. —Nightstallion 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's what I was referring to - unilateral independence of Kosovo and then for Serbia (turning a blind eye on Mladic and signing SAA)? Some countries like Italy, Greece, Slovenia and Romania have openly voiced for (something like) this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah... mh, it might be possible that the SAA will be signed if Serbia tacitly accepts Kosovan independence, yeah. —Nightstallion 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

incorrect info on €2 commemorative coins

Hello.

I noticed that the info for the Belgium 2008 coin is present. This information is incorrect. I don't like deleting information form that article, just add to it. Would you be so kind as to remove it? --Theeuro (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh? I already removed the incorrect info a few hours earlier. —Nightstallion 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that before I wrote that. Sorry!! ;) --Theeuro (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) —Nightstallion 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD Transnational Radical Party

Hi! Have you seen the AfD for the Transnational Radical Party? What are your thoughts? C mon (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've voiced my opinion, thanks. —Nightstallion 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rai Coast

I'm afraid that your guess is as good as mine - the most I'd heard was the post you made on Wantok's talk page. A search of Factiva turns up nothing after the closing of polls. Rebecca (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've found a source stating that they closed very recently and that they'll employ electronic counting for the first time. —Nightstallion 13:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghan, Afghanistan, Afghani, Afghanistani.

Hey Nightstallion, I noticed you went ahead and changed all the currency articles to Afghanistani. Could you take a look at the Afghanistan and Afghanistani afghani talk pages and get back to me? I'd really like to establish a consensus as to what to do so this won't keep coming up. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are enough experts involved already, so I'll let you sort it out. —Nightstallion 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reform Treaty referenda

Excuse me but have you actually read the text next to the map of europe it clearly states that only Ireland is certian to have a reerndum and only the government of Denmark are considering a referndum. In the UK and Portugal the calls are from he opposition parties only. Please stop reverting to the wrong map.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, please see the article's talk page. "Under discussion" does *not only* mean "considered by the government" -- if for some reason enough Labour MPs vote in favour of a referendum (which might happen), there'll be one whether Brown wants it or not, so we should include the UK for now; and in Portugal, the PM has not yet even stated whether he wants a referendum or not. —Nightstallion 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename, please

I would need a quick rename Jugoslovenske Železnice -> Yugoslav Railways. The current name is in Serbian, but SFRY had Slovenian, Croatian, Macedonian and other languages. Most neutral is to have it in english. Thanks in advance --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Danish referenda articles

Hi. Thanks for leaving the comment on my talkpage. I have nominated Danish European Union opt-outs referendum for deletion (view deletion debate here. Also, I recommend against creating the other article you're talking about just yet. It will happen, but only if the law is passed again in parliament (which it almost certainly will, but still...), and it isn't a change of the constitution, just the law of succession, which was excluded from the constitution in 1953, I believe. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Freedom's Party vs Freedom's People Party

Can you please show me the difference? Berlusconi's announced new party actually is the Freedom's Party. If you note the articles, Freedom Party (Italy) ends its narration talking about the Freedom's People Party. They must obviously be merged. --Angelo (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The PPL started as something different at the beginning and I was in favour of having two separate articles. Now, it's true that there is no reason to keep them separated. I will merge them. --Checco (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was too bold, but I merged the two article just some minutes ago. The two article were about different concepts, but, as the Freedom Party (concept 1) has no chance of being founded it is only a speculation. The only article we need now (I have changed my mind) is theat of the Freedom People's Party (concept 2). Maybe one day concept 1 will become a reality, and at that point we will write a new article on it, but as of today there is no reason for having an article about a disbanded idea, which is of course different from that of concept 2. --Checco (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Fair enough. —Nightstallion 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

LDP bad move

Cedomir Jovanovic has accused recently the following for a joint criminal enterprise against the state of Serbia: Government of the Republic of Serbia, Serbian Orthodox Church, all media in Serbia and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts a.k.a. the following individuals: Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica, Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic, Economy Minister Mladjan Dinkic, Minister of Interior Dragan Jocic, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Slobodan Milosavljevic, Trade and Services Minister Predrag Bubalo, Chief Editor of the Serbian national television Aleksandar Tijanic, the whole B92 television and its editor and Olja Beckovic in specific, Djuro Bilbija editor of the Kurir semi-tabloid newspaper, Djoko Kesic editor of the Press newspaper, Antonije Kovacevic editor of the Gazette weekly, Zeljko Cvijanovic Chief editor of the Tomorrow daily and Standard weekly, acting Patriarch of the Serbia Orthodox Church Amfilohije Risto Radovic, Miroslav Miskovic Delta owner and numerous SANU academists. This list contains everyone who has ever said anything against Ceda in his life.

All of these have pressed counter charges, Tijanic has even stated that "not even God can save him now", and DSS has stated that it will not press charges due to the obvious fact that "he was high". All media today classified Ceda as a "paranoid maniac". Yesterday and today over 200 members of LDP boards, mostly in Vojvodina, left the party. President of the LDP political council and LDP leader Vesna Pesic (former GSS leader) is shocked by Ceda's statements and Zarko Korac of SDU cannot believe this actually happens. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

... is he sane? Do you know the background for this? —Nightstallion 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people right now think he isn't. The background might be campaigning. However also the possibility is that he's a bit frustrated right now. He has actually pressed charges against all these people. All in all, when to this list is added the fact that the US State Department calls him a forger, this does not look well for LDP at all. Yesterday they mysteriously closed their Forum (on the web), and it's still off-line. His political enemies describe that due to the fact that he was a light narcotics addict, that he was just *high* during those moments. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Very strange. I'd be very sorry to see such a sympathetic party and politician go down the drain... Any effect on support for the LDP yet? —Nightstallion 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In 24h? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. ;) —Nightstallion 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian party

Sorry, I don't think I can - It's not a political party. It's just a parliamentary group of independent MPs. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain? [11] and [12] state ZARES a party... —Nightstallion 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely certain (Slovenia Parliament's website says "parliamentary club" specifically). However there is a possibility that they made into a political party only recently. In that case, no wonder you failed to find any source. Be patient. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the latter seems to be the one...I had no idea. ;) I'll do my best. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! :) :) :) —Nightstallion 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Founded on 8 October 2007 from a parliamentary group. Meh. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

;) —Nightstallion 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started. An idea comes to mind - the Slovenian political parties do not have party tables... ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Which color should I use? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Wuestions: Did I translate "zares" correctly, does "nova politika" not mean "new politics", and isn't the party formally social liberal? —Nightstallion 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What colours are used in opinion poll graphs? —Nightstallion 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The most proper is For Real and yeah (my mistake). Yeah, it is. I don't know any graphic poll yet that contains Zares. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, then I don't know... —Nightstallion 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party - De Michelis

Did you see the opinion poll I told you about in my talk page? Interesting... Anyway, the rason why I write to you now is that I would like to ask you if it is possibile to upload the symbol of the Socialist Party of De Michelis from its website. Can you do it? --Checco (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep... The small one in the centre? Sure. —Nightstallion 17:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually -- no, because the only image -- http://www.nuovopsi.com/_assets/top_510x70.png -- is far too small to get a sensible logo image... —Nightstallion 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A pity... we should try to find one better image... --Checco (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye... But then again, it will only exist for two more months, anyway. ;) What's the current status of the La Sinistra federation and the Liberal Assembly, BTW? —Nightstallion 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

La Sinistra? Nothing yet. The Liberal Assembly? If you mean the federation between PRI and PLI there is nothing new so far, and the two parties may run separately in the next election because PRI enjoys its close alliance with FI, while PLI prefer an autonomous path. That's strange because Liberals used to be more conservative than Republicans. Maybe the different point of view between them is explanable with the fact that PRI has 3 elected MPs and doesn't want to lose its parliamentary representation, while PLI has no representation in Parliament at all and its leader was once a MEP of Forza Italia, from which he decided to quit. Anyway, as you know, most former Liberals and Republicans are already members of FI, PRI would get no more than 0.5% and PLI not more than 0.1% if they decide to run alone (they had more than 7% together in 1992!). --Checco (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the proposed "European Liberal Democratic Constituent Assembly" you once mentioned, but it seems that this idea is not active right now... —Nightstallion 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the name given to a convention organized by PRI will all the liberal movements and parties of Italy. Berlusconi was the most important speaker of it and I don't know if that will evolve in something more organized. --Checco (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. —Nightstallion 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you in my talk page why you do like a AN-UDC merge. You can answer me here or there. --Checco (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One more question for you in my talk page... --Checco (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Your comment here

Article now in mainspace. There's a lot of work still to do (the sources have to be cleaned up, details from previous versions have to be integrated into the main text and factchecked, Rule 29 has to be at least mentioned) but we now have a consistent, coherent set of Groups stretching back to 1953. This means it now becomes possible to have a standardised layout for all the EP elections from 1979 to 2007 and beyond (see European Parliament election, 1999 for an example) that'll make results comparable election-to-election. Long term we'll need an pan-EU electoral map based on the constituencies (see Image:European_Parliament_election_2004_-_UK_results.png for one possible layout, but I don't know if it'll work EU-wide, so don't expect results quickly. It doesn't help that the Eurostat standard for maps is Lambert Azimuthal, but that's an off-topic bugbear of mine), but that'll take months. Still, a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step...Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, great work! —Nightstallion 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Milo Dj.

Another one, right after the Bulldozer Revolution (2000): "A democratic Serbia is a threat to Montenegro because tiny Montenegro would over time melt into it." I actually didn't get this. What's this supposed to mean? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question... —Nightstallion 13:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

He is slowly starting his preelectoral campaign (but hasn't really declared if he'll run). The main theme is independence of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

nods What a surprise. Too bad he's still young enough to hold onto power for forty more years... —Nightstallion 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thaci

Well yeah, but whether he truly means it or not we won't find out. Cooperation with the Independent Liberal Party, which is highly unpopular amongst the Serbs, will only increase agitation amongst the Kosovo Serbs as NLS seals a "traitor" reputation, similar to the Albanian leaders in the 1990s who were public critics of independence ideals and agreed to work with Slobodan Milosevic.

But the greatest argument - and I can tell you this with certainty - the Kosovo Serbs will not be convince to work with the government, if it's under Hashim Thaci. For the Serbs it would be the same as Jews negotiating with Adolf Hitler in Germany. They hold that no matter what his intentions are now and no matter how many good things he might do in the future simply cannot delete his horrible dark past (and they're not referring to crime/mafia links - which still probably stand today). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

nods I see. Well, an independent Kosovo would have to hold early elections, anyway, as there would have to be new institutions -- who knows, maybe then there'll be a PM with a less dark past...? —Nightstallion 15:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramush Haradinaj was that kind of a man. But others weren't - especially Nexhat Daci, the first PM of Kosovo, who was even supported by the Serbs. Agim Ceku had a little bit of controversies himself, but arrival of a Haradinaj-like politician such as Thaci isn't helpful at all. Have a (very rough, but still) comparison: Vojislav Seselj=Ramush Haradinaj, Ivica Dacic=Hashim Thaci and Vojislav Kostunica=Agim Ceku. For instance Thaci is much worse than Daci, Haradinaj is a little better than Seselj and Ceku is worse than Kostunica. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bajram Kosumi was like Daci mostly OK, just tiny bits of controversies regarding his attitudes (slightly Albanian nationalist and fierce supporter of KLA), but all in all he was OK. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So Kosumi was up to now the only acceptable PM of Kosovo? Ouch. —Nightstallion 15:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Daci rather. However both Kosumi and Daci were weak leaders, their cabinets were tainted by several scandals and were accused by nationalists as light on Serbs. Today Kosovar leaders accuse them for being excessively arrogant. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

sighs Well, we can only hope. —Nightstallion 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

That seems to be the case. Good is the fact that Rassim is on one's trail (maybe Mladic's?) right these days. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that way, Serbia will have a way of progressing quite quickly. Who's Rassim? —Nightstallion 22:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rasim Ljajić of the Sanjak Democratic Party, Minister of Labor, Employment and Social policy and Head of the Coordination Team with the Hague Tribunal among other jobs... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! —Nightstallion 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatian election

This is a poll from 19h:

• SDP - 34.54%
• HDZ - 32.81%
• HNS - 7.12%
• HSS-HSLS-PGS - 6.76%
• HSU - 3.92%
• HSP - 3.44%
• HDSSB - 2.91%
• IDS - 1.69%
• DC - 0.83%
• NL Tonči Tadić - 0.3%
• SDSS 0.18%
• others 6.42%

• SDP - 61
• HDZ - 57
• HNS - 7
• HSS-HSLS-PGS - 7
• HDSSB - 4
• IDS - 2
• HSP - 1
• HSU - 1
• minorities - 8

Still, no poll from the diaspora...which could be 6 seats. Ljubo Jurcic has claimed victory. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Results

long text snipped, see your history if you want to see the results by timeline:

Austrian media stated yesterday that HDZ would have the most seats, but that SDP had far more likely coalition partners than HDZ, making an SDP-led government more likely... Is that right? —Nightstallion 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the likely result? HDZ government or SDP government? How are HSS-HSLS, HNS, HDSSB and IDS aligned? Will the minorities rather support HDZ or SDP? —Nightstallion 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Reuters, the SDP already has 68 seats gathered... [13] —Nightstallion 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And according to EUobserver, HDS and IDS make up ten seats of the additional twelve the SDP already has gathered. [14] —Nightstallion 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well here's some info (you can conclude yourself):

HSS-HSLS are moderate, will go with whomever has received most votes in Croatia, HSS itself however is close to HSS

HNS are Liberal Democrats, they were always and are now with SDP

HDSSB is a extreme ultra-nationalist party which is led by a war criminal that lies in prison, however it will not go with HDZ because they evicted them from their party

IDS is a non-national regional party

HSP is a hard-line nationalist party, it declared possible support of HDZ

HSU is a moderate but conservative party

And here are the semi-final results. Elections will be repeated somewhere and votes will be reconfirmed before proclaiming the final results, but no change is expected

• HDZ - 66
• SDP - 56
• HSS-HSLS - 8
• HNS - 7
• HDSSB - 3
• IDS - 3
• HSP - 1
• HSU - 1
• minorities - 8

The diaspora that gave all of its 5 seats to HDZ seems to be crucial. The minorities do not have an attitude - they supported HDZ in its current government, and practically the same representatives are elected. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way - if you're interested - Nazif Memedi of the Network of Roma Organizations will represent the Austrian national minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So that means we'll be stuck with HDZ for another four years? —Nightstallion 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the moderates and minorities, who together have 16/153 seats. HSS & HSLS will probably keep to their promise to negotiate with HDZ, but HSS is still a slight sympathizer of SDP. SDSS supported HDZ in this session, however that does not mean they will continue doing so. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So we can only hope...? When will the coalition stand, and when will the final results be known? —Nightstallion 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But the good news is that either of the 2 variations will be a sizable coalition - and not like the last government, which was solely composed by members of same political party, people of same national determination, religious confession and practically everything else. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At least something... The other two questions? Coalition finalisation and final results? —Nightstallion 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the end of this week, or the beginning of the next one the latest, everything will be known. Question: Should I recommend for Main Page In the news right now or wait a little more (not all votes have been counted)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose it now, but since we don't know who will govern simply state that HDZ got a plurality of seats (while, I just realised, the SDP got the plurality of votes! -- does this better SDP's chances?). —Nightstallion 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One more question -- where on the official website, izbori.hr, can I find a national summary of votes? I have only found this summary by district... —Nightstallion 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but HDZ has plurality; not SDP.

You can't. We were just discussing it (on several forums...), the DIP created it so poorly one can't see the national summary. :D At least not yet. My guessing is that they are waiting to finish counting all the votes. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to PaE, SDP has got more votes than HDZ -- or are they missing the abroad votes?

Argh, stupid electoral bureau. I hope you'll find a way to get full results into the template, nonetheless? ;) —Nightstallion 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no; I just thought you were talking about the seats. Then this means that HSS-HSLS will begin negotiations with SDP. :)

Sure I will. But note that there are still nowhere even results of the Kosovo elections. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! :)

Great, thanks! —Nightstallion 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And if I may add - SDP has plurality with all the votes, even those of the diaspora (where SDP didn't run). :D What would be if the diaspora didn't have the right to vote? And what's more, what would be if the system was more-democratic proportional, like in Serbia? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we wouldn't have to sit here and worry whether the SDP will manage to get enough seats together to form the government... If the SDP leads the government, will the voting law be changed, BTW? —Nightstallion 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the right of the diaspora to vote and reforming the electoral system to a more modern version was one of the key promises of SDP's and HNS' pre-electoral campaign. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great -- but that still means we have to wait and hope on what the negotiations result in... Keep me updated on little details, would you? (I know I needn't ask. ;)) Thanks! —Nightstallion 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I'm afraid P&E may be wrong on the votes -- SE Times gives HDZ 35 to SDP's 31 instead, WITHOUT diaspora votes. —Nightstallion 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) We'll see. Anyway, SDP HR, HNS-LD, IDS and SDA HR have gathered around Zoran Milanovic and Vesna Pusic, claiming that they will be the core of the next government so far. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So that means 56 (SDP) + 7 (HNS-LD) + 3 (IDS) = 66 for now? Who's SDA? —Nightstallion 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

+1 SDA = 67 for now. Remember Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sanjak, Kosovo... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are they in the results? Minorities' representatives? —Nightstallion 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose this means that all hinges on whether SDP can convince HSS-HSLS to support them? (They'll have no problems in getting two minorities' representatives or the HSU or someone like that for the final two seats then, I suppose...?) —Nightstallion 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1 minority seat for the Albanian, Bosniac, Montenegrin, Macedonian and Slovene national minorities. He's Semso Tankovic, President of the Party of Democratic Action of Croatia.

So far just that 67. However, HDSSB (3 seats) has stated that it will support an SDP-led government, if they agree to increase investments into Slavonia and Baranja and release Branimir Glavaš, allowing him to defend from the public. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a deal with the devil, doesn't it? Would their coalition partners and the necessary HSS-HSLS support that move? —Nightstallion 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just support, no participation - HDSSB will never support HDZ, what do you think how will the electorate punish it if it doesn't manage to fight for its causes or in the worse part, if it's fault for repeated elections? Besides, remember 2004-2007 Kostunica's minority government - with SPS support. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, if you put it like that, sounds like a valid idea. That would mean 70 for the left and 66 for HDZ -- which still means that the SDP needs HSS-HSLS, right? —Nightstallion 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought -- what exactly are Glavas' demands in the indictment case against him...? I couldn't ethically support giving undue benefits to possible criminals if it means they get off easy... —Nightstallion 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch...er, I don't think I want to tell you... execution and various torture of Serb civilians.

For the remaining of the night they're trying to achieve the 1 HSU support, which is by ideology and traditionally closer to HDZ. Tomorrow they talk with the remaining (7) minorities. Interestingly, no talks with HSS. I think SDP wants them to make the first move...or doesn't count on them? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. EU officials are indirectly supporting SDP. HDZ claims some powers are oppressing Croatian parties to collaborate with SDP. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(about Glavas) I know, horrible - but he's waiting perhaps even 20 years of imprisonment, and nothing can change that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgh... Deal with the devil, as I said. sighs

Still... I'm glad there's still hope for an SDP-led government. How likely is it they'll get enough of the one-mandate parties to their side quickly enough? —Nightstallion 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For HSP none. For HSU very little, but still. And they already got one minority - for the other 4 is unknown. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

keeps hoping (The other 7, not the other 4, right?) —Nightstallion 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbs (SDSS) have 3 guaranteed seats. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And how likely is it that they'll support SDP? —Nightstallion 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's 67 for an left-wing government. HDZ seems to have assured HSP's support, and will probably do so with HSU - which is 68. It will all depend on the social-liberals and minorities. Though HSS itself is closer to SDP, analysts think they will collaborate with HDZ in the end. SDA HR single seat is already in the left-wing, but the three-seat SDSS seems to be closer to HDZ. They've put a high price though. They demand that this cabinet has to finally solve the never-ending Serbs' problems, requesting a Ministry and even several Deputy Ministries. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested to know that between 80% and 90% of HSS members/supporters are revolted of HDZ and its nationalist rhetoric, as well as that their leaders have admitted that the European People's Party is asking them to make a center-left government with SDP HDZ. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it 70 for the SDP already, with the regionalist-nationalist support?

And HSS is being asked to help SDP by EPP members DESPITE the fact that HDZ is also an EPP member? Good news... When will we know how HSS decides? —Nightstallion 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

These are confirmed. We have no idea what will HDSSB's decision be, and especially their controversial attitudes as opposed to center-leftist ones that would form a government make a problem.

Sorry, that's a typo - yes, they want it to form coalition with HDZ. Their leaders stated today that in negotiations HDZ is making better progress than SDP. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I'd best get used to the idea of HDZ forming the government again. sighs —Nightstallion 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Today the last round begins near you...

The Kosovar team led by President Fatmir Sejdiu (LDK) and technical Prime Minister Agim Ceku refused to sign that they give up on Greater Albania, as per suggested by the international community and demanded by Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I know exactly in which city they are taking place, though I have to wonder why precisely they chose that location...

sighs Quite unnecessary and rather stupid from a tactical point of view. —Nightstallion 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The Contact Group years ago adopted that Kosovo will remain as a whole and not merge into any state. If I understood well, the ruling ethnic Albanian political parties think of some form of close relations/special links/state union with Albania. It would not violate the Contact Group principle, but it goes against this proposed agreement. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, close relations or special links I'd find acceptable, but a state union seems to be taking it a bit far. —Nightstallion 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A one sovereign Albanian state in the Balkans is the main proposal.

Is there an example that two countries with same ethnicity exist? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yes -- Austria and Germany... Plus San Marino and Italy. One might also argue for New Zealand and Australia, Canada and the US, many countries in South America and in the Caribbean... —Nightstallion 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking out Austria I noticed it maintains a civic level, and doesn't quite endorse division on ethnicities at all. In Albania and Kosovo over 90% of the population are nationally self-declared conscious Albanians. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the CIA Factbook, for instance, 91.1% of the population of Austria are Austrians, although that might be the reason because of the civic-ness of Austria. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but if you had asked the same question between the two World Wars, I'm afraid a sizeable portion of Austrians would have self-identified as Germans -- and even nowadays up to twenty percent of people vote for parties which condone similar sentiments (FPÖ and BZÖ politicians have more than once stated that they consider themselves ethnic Germans of Austrian citizenship). —Nightstallion 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you should inspect the Balkans as if its between the two World Wars over here. The public opinion is for in favor for a merger to Albania, the desires for an independent multi-ethnic Kosovo do not lie in your principle, but similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina (except the largest people has already has a nation state), on the ethnic balance of Albanians, Serbs and other minorities - there is no "Kosovarness". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know... Still, the developing of a Kosovanness would be the best thing that could happen down there, I believe. —Nightstallion 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it has a bright future - no-independence means no such thing and independence which seems to be leading towards Albania. Perhaps time will show.

Also, the best proof your principle is inapplicable to the Balkans is - Montenegro, remember? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I don't know -- immediately after WW1, the ratio of Austrians vs Germans in Austria must have been about the same as in Montenegro now; and even worse than in Montenegro, there were actual plebiscites for Vorarlberg to join Switzerland and for Tyrol to become independent -- both of them were strongly in favour, even! They didn't carry through with either of that, though. (In the case of Vorarlberg, because Switzerland didn't want them. ;)) —Nightstallion 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to say that because of current nationalist tides in the Balkans such a brilliant situation like in Austria today is inapplicable - most notably seen in the introduction of the Montenegrin language.

So do you think that perhaps several years after Djukanovic is ousted MNE has a chance to normalize itself and become modern Austria? Undivided and civic, "sides" not driven by nationalism and irredentist revisionism? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, true, that's a difference.

Well, yeah, I believe that is a possibility -- and I certainly would hope for something like this to occur... —Nightstallion 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SDP CG

..adopts a new program. It's more Socialist & leftist and pro-European, it has removed the Red-Blue-White tricolor as SDP's flag in favor of just blue background with EU stars around the Socialist markings (rose and other) (similar to SNS). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it's a good thing...? —Nightstallion 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. The Serbs aren't even complaining about the removed tricolor (SNS removed too, there is just now Lovćen [hill, Montenegrin national heart] on a blue European flag surrounded by stars). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

nods Good news. :) —Nightstallion 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins‎- fix americanisms and one bad formatting

Sorry- that was my mistake- I forgot to change my laptop back from English (US) and it must have auto corrected everything! --Theeuro (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! —Nightstallion 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)